Pt 2 - HEATED FERAL PROTESTANT DEBATES! 6 HOURS!!!! WHOA

Agree with like if it's a package deal. So to me, it's perfectly befitting that if she's the new Eve, she would be like Eve, and instead of being a fallen creature in the sense of actual sin, she would be preserved from that, like Eve would have been had she

Yeah, I'd like to talk about fruits of the spirit is defined in the Epistle of the Glicians, and why you seem to think they're optional and deride them as what was the term you use, like piety signaling, like.

The I'd like you to explain that.

So why what does that have to do with today's discussion?

You defended mocking and demeaning people with a petty of use and imitation.

Right, How pious are you? Are you praying right now?

Are you capable of?

Are you? Are you? Are you on the internet to talk about how much you pray?

I just told you why I am on the internet and asking.

You these questions? Is that right? Is that right? Do you have the fruits of the spirit right now?

You have nothing to say?

Yeah?

I can't defend myself against point millers like yourself. You're the most plious Orthodox person on the web right.

Now, so pas they can like read the Bible. Well, you know, but you're a malignant narcissist people.

Is that right? Is that right?

Yeah?

It is right?

Can you demonstrate that I'm a malignant narcissist?

Oh?

You do that for me actually by opening your mouth?

Yeah, so you spew all this venom, but I'm a malignant narcissist.

Well, two things can be true simultaneously. I mean, perhaps you can fund.

You can spew a venom. You just admited the here's being venom? Is that afraard of the spirit speing venom? Silence only you are entitled.

Well, I mean I.

Don't think jugs are being venom.

I mean you've refused to defend your position and you've refuse to explain yourself.

You just I don't even think you're a real person. I think you're faired. I think you're a faired. I think you're a faired. You just said that you can spoil all, you can spere all the fenom.

Well that this is what cry bullies do.

It's like they don't I'm a cry bully. I mean I'm letting you say all this stuff. How are you? Are you getting bullied?

Well, yeah, I think.

Sir, Well, we all need to get underneath you so that you can pray over us, so that we have the fruits of the spirit. Go ahead, Hell yeah, Well hello, Jake, what.

I on my own?

I wanted to talk about soda scriptures.

I'm sure you do after all your videos.

Yeah, just to say that I've watched a lot of your videos.

I know you've made a lot of videos. What about it?

And I found it helpful going to speak as corner to use peace of positionism mm hmm yeah, solar scriptura. My first point is when we look at Jesus. Did Jesus use tradition in the way that you would envision it in your definition of tradition?

Yes?

Could you show us.

That well he specifically.

Could you give us the Eastern Orthodox definition and then show us.

He specifically said that the Word of God was himself and not the books to the Pharisees.

No, you're not listening to me.

Here we go.

I'm asking you to give me the definition of Orthodox field standing tradition.

Yeah, it's the full revelation, whether containing the written text or the oral preaching of the apostles.

How's that okay?

The faith once we're all committed to the saints.

Yeah, no, I think you still don't give it a.

Full definition, right, So you go make more YouTube videos?

You're not You're not bringing in the more.

Yeah, goodbye. This is a person who just wants content. He makes endless live streams, talks about soul scriptural that's all he wants to talk about. So I give him very simple, clear definitions as to what the tradition is the fullness of the divine revelation, written and textual. He doesn't care. He just wants something to talk about in his live stream. Does anybody who's a Protestant or disagrees wants to come on anybody else. There's still fifteen people

Really, you're remember your nerds is just there. Either fruits are the spirit or an argument. The fruits are the spirit, fear true, your.

Spirit, leaguer, Ligair, Ligair, I'm you. The year of love is being severely tested. All right? Moving on? Was raising their hand? Lee, Oh my gosh, here we go. I'm mute, and then we'll go to the tridentine Catholic Lee, I'm mute.

Yo.

Can you hear me barely? What's up?

So I might have a disagreement. Maybe what's your position? Because I was I watched some of your videos and I was wondering. I heard you say that you don't think that there's reproduction like giving birth in the Escaton?

Is that? Did I get that right?

Yeah? Are you a Mormon?

No?

No, I'm just I'm just agnosticconnessy which one fits best for me? Okay, So if you don't think there's a reproduction in the Escaton, if we go back to Genesis.

It actually describes that, however, became painful as a punishment of the fall.

It seems like that there is birth, there is reproduction in the Esketon, but it just became painful.

Would you agree with that Eden is not the Esketon?

Yeah, but it's a close that's the closest thing that we can get, right.

That doesn't mean that every feature of Eden carries over into the Esketon. So it's a non sequitor.

Well, we car we care, we can, we carry our bodies with us.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that everything that our bodies do in the fallen state translates into the same functions in the eternal state.

So then why do you not think that there's reproduction specifically any eston.

There's not any reason to think that there is. There's no tradition or statements that I'm aware of about it. And seems to speak as if we will be like the angels and not being involved in biological quitas.

Okay, is there.

When he says that we will be like the angels, not marrying or being given in marriage?

Yep ollo, yep, Yeah.

I just have a question. I'm not sure you're familiar with like True Orthodoxy dot Org. I just have a question why they like criticize the toll House, Like is this like just like them being like unique, just criticizing like personal belief saying it's like the lastmis and heretical, Like how the dominies kind of do like for the coredemtrics or is there like a historical basis behind like the condemnation.

For it that they make.

I mean, there's a room for interpretation as to how literal the toll hases out are versus a degree of symbolic imagery in the iconography or the lives of the saints and that kind of stuff. But I mean it's not dogma in the sense of it being spoken of at a council, but I think it is part of the Orthodox liturgical mystical tradition.

But do you know why that, like other groups like True or than Us, Like, what's the reasoning for like condemning it?

Is it because because they look.

For anything to try to bring people into their groups and say that they've got everything wrong in their heretics, so they just look for something.

So it's kind of like the Diamond Brothers in a way, like how they can them like the Curry dimtrics and all that like that.

In a sense, yeah, I think that the set of a contests are perfect parallels to I mean, true Orthodoxy is like not even a thing. It's like infinitely smaller even than traditional Catholicism. It's like a few thousand people on the internet.

So yeah, all right, that was my question.

Bro see them man, thank you? Well that didn't that. He was a lot cooler than I expected. So when I see tradcat, I'm like, oh, no, yep, hello.

Can you hear me? Yep, yeah, Hi.

I wanted to come in quite earlier just to address I know there was someone in the beginning that was asking about the veneration of the model of God, and I wanted it to actually interject and to just add just a quick, a quick quick on this on the scripture, just because I'm not sure if you know, but Jesus himself when he gets his feet, I think his feats.

With by the woman, he.

Actually says that that woman, because of what he did it you will be commemorated. Yeah, poor generations. And so that's that's basically, you know, that's basically what we do. We we we we venerate her and we celebrate. We've got our own feet day with her. If you know, if if that's what Jesus is saying about how we appreciate certain people you have done virtuous acts?

Yes, what what?

Why Why couldn't it be you know, the same thing for the Virgin Mary, you know, the Mother of God, who is you know, almost infinitely more blessed and virtuous.

Than the.

Woman. That's actually a great point. I appreciate that. Yeah, and and and if you think about it too, it's also kind of an indirect argument for liturgy and the beauty of the worship of God. Right, Jesus rebukes the other woman for fussing about the costly oil of spikenard. So no, we should have honor and worship for God, and there's nothing wrong with it being done in a beautiful, esthetically pleasing way. Priest Haka, this is a black Eber Israelite.

My main man, Jay, can you hear me? Yeah, I was just trying to see because I did a video.

Well, I did.

A response video to your video when you were searching us up and you were looking at Captain Saizari. I gotta believe it was and a few other Israelites in our community.

Are you the one that threatened to whip me until my flesh fell off?

What I remember saying that?

But I mean, are you the guy that did the video?

Well much video?

I don't know, the black keeper Israelite guy that did a video call me out. I don't know. I don't know which one you are.

I may not be the only one who did a video on you, Okay.

So I was just.

Trying to see if you are interested in any form of the base with any leaders in the community.

No, okay, don't worry. Thanks man, appreciate it.

I mean, I'm not trying to be mean, but it's you know, that's that's like one of the craziest insane cults I've ever heard of.

So I don't.

I mean, these are the people who think that the word Jewish means kind of jew That's what they think. I'm not joking. That's like that's what they literally, that's their theology, Like they can't do grammar. The cult is based on not being able to do grammar. Uh huh?

Hey how you doing?

Jay?

Hey?

Everyone else?

Hey Jae, I came here because I'm a Protestant. Well, I guess you could say former Protestant, but because I've been, you know, converting to Catholicism. But I kind of wanted to ask a question about Easter because I see a lot of difference and I don't want to know.

Your thoughts of philioquey.

Okay, go ahead, yeah, so yeah, so do you what's the orthodox position?

Do y'all?

Do y'all deny that there's any procession of the Holy Spirit.

Through the Sun.

No, there is a procession through the Sun, but it is not his existential hypostatic origin.

Okay, But if it's the case that the Holy Spirit, if it's the case that the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, right, then then what really is any difference between the ultodox position of PHILIOKOI.

Are not Philly because that's not the position that's laid out of the Council of Lions in Florence. That position says that there's a double eternal hypothetic principle from the Father and the Son, who function as a single principle of the origin of the Holy Spirit. And that's something that we could never accept because it gets to the son, the unique hypostidic property that identifies the Father.

Well, you would agree that there's going to be a distinction between being begata and being preceded.

Right, that has nothing to do with what I just said.

Well, yes it does, because the Catholic, like like you said, the Catholic position is going to be that the.

Father and the Son is the one.

Principle that the Holy Spirit inspire rates from.

There's nothing that two persons in the Trinity share, as the Cappadocians say that one lacks, and so you've created a diad. So you reject you created that case because the Father and the Son are a united principle of power and causation that the Spirit does not have. So that's an imbalance, that's a diad.

That but that's that's what distinguishes being forgotten or the Son being forgotten and the and the Spirit being preceded.

Right, because of.

The amount of people that takes uh that takes part, are the amount of persons that take part.

In preceding the Holy Spirit, right, at least.

In the Catholic view, Right, we can make the case that the Holy Spirit truly is preceded and not just be gotten right from the Father.

So you're repeating Roman Catholic apologetic pap apologetics. That doesn't even address like the level of which we're talking about this question. So can you repeat to me what my argument was?

Yeah?

Yeah, Yeah, the argument was that, well, you pretty much just laid out.

Of our position.

Then you said that, oh, I've created a diead because it's going to be like the two persons is the father and son being the one principle in which, right, the Holy Spirit pretty much originates from or essence from that?

Is that your position? And why is that a problem?

Okay?

I don't see the problem.

Why did I say that's Why did I say that's a problem?

Well, you said you said it was a problems because I created a diead, right.

And why is that? I said specifically there's a reason why.

Yeah, because the father and the son is the one principle?

And why is that a problem?

You tell me?

Okay? I mean, I'm trying really hard to be patient with you guys, but like I literally stated explicitly what the problem is, and you've come with like level one understanding and you want to debate it, which is fine. I don't mind doing it. But did it never occur to you? Did it ever occur to you to maybe read some of the arguments on this before you want to debate it?

Yeah, yeah, I know, so I I what from?

But you can't restate my argument? So you're not Are you not listening to what I said? Or you just didn't catch it. You want me stated again?

Well, will your position on the matter would be that the Father is the only principle?

Right?

And who said that? Anybody in church history?

Well, I mean I'm asking you.

Do you know of any famous church fathers that were involved in any ecumenical councils that maybe said that, I.

Know church fathers that believe in Philly open Do you yeah, Augustine, mm hmm?

Do you accept that or do you deny that?

No? I mean I don't accept his teaching. No, it's wrong.

Oh oh so he does, so he does accept fully absolutely, But he's the same thing your church.

Do you really think that these are owns that we haven't addressed these arguments probably five hundred times? I mean.

No, I mean that's I know the coopium that you guys use.

So let's let's get into that, all right, you want to do this, let's do it. What council confirmed the Doctor of the Trinity for the Universal Church the council.

I see that.

No, so you see, you don't even know the first of this. You don't even know level one of this debate. It's the second Econmoical Council. Who are the three fathers that are the most important of the second Ecamoical Council?

The second was.

So you don't know anything, and you're trying to debate.

Are you talking about the goal of Philio exactly?

So you don't even know the Cappadocian doctrine of the trinity that's outlined at constant double one.

I don't know. I mean, I is it like monarch correct?

Yes? Yeah, yeah, And that's not a filioquy doctrine because tell me what the hypostatic property of the father is?

The hypostatic property.

So you don't even know the basic Cappadocian terms. You don't even know our basic position, and you're trying to argue with me and call it you call it code.

To tell you, Yeah, the hyposthetic property of the father is that he's the one that again he's he's the one principal, right.

Oh, he's the one principal. But you just said a minute ago that you agree that the son is also a co principal with him, so he's not the one principal. How many principles are how many principles are there?

We believe there's one principal.

No you don't. You believe there's one. And you contradicted by saying that the father and the son together are a principal. That's two.

Yeah, that's that's the one principle. It's not gonna be two principles.

You just said the father is the principal, and then you said the father and the son are a principal. That's two. Can you count the father?

And what do you this dowel argument?

Are you this dumb? You don't even know our position? You said, you said the father is the principal, right.

The father and the son are the one principal.

At first you said the father is the principle. I asked you his hyposthetic property. You said it was to be the principal. That's just hype. Well yeah, you said that, don't lie you said that, yeah, no.

Yeah, yeah, I understand that the father is going to be the principal.

Oh, then there you go. Now you contradicted because the father and the son together are now a principal. That's the problem. So that's two principles.

I never negated that the son is a principle.

If the father is the principle and the son also with him, is also a principle, that's two.

Well, I don't know, they're both the same principle.

Okay, now you're motal. Now you're a modalist because now you've said the father and the son together are a principle. That's modalism.

How does that follow?

Because that's the argument that the Cappadocians made against the Eunomians. You're confusing hyposthetic properties with common powers and energies.

Where are you getting this notion from?

Have you read Basil on the Holy Spirit? Have you read Basil against Eunomius?

Oh, same Basil against sat basilik.

As what you would be? I thought you knew all this stuff. You're not familiar with those works Basil on the Holy Spirit and Basil against Unamias. Have you read those? I guess amousious don't even know the word what.

Doesnious anonymious?

So you're not even familiar with this. You're not familiar with it? Is you're a clown that because it shows that you're not familiar with the literature, and you're trying to debate it.

Why that's not true?

True, you don't know the terms. You're demonstrating your ignorance of the whole scope of this.

Oh, because I pronounce wrong?

No, it means that you're not familiar with the literature. You couldn't even tell me two of the works.

This is no.

No, have you read this? Have you read this literature? Have you read this literature?

Uh?

The literature?

Onsous?

Why does that matter? Can you show me where?

Because it shows that you don't. It shows that you're not familiar with the topic. You don't know to pronounce the basic terms, right. No, No, you're about to cry, dude, Like, Look, it would be whove you to go and understand this stuff before you try to debate it. And you did come here to debate.

Can you please just show me where? Saint Basil against.

Who's the who's the soul cause? Who do they argue is the sole cause?

The soul cause? What do you mean by soul cause?

So you're not, again, not familiar with common terminology throughout all the cappadotions. Soul cause, soul cause, Father is the sole cause, the Cappidotion dictum. Shut up, shut up, all right, you're gone.

Running.

No, you made it a fool of yourself. I'm not running from you. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to explain it to you. You won't shut up, Shut up, and I'll tell you.

That's fine.

Sole cause their dictum is anything that is a hypostatic property is unique to the person's and non communicable or shareable. Anything that is not a hypostatic property is common to all three. That's a cappadoc dictum. That's why the Philioko is wrong, according to the Cappadocians, because the father's principle what picks him out his hypostatic property is to be soul s o l e cause rka fount principle. Yea, all it does because it means that what he has

Well, yeah, well, the thing that marks them.

Out is no, it does not relation itself. Is a predicate, not a subject. Persons are subjects, not relations. Yeah, but that's so you would know that if you've read the Cappadocians, So you have no knowledge of this topic, and you're trying to debate what does persona at rola mean?

Oh? Now he wants Now he wants to speak Greek.

Persona at rolatio's Latin, you idiot. Oh and I don't know Latin. I don't care about Latin. But this guy just showed a. This is the arrogance of these people, no knowledge of these topics. They want to debate it. Persona at rolatio is aquinas is dictum, person is relation. So the first person to say that is that I'm aware of is perhaps Augustine, but at least for sure aquinas. I'm looking for people who disagree. Dank, It's about to get smoky up in here. The Greek dictum persona at rolatio.

Is too there?

Can you yep?

Hi about?

How are you doing?

I'm here? What's up?

I just wanted to talk about you with the Exodus?

Are you familiar with it?

To the Old Testaments?

I've never read at what's it about?

Well?

I only know a few quotes from it, and I wanted to debate you about it.

I personally I don't identify with any religion. I would say maybe agnostic.

How about we debate agnosticism.

We can debate agnosticism. Sure, I just wanted to ask you your stance on for example, Exodus twenty one seven.

I don't know if you're familiar with it, let me pull it up.

Sure, sure, sure, sure, yeah sure. Also I'm really a beginner to all of this.

So I arse right, yeah, you know what.

I don't even just the laugh is already that I don't do, the condescending laugh.

So whoa what do you mean?

I can't do it? That's my number one pat peeve is that condescending laugh? And if you repeat my name over never never Ryan so Exous twenty one seven. If a man sells his daughter to be a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do so. At a time when there were people as property, this is putting stricters on what you can do with humans

Cool.

So I'm a relatively new Christian. I've been attending a reform Baptist church. This was before I really knew anything about reform theology, specifically Calvinism, and since I've actually been turning away from Symtism in exploring Orthodoxy. But something that within Calvinism that was appealing to me or something that

Yeah. So I've done multiple talks critiquing Calvinism at great lengths for multiple hours, so you can go watch those. I'm not trying to be rude, but like, it's just not like I can't enter into that whole repeat discussion again, Seth. There's a two part series on my Cliff channel critique and Calvinism. There's a whole thing on Sam Chimun's channel critique and Calvinism. There's a whole thing on David Patrick Carrey Cotel's channel critique and calvinism. So, guys, most of

So, one thing that I've heard from Orthodox as far as veneration of icons is that the ability to venery icons occurs through the incarnation of Christ. But at the same time, I'm looking at some of the stuff around, like Christ's existence before, So looking at like the hymn of where it says like the that shall kiss the feet of.

Those who tried in Eden. So just trying to understand, like.

Where is there what what's the reasoning behind that delineation.

Hymn of what? I don't know what you're talking about?

I'm sorry, what understanding is? It gets sung on on Holy Wednesday?

And what now?

Uh?

Just talking about the the presence of Christ's physical body before his incarnation?

How could he have a what? I don't know what that means? The presence of his physical body before the incarnation? Sure, so like what are you talking about?

Yeah, I guess it would.

It's hard, That's what Maybe where I'm trying to understand of Like is this a theophany or it's talking about like a as far as I understand, like the icon of Christ, where it's uh him making Adam Adam has the same body as as Christ does.

Essentially, Yeah, Adam is created after the prototype, after the pattern of Christ.

Right, So I guess in that case, where is it Like why would icons not be Okay? Then before the incarnation or is it just based on the that the incarnation happens.

I mean, there are any of types of icons prior to the incarnation, So I don't know what you mean. I mean, when you read the Bible and it describes through written texts and sentences theophanies, those are created symbols that are referring to theophanies. And the Torah itself is a holy book. The Temple had all kinds of images. The arc is a kind of a icon.

Yeah, I guess, I mean specifically of God versus of holy things.

And maybe there's not a good reason.

To do well. The reason according to like when this comes up at the time of the seventh that Cumunical Council, the reasoning is that the incarnation hadn't happened yet.

Yeah, it's so maybe that's where I'm trying to draw the distinction of though the incarnation hadn't happened. Maybe this is where I'm getting the confusion. Like, so we're saying Theophanes before, even though it's the incarnation's the moment of those that same body being recognized in the past.

No, I'm not sure that that is the case, because there's not just Theophanes that are quote body. I mean, there's Theophanes that are the form of the cloud, the fire. I mean, it's not just a you know, man like image like the wrestling with the Jacob, russels with the Angel.

Yeah.

So in other words, we can't say that it's Christ's human body back in time or something like that, at least not in all of them.

I've heard from a variety of sources that it's like that. The concept is that it is Christ's human body, because God exists outside of.

Time, right.

So I'm aware of this, and I think Bishop Irena has the opinion that you could say that the prototype is the deified, out of time, resurrected flesh of Christ. I'm aware of all that. But I'm making a different point, which is that that's not the only theophany that we see in the Old Testament. We see the cloud, we see the fire, we see all that kind of stuff which is not a body. I mean, it's not a physical, not a manlike body. So the theophonies are mysteries. We don't know how God does that.

No, I can understand that.

It's more just trying to understand how the argumentation then goes of of if the glorified body is recognized before the incarnation.

Well, I'm not. I don't. I've never I've never argued that.

Okay, yeah, some so it's some argue. But maybe that's not your line.

That's not my line of reasoning because I don't think it's it's intended to solve this question. And if you if I bring in cloud and fire, it doesn't solve a question.

So Okay, No, that's helpful, thanks.

Fair question. And I'm not trying to be dismissive. I just I don't. I don't know. I mean, I think there's when we get into these mysteries like that, I think there's limitations of like what we do and don't know you know, Oh my gosh, Okay.

Hey, j Yeah, how's it going?

Hey?

I just want to ask, why do you think the Holy Spirit is God?

Because he's all throughout the Old Testament as a personal being, and he's all throughout the New Testament John fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, et cetera, and acts and the epistles as a personal being.

Well, I think that he could be a being that I don't think.

That he's God.

Well, I mean he's called God, and.

Where would that be.

See my position is that Jesus and the Father of God, but the Holy Spirit cannot be goped.

So there's about i'd say one, two, three, four, six, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen twenty, it's.

About twenty two three, about twenty five passages throughout the Old Testament that refer to him as Yahweh and as God.

Well, look whatever you and the Roman Catholic teach, I don't accept.

I don't care that. I mean, I just list you wanted the passages you want to go through one by one or what? Oh he ran away? So there you go, Biblical benitarianism. So lunatic heretic who doesn't want to go through twenty five passages I have right here in front of me that refer to in the Old Testament the deity of the Holy Spirit and that he is Yeahweh. And so what do you do? He ran And for those that would like those passages here, okay, do you're

If you want to, you can screenshot that. There is at least twenty five references right there too. The full deity in personhood of the Holy Spirit. And once you have this ready to go, what a heretics do?

They run? So we're looking tonight. I know a lot of you guys want to bring Orthodox questions. I'm looking for people who disagree. You know a lot of people want to come get their FAQ questions answered. They don't want to read the books. They want to be lazy guys. Go to the church. Go get catechized in the church. I'm not your catechizer. I'm an Internet clown. So don't come to me for catechistis find an Orthodox church and do that. And now this guy wants to come back,

Budge?

So I've sent multiple dms to voice of reason. I don't know if he just ignores dms, but why does it?

Right?

Yeah, go ahead, I'm sorry, Yeah, I have a question.

I'm I'm currently considering orthodox I want to argue against my friends.

One of my friends has an argument for logic.

He says that logic just is an abstraction of the physical So what is the argument you would use to kind of dismantle that?

And well, that's an assertion, that's an assertion. Just saying it just is an abstraction really doesn't tell us anything. How does he know that? And what does it mean to say that it's an abstract? Does it mean that it has an actual ontological status? Does it is an invariant over time? Does it change? I mean, like that doesn't really tell us anything. That's an assertion, And how does that work? Like how do you abstract something from

Like?

How is something law? Like if matter is always in motion?

Well, I think the argument he would say is that there's the laws of physics, except it derives from that, Like it's just a.

Yeah, But saying that it derives from. It is not answering what the law is and how does he know that it's a law? Is it universal on what basis? So you can't when people are doing this kind of stuff, and when you're debating with people, you can't let them get away with assertions. Everybody wants to debate, and I'm an experienced debater. I don't care if you hate me or not. Like I am an experienced debater. I've been debating since age nineteen and that was I don't know,

Nice one?

Hello, Yeah, man, I'm sorry. I'm not gonna repeat all that. You can go back and rewind or something. Not repeating all that.

I love how atheists they just stay there like it's just like we all know.

We all know this.

Yeah, it's abundantly clear that this is the case. Even though it's like the most highly debated thing ever.

Its little abundantly clearer. All rational people believe in my position. Go ahead, Well, I don't know. I thought there was a dude here. Well you're you're free to go ahead as well. Well if you want to.

I'm free, yes, free to do what I wow any old time.

It's just so stupid because like most people see on here, they're not even familiar with the literature that like, first of all, you can't reduce.

Suppose you weren't a platonic realist or something like.

That, where or like like a position like ours that they're actually transcendent laws of logic and stuff like let's say you're oristitos conceptualist.

It's still objective and you can't reduce. What's so funny is that categorically it just doesn't even make sense.

Universals are not particulars. So there's no way that you can actually.

Take particulars and make, you know, and reduce it, sorry, take abstractions, diversals and just say, well, it's identical to the opposite thing that.

It is exactly. It's just like it's nonsensical just by the meaning of the words, right. It's like that Roman Catholic guy that was in here saying that created grace is uncreated.

Usurper the creature.

Yeah, created Grace is a creature, but it's God. So there's a created God.

But by the way, check out.

E Polamists are polytheists, but there's created God.

It's a good argument against them.

Actually, what's up?

Herry?

What was up?

Jay?

So so generally speaks not for so much a Protestant question per se, but I just wanted to ask in terms.

Of the the the liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church, if that's something you're into, uh.

Uh yeah, I mean I am somewhat. I'm not a liturgical scholar, but I'm interested in Orthodox liturgy right right.

So it's just so it's just curious. I mean, if you won't, well you say you know so much school, but I wanted to know about how it's musical tradition sort of developed distinctly through the sort of Gregorian Chian system, which the.

Music, Yeah that I don't know much about. You could. Uh, there's a guy on here named Pano. Pano is a chanter and knows a lot about Orthodox musical history. He would know a lot more than me. Joe, God's forgive me five dollars. You of low gain on your microphone. Well, I'll try to turn it down because the last time when we were traveling down here, it got jacked all the way up in the last live stream, which was a fun live stream, it got all all out of

I'm hey Jay. I'm kind of a new listener.

So I just had a question for you, uh, in terms of the Western Right Orthodox Church. I know this isn't necessarily a Protestant or versus Catholic debate, but my question for you is online the Western Right Church, I think it's I wouldn't say demonized, but some people argue that it's the bridge between the Catholic Church and the

It's not a church, it's a right or a liturgical allowance, so it's not like a jurisdiction, and it's either under roc Or or it's under the Antiochians. And I'm not a huge fan of it, not because of the liturgy itself, just that so many of the times people want to bring in Latin errors and Latin theological mistakes and they don't get a good catechisas and it always ends up being a problem. And usually when people quote leave Orthodoxy for Rome. There are people who get into the Western right,

Hey, I want to say something real quick. Sure, Uh notice it's.

Not predetermination, it's predestined difference.

I mean I didn't know those things. I just thought they meant the same thing.

Well, I mean, to have a.

God know your destiny doesn't equate to that you're determined in the sense of overriding your free will.

And so I find it interesting that.

The word used, the phrase used is predestined, not predetermined, because I think determination carries with I don't think it has to.

Oh, I say, we're saying, well, I think a Calvinists will just say that.

Of the ability to do otherwise or something like that.

Well, Calvinists is going to say that the word predestination means predeterminism. So I don't know the etymological history, so I don't know how that would be sust out. Mar Dario three dollars redeem Zoomor had a tantrum in the discord. He called me autistic when I left it, and can orthodoxy. Well, I'm about to re upload to X the redeem Zoomer debate, so look forward to that later on this evening. What's up, Low, Hey?

Uh, just a quick question for you. I think this is something that you and I would disagree on. I don't necessarily see kind of the more pop science origin of the world as being conflicting with the creations were within the Bible, if you understand the Bible to be using more symbolic language and not necessarily like a literal

Like?

Am I missing something?

So the seven day, the day, the week cycle that we have, where do you think that comes from?

I mean, ultimately it was made up by by somebody. I know, there's been several calendar reforms. It's it's kind of a just a human interpretation of movements based on you know, crops, based on tradition, based on long.

Way saying, do you think the seven day week is based on crops?

I mean calendars were used by different cultures to notate different things.

Well in the ancient world. In the ancient world, when the Hebrews talked about a seven day calendar, what what's it based on?

I don't know.

What's the Sabbath, the seventh day of rest?

Where where does that? Where does that.

Come from Yeah, the scriptures.

Okay, So that's what I'm saying, is like, if the seven day week that we have is a seven days, why wouldn't we think that what's mentioned in Genesis is intended to be seven days?

Uh?

Because it doesn't seem to be lining up with what is being.

Found out? I mean, I.

Guess by who? What do you mean found out? Like I just so, there's a paper out today that the universe isn't real? Is that was that? The soayance man that you're following. You're laughing, but that's literally what Forbes said.

No, it's and I get your point. You know, people.

Worship science, but it's a pro Thats not a not a knowledge claim.

Oh really, okay, how do you know? It's a process, it's.

A hypothesis, it's Is.

That not a knowledge claim? Wait a minute? Is that not a knowledge claim?

No, it's suggesting.

Whoa wait a minute, So you made a big mistake. You don't see that.

I mean, I'm I'm not.

I don't.

Science is a process. That's not a knowledge claim.

I mean, I'm taking.

The air out of the validity of using science quote unquote as a foundation for much of anything. Which I suppose is kind of, you know, contradicting.

I don't know, man, well, I mean again, I think it's a question of where we put priorities and what we think is certain and what we think is less certain. So for me, and this is probably where I'm out of a stet with most people in the modern world, I don't put the syance world very high on my category of authorities because I've watched it for many years, and I've been in academia, and I see how driven it is by fads, how many false papers there are,

Yeah, the basics.

I mean, I'm not going to pretend to be I did study philosophy.

I was an economics guy, so it's.

A different school than what I was putting time and energy into in Fairness Solved. I'll happily admit that I've got a lot.

More to learn on it. However, I guess the question kind.

Of boils down to whenever it comes to scripture and whenever it comes to divine revelation, what is the delineation for a literal interpretation for an exacting rather than something that can be interpreted more loosely, or perhaps you know, isn't revealed in such a black and white one.

And zero way.

Well, first of all, I never said that it's a black and white fundamentalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis. I didn't say anything about anything like that. I just simply pointed out problem in the pistemology. But the strictures

Yeah, no, I think you're right.

I think a lot of people are trying to appeal to the system that at a really fundamental level directly contradicts the system that's being taught at the university, at the you know, academic you know.

But I would argue that those people contradict themselves too, So I don't understand. I mean, the academic establishment now says that men are women and can be women.

Well that's and that's why, you know, I started off by saying that science, quote unquote is better understood as a process. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of, you know, anytime a white paper is published, they say, oh, my god, like capital t truth in my hands, black and white.

Here it is.

But that's clearly not the case, because give it six months and some other white paper will totally.

You know, fundamentally change the world.

Men.

But I don't want to take your whole night. I really appreciate your time, man a lot to think.

Well, I even I even I could even agree to you that. Yeah, in a mundane sense. Sciences, you know, theorization, it's theory. It's a progressing in a in a very strict niche way. And that's precisely why science and scientific discoveries by the very nature cannot tell you grand narratives. So how is it like, if I'm studying this rock without the assumptions of AONs of time, it's not going to get me to the gigantic metaphysical leap of AONs of time to produce the raw.

Yeah, And I think that's why a lot of people are, you know, they can't get down.

To that root level of cause you know.

They're still unanswered questions, and you know they'll have a panic attack when you're like, Okay, how did this thing that cannot have a beginning?

You know, how did it come to be?

And if science can't prove it, there's no answer, and that just you know, you'll you'll see them squirm, you'll hear them just get really uncomfortable.

But well, why should I mean if I begin with the position of the scientific method, how do I know the scientific can the scientific method tell me the scientific method is true?

It's not. No, it's true.

It's not self justifying.

What you can do say, well, it's it is, you know, it just it just.

Works, you know.

There's yeah, you telling me, but there's I think that it's you know, it's good for recording observations, and it's it's good.

It has a purpose.

I'm not going to say, you know, throw out observation and questioning totally out the window as its place. But it can't find it can't.

It's got linen.

Sure.

Yeah, it's a tool for understanding the natural world.

Uh.

And it does really well for you know, engineering and inventing things and figuring out patterns, you know, for you know, but it's not going to tell you what the monkey was telling the snake eleven million years ago in the tree.

Connor, Yes, sir, Hey, how's it going.

I was reading some story the other day and he.

Made a statement of God is a tool we've created.

But out room and in that I kind of saw two.

Preconceptions maybe like we were touching on it earlier, of like God, you know, not being created, and of course kind of being good. And I feel like if you make both of those mistakes, you're usually falling in the atheist camp, and if you make one or the other, you're falling in a maybe Jordan Peterson style like Bostic camp or a Gnostic you know, God exists.

But nondod Just wondering how you approach that.

If you approach the God's you know, God being not created, that God is the creator, or if you'd approach that God is good.

Yeah, I think you can approach it either way and just ask for the justification for the possibility of speaking and in those ways at all? What is a meaningful phrase when you call something the good? At all? What is the good? And the great thing about bringing up something like the good is that it immediately gets you in the domain of both ethics and metaphysics at once, because it's pretty clearly something that's both. It relates to both areas the good as a moral ethical element, where

Ja?

Come from a Protestant background to a lot of evidentialism and running into issues with people.

I talked to, and I really get the pushback of the brute fact objection.

How do you counter that with the transmental lookument.

Well, roote fact doesn't, in my mind, constitute an objection, It constitutes an assertion. So just simply saying that there are brute facts number one doesn't solve the criteria problem, and it kind of begs the question because like, well, how do we know that's a brute fact versus all the things that are supposedly not brute facts. So that's another element of a standard or criterion. It would need to suss out the brute facts from the non brute facts.

Oh yes, I'm basically ask you, how do you determine what is a brute factor? What do you require more justification for?

So, again, the criterion problem would be that in order for me to have a knowledge claim, I need a theory of knowledge. And if I have a theory of knowledge, that also is a knowledge claim. So it's kind of a box that people that have this sort of found date classical found national self evidence ye view, can never get out of. It's a trap that they can't solve. And usually when they try to solve it, they just ignore the problem and restate something about something just being

And then it's John's.

And if you appeal to if you have a criterion that has to explain the brute fat, then they're not brute facts exactly.

Is one of the problems.

I guess that people I speak to are a little bit less sophisticated, and.

Argument really comes down to from them.

It's not really even an argument, but what they say is essentially things are generally as they appear to be until otherwise.

That's again, that's that's exactly.

So that's what we're asking is they have a criterion, But what's their justification for their justification criterion? Well, it's just because I made it up. Yeah, it just is I made it up.

Okay, I'll have to think about that, thank you.

I just think about saying the opposite. Well, actually it's the opposite. Well how do you know that, Well, the same way that you do. If you're allowed to make up is a criterion, then I can take the opposite of your position to say the same thing.

Thank you, guys, appreciated.

Absolutely. You notice a lot of what goes on in philosophy is a lot of just so, well it's just.

So exactly in word games semantic. What if I made up another word exactly?

And like I was reading like some guy's critique of me, and he was he said, well, it's not circular to appeal to your cognitive faculties, you know, if you're wondering if your cognitive faculties work, because we have a name for them philosophy. It's called faculty circularity. And I see that's allowed.

Like, oh, okay, thanks, thanks really, I didn't know that you thanks for making.

Up a word problem, James.

Yeah, a ja, thanks for having me on.

So I am a Catholic labs Catholic, and I've been looking into Orthodoxy, so that's kind of.

Hang on that I'm coming from.

I try I hold you to kind of highest standard as far as consistency goes and so I was curious about watching you kind of completely smash this Muslim cleric and debate.

At one point you asked him, it's an hour in.

To be fair, I don't know if you'll be able to recall this specifically, but to make the argument that his line of reasoning relies on asserting that God has changed. At some point, you ask him, does creation come about because God willed it at.

A certain point?

Yeah, you're talking about Shabiro, I mean Azra Rashid. Yeah, I remember those.

Yeah, And I don't feel like he made a good showing in general. But like, just if I were arguing with you for arguing sake, I might say something like, well, creation includes time. Time is a prerequisite to change. Therefore, God, being uncreated, acts eternally and is unchanged.

I just wondering how you would refute that.

Well, the act in question was that he was supposedly perfect. Well, let's go back to what I was trying to argue in that debate. So Islam relies a lot on this idea of Allah's perfections, and so Allah possesses all supreme perfections in himself as he is. And my argument was that, well, if he's perfectly eternally perfect, and then he wills to do something different that he wasn't willing, such as creating. And it doesn't matter if you say, okay, yeah, he

Okay, So the.

Sticking point for them, for the Muslim position is that is this kind of line in the sand in terms of God being perfect and having always been perfect, in change being an implication of some point at which he was imperfect.

If there's change, it would imply imperfection. Yes, So but my argument was, well, did he go from being a creator? Did he go from not from not creating to creating? And how would that not be some change? Yeah?

Yeah, just curious what I'm still trying to grasp all the presupp musicians that underpin all this in the first place.

But what why is that not a conflict for us?

And I've got another question about what's not a conflict for us that is a conflict for them.

Well, we believe in the essen center distinction. They don't believe in the essence sentator distinction. So we have multiple distinctions in God that they do not agree to. Okay, So no, we have a much more elaborate sort ofitarian metaphysic. Islam is not very elaborate in their metaphysics except.

For its beautiful simplicity.

Right right, well supposedly, but then when you get into the attributes, they do get pretty crazy with trying to figure out and debate the attributes.

But yeah, that's that's that was pretty funny. The foot that's not a foot.

Well, what I'm saying though about yeah, specifically the act of creation is that I was getting them to undertrying to get them understand like, well, if Allah's action of creating is eternal, then the effect would also be eternal. You see, So there would be an eternal world, and some of the Muslims, like I would assume Khalil holds his position like he's in neoplatonists, and so he probably wouldn't have a problem with that. Yeah, there's external worlds.

Okay, gotcha, gotcha.

At another point that debate, you said that you replied something to him, like my model. He did it to coke fallacy. He said, my model allows for circularity. That came as kind of a surprise to me. I was just wondering, is there a point is there in any juncture where our model relies on circularity.

Well, I believe that all authority claims or worldview claims, at a certain level, they bought them out and they rely on some form of recursion or self referencing. So what I meant by circularity was not the fallacy of circular reasoning, but that every position at some point becomes

Gotcha? Okay? Jae, that's all I had. Thank you so much.

Yeah, great questions. I'm glad that somebody was going back through that. The one of the other problems with that debate with Osbar Rashid is that a lot of the Muslims a lot of the metaphysical, theological, philosophical terms that we use, and they don't translate into their system and so, for example, they don't really have, as far as I'm aware, like an actus purest conception of God or Allah's essence. They would say He's perfect and so all that possesses

Trying to which would make that world uncreated, which would make that world.

God, yeah, we be polytheism. It would refute their position.

Yeah, gotcha, thank you.

But I don't know that I conveyed that argument to him, because he doesn't. He didn't seem to have many of those same philosophical kind of ideas. Ethics. You gotta unmute ethics. I want to thank you guys for being so degenerate, generous, not degenerous. So many degenerous men. Tonight and ladies, Allula five dollars day, happy, happy lou Yer say this in a Boston accent. I look forward to telling you, the pumpous liberals that not one of the heroes can beat

I don't.

I can't say, But I also know that even if the exorcisms are authentic and happening and helping people, that's because of the name of Christ. It's in spite of papism, not because of papism. Radical.

Yeah, professors and comedians are one of the same.

So well, I think of you as a very funny person, So yes, you're you're a comedian to me, You're a comedian in my heart. Real Cali Prepper three dollars. Can the church air in a canon? Canon is of a saint I mean, there might be some localized mistake, but I think over time the mind of the church would know and wouldn't ultimately universally err in that way or the dox. These canonizations are typically local or not, Like we don't have the ghostbusters in Rome that do all

The gear?

Ethics?

Do you take it that God has propositional knowledge? Yes or no?

Not in a creature really sense?

Sorry, should just be clear. Do you take it that in order for God to know, XS be acquainted with the proositional content.

That as God's I don't think we should think, as doctor Branson says, that God's knowledge is anything like our knowledge.

So it's not going to be the case that God has proposition knowledge. Breck.

We just may not understand how he has knowledge. What's your point, what's your argument? I'm not gonna know. I'm not gonna agree, So you're not going to get an argument. You just want to get on here to get First of all, I don't accept the premise that it's a yes or no because that involves a lot of metaphysical

What isn't that already giving you like a false economy?

From his own point, most likely it's just a but.

You're just added Mesburg energy to and you can transform to any fallacy into a legitimate argument.

Yeah, but I didn't even understand what he said. He said it like so spurring, and he didn't even make sense.

What's on that? What's on your mouth?

Look, first of all, thank you for bringing me on here, But I wanted to just like ask a little bit of questions about several quotes that I have here.

It's from some type of transcript that.

I got from debate that you know, you know who made by Jim bob Is.

Yeah.

Yeah, So there was this you know, how fucking stupid TikTok gets right, and how idiotic the philosophers right there are. So there was this guy who really had a horrible type of position. Because I'm just going to tell you right now, what's his main arguments?

So the guy didn't believe in absolute truth.

He was a subjectivist of logic, and he didn't actually have any type of view of truth. He said that he had a deflationist view of truth. What do you think about that.

Deflationist? I have no idea what that means.

Some type of manner that it classifies logic as no, No, it classifies truth as being contextually within linguistic manners or something like that. I don't know, something like it's based on the context of a linguistic discussion.

So let's say that as the.

Snow is white, and that makes it truth for a main context or or something.

I guess it's very stupid.

Well, I would just ask, how do we know that the break the first premise is true, that all truth is reduced to some form of linguistic discussion.

Yeah, I mean the other thing is that. So just to tell you the level of stupidity this guy, thus made by Jimbub made an excellent question to this guy, which is.

To the night the law of identity.

You need to use the law of identity to prove that.

And it's just like a very much a what's the name of this fallacy?

It's a I don't exactly remember the name of the fallacy, but it's show how inconsistent the position is.

Because to deny logic you need to use logic, right.

I mean, that's just called reetortion in Aristotle.

Yeah, so this this guy's literally made up presupposition and then beg the question because he then responded that you can you can deny the law of non contradiction because you're a.

Because you could be a subjectivist about logic. You see how stupid that is.

Yeah, I mean that's I mean, that sounds like the standard TikTok sphere for sure. I don't. I mean, there's no subjectivist to count for logic that would be coherent.

Noelan Hello, Yeah, Hey, what's going on, Jay?

What's on your mind?

So?

I have a Russian buddy of mine who was talking to me about some Russian Orthodox priests having multiple wives. I was curious on what your take is on what the Orthodox of you is on poligion.

I've never heard of that. I mean, I know I'm saying it's not possible, but no, I don't think that's There's a lot of people who in the Orthodox Church operate non canonically. Probably I would say a lot but I'm saying the history of the church. I'm sure there have been many priests bishops who have you know, not lived according to their calling. So but I've never heard of any Orthodox arguing for polygamy. Luke, thank you guys

Well, I'm gonna sure if you've spoken to like crazy Baptists like me.

But I'm one of those of beliefs that the Baptists like trace their origins back to the First Church.

And honestly, there's like so many topics who you probably talk about.

I don't even really know where to start.

But why would you want to trace your origin through people like the all Virginsians and people that are heretics and were anti trinitarian. That's crazy.

Don't necessarily chase my origins through them.

So like, well, hold on, are you are you trailed blood?

Think?

Well, I think like even as you said.

Are you trail of blood?

Not like like in the perfection of that book, like not like saying that that book is perfect and it has all historical accounts accurately. But I mean it's you you can like basically you know, look at books like that, just like I'm sure like there's orthodox historical books that have airs.

In them that you know need to be Okay, So it's all of the people in church history and the Trail of Blood that are not anti trinitarian that you follow. Like, so, who are the Baptists in those centuries when the Trail of Blood cites the anti Trinitarians?

Well, I think like just I mean, I mean the argument I think that the Trailer Blood makes it it does have a degree of accuracy, is that is that those those that did believe the truths were slaughtered there.

Okay, so name the Baptists in those centuries.

Well, the way that I look at it is kind of like a representative type group. So like one one. I guess you could say powerful argument and I'd like to hear what you thought, so are on it is that like the Waldensis Uh.

Basically when they came out of the out of hiding.

So to speak, uh, in the Reformation period, they they they declared like just straight up like we we we were the original, we were founded by the apostles, like we we did not start with Peter Waldo.

And you believe that there were Waldensians in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh century.

The it's it's a possibility that the Vaudois in the in the house of Italy, uh, that that they did actually trace the roots by that time.

Okay, and give me some examples of Waldensians in the first seven centuries. I don't have anything because it doesn't exist.

Well, I mean, I guess.

Meta.

Hello, yep, hey, so that was pretty abrupt. I just have a quick question. So I heard this from an atheist, and I honestly didn't really know how to answer it.

So essentially what he told me was that he agrees with Christianity's metaphysical claims to a certain extent, but he wants to separate the derivatives of it from the divinity of Christ.

Is that possible?

I think that's a unique, honest Muslim situation, I mean atheist situation, like, yeah, I want all the Christian metaphysics but not the Christian God. Well, the metaphysics are grounded in the Christian God. So how would you get how would you get that? I don't understand meretheism. What's up anonymous one dollar? How do you respond the doorcs that act like monks in the world, they act like their

I don't.

I think the Canada Scripture is the strongest argument because they're always just going to default to that, and if you can remove that out from under them, the whole thing collapses mirror what's.

Up either, Jay, I'm a theist, and I'm also someone who holds to biological evolution. I'm aware of some of your broader philosophical critiques of evolution, and.

I sympathize with those a lot.

But have you.

Addressed any of the specific empirical evidence scientifically for evolution?

Just in that the empirical evidence requires some sort of narrative paradigm interpretation. I don't think that the evidence is self interpreting or brute fact or anything like that. So they sort of attach, usually some sort of vast assumption to the so called evidence, which in many cases is I would argue, pretty minuscule.

And see what you mean? How would you respond to the notion that if we take different scientific fields, you know, astrology, biology, geology, and then the sub fields of all of those different lines of.

Evidence astrology, and we take our.

Working assumptions that we have for them presently astrology, and stack all of the evidence together, it lines up.

Bro Astrology is not a science, So I thought that was going to be like a scientism man, and he's over Henna talking about astrology, Mars monkey.

I need an alien huh, I need an alien yo. Top up long of the year right there. It would overthrow any people's heads. People have to look up I need an alien on YouTube.

It's an overlooked cringe corp for sure.

Question what do you.

When?

How do you use the argument or how do you if I'm trying to bolster an argument using the church's.

Age and how long we've.

Been practicing the faith and consistently for all this time. But if somebody just says if it's old, just because it's oldest mean it's true.

How do you frame it in.

A way where it's still valid and you're not falling into that fallacy?

Well, again, it depends on the specific claim that you're refuting. So if a Protestant said something like the Orthodox Church isn't ancient, like, at that point it would be appropriate to prove that it is ancient, that it is old. But I do agree that just being old doesn't necessarily prove anything because error is old and ancient. So so what.

Yeah, Okay, one more I had for you was, I mean, the way I would transform that argument would be to say something like, it's not just a matter of being old, but that you have to actually be in historical continuity in every generation with the first century Church and.

The Apostles, and that's what Apostolic succession is partly about. So that's where I would take the argument. I wouldn't try to argue that, well, we're old. I mean, so what.

Got it?

I remember this argument recently from my old Calvinis days, and I remembered it.

I wanted to hear how you.

Would respond to someone who says, how do how can you trust the writers of scripture if they didn't have free will or if they yeah, if they didn't have free will, Well.

I don't understand how that relates to Calvin.

Or rather, if they do have free will, how can you trust that the scriptures weren't written in error or transcribed?

Well, that assumes that that assumes that men aren't necessarily going to sin or that they're going to, you know, pervert the text. And we believe in synergy that the human writers did use their mind and their will, but they synergize and harmonize with the divine will. So there's no it's not like God possessed them and that they

Hello? Is this me? I just want to give you the kings through the kingdom.

I Protestant earlier was saying, because Banantheum was gone, there's no orthodoxy right if you will be the king?

Though, thank you, well again, it was just a weird argument, So I may just changed the account. See that's what I'm saying. Like people want me to unblock these people for entertainment value, but like every time there's somebody that I blocked, it was for good reason.

Uh yeah. But seriously, I have a question about.

Like the Vine liturgy, and you know, you were previously a trad cat for a little while, and I was wondering if there was anything around the change of the Novus Ordo and like post Vatican two, like that went against cannons that said you shouldn't change liturgy or anything like that, because it just I've been to both masses and the lack of reverence just makes me just like unconvinced by.

Walking in the doors.

Well, I mean, every trad cat will immediately argue that Pius the Fifth's uh dogmatic statement about the unalterable tridentine mass was violated by Vatican two.

Oh okay, interesting, what about other little things of liturgical practice, like the what's the name for when they face ad orientum?

Is that the term.

To the east?

No, when they face in Roman.

Is to the east. You're talking about facing the people?

Yeah, what is that term again?

Add popular? I don't know, I don't know.

Yeah, but they started facing it away or towards the people.

I would say, yeah, that's that's a Protestant influence on the liturgy. Okay, interesting, I was just you know, did you know they brought in Protestant Lutheran liturgist to help craft the Novasorto?

How specifically? Did not? I know that? That's kind of hilarious.

Yeah, no, it's his own record. It's not a conspiracy there, it's really true. Let me, I'm gonna get you the name of the trender. If it's a bull, Uh, it is quote primum. Yeah, so that is Pius the fifth supposed.

Uh.

Every trade cat will say that, every true trade cat will say that this was the papal bull that said that you had to use in all Latin rites the tridentine missile, and that it's not supposed to be altered. It is quote in perpetuity. So that's what the trade cats will appoint to.

And what's the justification from that?

And then I remember there was something I forget which povid was but changed the direction of the cross.

What's the destigation hold on? What's the dessication for what?

What's the justification for the fact that one pope said never change the direction, and then there was a future one that changed the direction.

That the popes can revise and change their predecessors pronouncements, but.

They're infallible about safe and morals.

Who knows. Maybe just just believe it, dude. It doesn't have to make it doesn't have to make sense.

You do have a question about the rosary in all seriousness, because I do pray like the Jesus Prayer on a rope, but I've heard that some Eastern Orthodox do pray obviously the Hail Mary because it is biblical. I mean, the whole goal is just not that to be imagined if correct.

Yeah, I don't think the problem is the problem is not the statements themselves. But I mean, it's kind of like, what's the point of digging through all the Roman Catholic specific things to try to find the things that are somewhat Orthodox or amenable to Orthodox? Like, ohle mindset just doesn't make sense, and it's almost all always used by

Yeah, that's fair, all right. I just wanted to give you the keys.

And thank you for you and thank you. That was the banana Tine Emperor Augustine, Augustin Augustin, thank you guys, hit like and share what's up man, I'm mute, all right, he can't connect. Well, we're uh widowing it down, tim whittling it down, Widow, not whittling it down, Timothy, Tim or Timothy? What's up? I'm seventy five years old. For those that are wondering, are you there, tim we can't hear you trying to turn your mic on seth.

Hey, how's it going?

Can you hear me? Yes, sir, sweet I just had a couple quick things. This is from a.

I guess I've got a couple of questions from a Protestant perspective. I've got some people who have questions for me because I'm actually, I don't know if you remember, I'm the Lutheran, but I'm actually going to my local ro core right now and I'm becoming a cat Ofcuman. But there's some there's some stuff it's hard to I guess addressed with certain people.

So I guess I'm gonna argue from their perspective.

Okay.

So one of the one of the big things that I've I haven't really brought this up specifically because I'm not sure exactly how to defend it, but I've heard you say and I've heard a lot of people say that the Bible is specifically a liturgical text, and that devotional reading is good and fine, but that's not the primary usage, which seems good and.

Can correct from what I can tell.

But I guess, in what sense would it be like just read in a liturgy like that's the that's the main purpose of it.

How would you defend that specific view.

I don't think that it's controversial. If you read liturgical scholars or historians of liturgy, I think you'll find them being pretty candid about that. I mentioned a couple of books earlier that were Protestant books that helped me, uh, get out of the soul scripture and mindset. One is Formation Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon by Lee McDonald.

Right.

Uh, the hearing of the law would be done by the priest. It would be interpreted by the priest the synagogue system, right, that's a liturgical setting as well. And so just the entire ethos of the Hebrew tradition is not about your you know n IV study Bible in the park next to the you know, to the oak tree or whatever.

Yeah, if I could, if I could just jump in there really quick too.

I think obviously when.

Jesus says that to the Pharisees that you search the text because you think it is in them that they have eternal life, I think it actually applies really well to the products mindset.

Absolutely. I cite that all the time.

Yeah, And so I guess that's like I've I've been out of the soul in scriptori mindset for a while and I've just been kind of wrestling with certain with certain questions before.

I Yeah, I would say, uh, you know, get a book like the Williams and Anstall book on the Orthodox Littery, and then get Hugh Weiber's book Byzantine Liturgy, because Weiber is a Protestant, he's an Anglican and he wrote a really good book on the history of that Byzantine Liturgy, which you know, for example, the first few chapters refused Gavin Ortland because he talks about imagery and the you know, the structure of the church with an altar and all that.

Spencer Coo uh huh, Hey yeah, Jay.

So I was wanting to ask a question.

I've been studying a lot of Greg Bonson and Cornelis van Hill from a Protestant perspective. That's all I've really known, and I understand that you are familiar with those works as well. So I wanted to ask the question, what do you think about the presuppositionalism of also Gordon Clark.

Are you familiar with him?

Yeah? I read a couple of Clark things back in the day. But I always sided with Van Till over Clark, especially when you get into this idea that the Logos is a bunch of propositions, the Bible is a set of propositions. I think that, oh, that's just completely stupid.

Sure, yeah, I really think is empiricism. His critique on empiricism quite well, and I think Van Till and everyone like Bonsan would agree with him. But at the end of the day, I think he ended up concluding that you don't get knowledge by sense perception. The only thing you could know is from scripture. Just kind of interesting.

I think you would if I remember. That sounds like what he would argue.

Yeah, that is a that was I was just curious if you heard anything from Gordon Clark. I asked Jim Bob this while back, and he seemed like he didn't know anything about Gordon.

Uh.

Now, Jim Bob didn't have like a Calvinist you know, uh upbringing or or time. I was really into that for a long time. But I remember reading this one thing, Hammer of the Heretics by Gordon Clark or something like that. I remember reading God's Word that's it, And I read his critique event Hill. But the rest of it I think is pretty silly, honestly, But thank you for your comment. Interference.

What's up?

We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle no right to eat. Here's Paul calling the eucharistic offering an altar that we eat from. And he's contrasting the bodies of the animals with the body and blood of Christ on our altar, and that we are sanctified by Christ's eucharistic blood offering. What's up, man, interference? What's up?

Oh? Hello, Jay? You believe that God can only know all truths?

Right?

You're asking them? So you want to ask the same guy's question earlier?

Excuse me?

Are you in here for the other guy that was doing this earlier.

I want to hear this.

I want to hear what the argument is from.

Yeah.

I don't know what you're referencing, Jay, but I just want to know if you take it that God only knows all truths, you can't know falsehoods.

Uh? Well, knowing falsehoods would be propositions that he would potentially know.

Sure, so would he know the proposition that this statement is not true?

Jay?

Why are you repeating my name with that. Yes, if we can know a proposition, God can know it. But I don't think that God's mode of knowing is the same as the human mode of knowing.

God knows.

If God knows all truths and falsehoods, then what about the statement that this statement is not true?

Yeah, God knows paradoxes as well. That's a paradox. What's wrong with saying God knows paradoxes but his mode of knowing is not ours?

Well, the problem is would it be true or false that he knows it.

It's a false dichotomy because it's a paradox.

Read.

So he just repeats your name, that's what That's what these people do. Say it again. Probably didn't go.

And meta language like these aren't gods.

Dude, Yes, thank you your ignorance. He just wanted to repeat my name because they know that. That's and then they repeat the name and then when I boot them, they'll say, they'll go clip that put it on their channel that I ran bald Man's opinion.

Hello, O can you hear me?

Yeah?

Hey, how's it going. I've never been on one of these before, so they're like an allotted time or something or uh.

No, what are you? You have an argument or what do you? What's up? What's on your mind?

Well?

Uh, I don't know much about you, but I got sent here by Rachel Wilson's saying Protestants or Baptist or whatever.

Should come to you, should come to you if they want to talk to somebody who's Orthodox. Cath Are you orthodox? Okay?

So yeah, yeah, sorry, I had to run away, get the.

Run away to a private room.

So I have a contention about I think most Orthodox or Catholics don't believe.

That salvation is by grace through faith, and I make the.

I'm gonna make the claim that it is.

Based on Well, we believe that it is, but we believe that those words mean different things from you. So it's not that we reject the scriptures or don't believe in salvation by faith or by grace, but we don't believe that it's a legal standing that's imputational, which is based on a heretical trinitarian theology, like.

A legal standing. The word justified is a legal term, is it not?

Yeah, but it's not a purely fictional imputational legal standing. That's what I'm saying is impossible because nobody in the ancient medieval world were nominalists, and you need nominalism to have that position.

What do you mean by nominalists?

Sorry?

Right, So the reformers like Luther relied on medieval nominalists like Akham and Bile to figure out how it was possible for God to declare people to be a legal state that they weren't ontologically that thing. So that's nominalism. That it's a name only position, a legal standing position that doesn't reflect an actual ontological change in the being. And since nobody in the ancient image of the world were nominalists until Aukham, that means Paul didn't teach your view.

Doesn't it say? Everyone's four to five? That's let's see, let me call it up here.

So you're not gonna address what I said. You're gonna blow.

Past you know.

I'm trying. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I'm not trying to ignore it.

Have you read Alistair McGrath? No, what is that funny? I don't understand.

No, I'm just I'm not laughing at you. I'm just saying, no, I haven't.

Well, but you laughed, so I don't understand why it's funny.

I don't. I don't know it. Just chuckle, dude. Okay, I'm a little I've never done one of these before, so it's a bit new to me. Maybe more of a nervous laughter.

Okay. Well, McGrath is one of the most famous modern Oxford Protestant scholars. He wrote a book called Eustacia Day and in that book admits that nobody in the ancient medieval world until about fifteen hundreds had the idea of justification by faith alone.

Okay, let me pull up some quotes here, then, didn't let me fall some quotes with some church fathers.

Okay, Yeah, church fathers who believe in appisodic succession and the real presence. You think they taught justification faith. Pull on, You're going to pull up a bunch of quote minds that don't say what I'm saying. They say what you think they're saying. So you're going to read into these church fathers who also teach the necessity of works and they use the real presence. You're going to try to

What do you you mean?

I'm just trying to put out a position here and I don't I don't.

Know, like I'm not particularly the Romans for Let's go to Romans for when Paul who does? Where does Paul site in general? Assistant Romans for.

Okay, let's just read it here, Romans for three four? What say the scripture Abraham believed God and it was kind.

Of him for righteous? Yes?

Where is he citing a.

Romans death Genesis chapter fifteen, verses three.

Six, Right, Now, tell me this in the Protestant view in terms of the transition from rath to grace, as the Reformer spoke of, When was that in Abraham's.

Life Genesis chapter fifteen when it says he believed God?

Ah, thank you for refuting. Yes, thank you for reputing, Thank you for refuting Protestantism, because it's just it's Genesis twelve where Abraham first believes and does several chapters of good works before Genesis fifteen. So you just refuted Protestantism in Romans.

For No, because you read you read the rest of the chapter. It's talking about Genesis chapter fifteen or so.

You literally heard nothing I said, and you're not addressing area. You don't even understand the argument, You're you're blowing past the argument.

May maybe I'm just not quite getting with you right.

You're not correct. Do you want me to state it again? Sure, the transition from wrath to grace should be Genesis twelve, not fifteen. So by Paul citing Genesis fifteen, you refute the Protestant position.

I'm sorry, I don't follow that because