What the silvers of errors are, because this is all like classic track as stuff. Now going back to the Ten Books book, which lists sixteen documents. If you want the easiest read to show that Vatican one, excuse me, that Vatican two contradicts pre Vatican two theology, you get the Ten Books book Popes against the Modern Errors, and the first one you're gonna read is marri Voss of
Pope Gregor the sixteenth. Then you're gonna read Quantic Kurra of Pius the ninth, and then you'll see the Silvers of Errors of Pius the ninth, that's the one we just looked at. Then you're going to see Leo the thirteenth dea turnum Ilude, which, by the way, I've read all of Liela thirteenth and cyclicals, seven hundred page book.
I read them all. Lie the thirteenth on Freemasonry Wjmanum janis the Nature of Liberty, Lieo the thirteenth, Libertus praise tantisimos prisetantissimum on the condition of the Working classes by Little thirteenth Rerem Navarum on Christian Democracy. Lee of the thirteenth, and then Lamentabile that we just looked at earlier, and then the famous and cyclical of Pius the tenth Pacindi
dominici grages our apostolic mandate by Pius the tenth. This is the condemnation of the Selon movement, which, if I recall, was like a socialist movement, like an equalitarian socialist revolutionary movement. The oath against modernism that Pius the tenth mandated feast of Christ the King quas primos, which you've heard me reference many many times on fostering true unity mortalium animos.
This condemns interfaith gatherings as apostacy, which I've cited into infinity against Romancholics on atheistic communism by Pious the ninth. Divini redemntoris whom I jennaris by Pius the twelfth. This is the one that allows for a theistic evolution. So ironically, even though it allows for theistic evolution, it is intended to be a condemnation of certain errors of modernism. So
that's why it's concluded in that book. So again, hopefully I know that Roman Catholics don't read their books anymore, but all the way up into the syllabus of errors, you're still bound by the temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop doctrine. And I've never heard about a continued person and teach this anymore. Jonathan Towery twenty bucks. An image of Jesus is not Jesus, an image created to represent values and beliefs of a painter. No, that's not our iconography.
So I don't know where you get that idea. Jesus does not represent God. Well, now you're an aran, so you just expose yourself as an aerian ac twenty dollars. What's up, man, Thank you so much. Curse work, one dollar. I've requested to speak. I don't know who you are. There's like ten people, eight people in here. Cursed work. Oh there you are, cursed world. Excuse me? What's up? Dude? Got on? Mute man?
Hey, can you hear me?
Yeah, what's on your mind?
Hey, Pastor Randy, thanks for taking my call. So I'm not too long in the Orthodox world. I was brought into the church a little over a year ago. Well, my parents, who did a good faithful job of raising me at least in the Protestant Church to the best of their ability, the best of their knowledge.
They're kind of interested.
Me and my brother both converted, and so one of these hang ups that my dad has, I'd like to kind of argue that on his behalf, because I think he's arguing in good faith or at least trying to test these waters.
He's picked up a couple of books. But the thing that he kind of hits me with and I don't.
Really feel equipped to respond to it very well, is kind of a challenge of the Iconoclast period. And his argument goes something like, Hey, you keep telling me that the church has uh that the gates of Hell will not and have not prevailed against the Church, But what about this period where maybe a large portion or maybe even a majority of those representing the church in an official capacity condemned the use of icons And so I never really know what's I mean.
No different than so in the fourth century, the majority of the church became Aryan and semiarian right, and so Nicia is what helped to solve that. But even after Nicia it wasn't completely gone. You still had Eunomians even into the time of Basil and the Cappadocians after Nicea. So but the majority hold that the Aryans had all the empire and their heresy was dead and dying after that, even though they continued on. So the claim about the church not having the gates fell prevail against it has
nothing to do with numbers and percentages. What it means is that you will never extinguish the episcopae. There will always be orthodox bishops continuing the true faith. Okay, there's no promise to any specific area that the one in Rome will never fail or the one I mean again Romans eleven. Paul warns the Church of Rome that they can be grafted out. Why would he warn them if
they could never fail? So you have these situations where you know, entire regions can go into schism and leave the church, And just because the majority of the empire at a certain time becomes involved in error, whether it's the airing crisis or the Iconoclass crisis, does not defeat the meaning of the Gates of Hell will not prevail because it's not a question of majority. It just means that you can't stamp out the true faith.
Okay.
So when he follows up and is kind of like, and I know he's being sort of tongue in chicic, but if he's like well, how do you know that you're not in one of those periods now where you know a false How do you know what's.
Worth Because if I go to every ecumenical council, I can read the canons and the decrees of those councils. They're not that long, and every council states and explains that their intention is to be consistent with the previous council. So when I read Nicia, and I read Constantinople one, and I read Ephesis, and I read calcilit on, and I read Constantinople two and three, and I see A two, And then when I read the Focian Council, and when I read the Palmite Synod's like, the theology is the same.
Okay, all right, appreciate you.
Yeah.
And if you read the Seventh Council, for example, if you read a St. Theodore the Studites book on the icons or if you read John Damascus's book on Holy Images, like, you'll notice that the arguments for the iconography is out of the chrystological pronouncements of the free previous councils. The energies doctrine and the divine hypostasis doctrine is the pre subposition and the apologetic basis for the way that Theodore and Saint John Damascus argue iconography.
Luther, Hey, can you hear me?
All right?
We talked last week about the Philioquay and a little bit about nominalism and the Protestants.
I've been doing some research on the.
Phillyoquay and got to be honest, I don't love the whole aspiration from the essence of God, isn't Isn't that what Aquinas proposes?
Yeah? So not loving that.
But I wonder is there any any permissibility from the east an orthodox point of view of procession from the Father through the son in an ontological sense.
Yeah, that's the definition of the Council of blacker name.
Oh all right, I was going to ask your thoughts on.
But that does not mean that does not mean that the son is a co cause or a secondary cause. The Father is the soul Christ.
Right, It would not fit the more.
Technical definition of the word for proceeds, correct, not the kind of Yeah, and if you want the document, if you want the document that it's not very long to read.
On that very point. It's called the condemnation, or it's called the tomos against John Becco's.
All right, great, yep, well that was That was shorter than I thought it would be. But I also ordered that that book you recommended.
Was it was it o.
Ye Haiko Oberman's book Harvest of Medieval Theology, where he points out that Luther relied on William of Oakham and Gabriel Bile for his nominalist positions. Correct.
All right, Is that related to a volunteerist view of God?
Yes, because William of Aukam argues that volunteers theological voluntarism means that God can just declare natures to be the opposite of themselves when he's so desires. So what makes something what it is is simply the divine will or decree. It's very similar to Islam. And so if God wills, for example, to suddenly dam the Virgin marry after having saved her, he can do that because God's will is what determines nature's. It's not that God creates natures and
lets those natures be self determining. He arbitrarily can change natures. And this is why Luther found that useful for even his doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
All right, well, I'm waiting on that book to show up because I couldn't find a digital version online.
So I'll read that and see what I think about it.
But I would at.
Least at this point I would push back a bit on Luther being voluntarist, and I would I would point that, I would point you to that when he speaks of God's will, he considers it immutable. So it's not that God can ever will in a way that is contrary to his eternal nature.
And no, that's not what the that's not what that's that's not what the debate is. The vetas the Beta is about created natures, whether or not they have their own natural properties that make them what they are, which would be a essentialist position versus the nominalist position that God determines at any instance what the nature of that thing is by pure divine will. So, in other words, if God wants to, he can make created things into their opposite, or he can make created things into uh,
evil things, perhaps because they're not there. Things do not have natures, is the.
Point, all right, So it would be like a non realist that is that another term for essentialists?
Yes, all right, well, nominalism is denying that creative things have essences or natures that make them what they are. It's just simply saying that we when we talk about essences their natures, those are verbal terms that we give to those things. That's a hence no name, non nominalism, namism, not essentialism.
All right, Well, that book's on the way, so I might. I might read it, and then I might.
I don't feel free to come about.
I'll let you know if I'm convinced by it.
Okay, come back. I mean, it's just one It's not like everything hinges on that one book. That's just one book about Luther's influence from that system. And I'm not saying that that means that Luther's consistent with it. He's not like some radical nominalists. He just utilizes it for these types of issues to help boast vulturous theology. What's up, Jonathan, Jonathan, you want to I mute Jordan. Guys who want to support the stream, you can do so by the super
chat function. Superchests are done natively through YouTube or through stream, and I'll give you guys link stream lives. Link is pinned, but you can also superjet right here. What's up, Jordan, guys, you gotta turn your MIC's on. I don't like so this is not for today. We're looking for disagree, not all the ortho ros Matt Pete.
What's up, man, Matt? I'm mute.
I did can you hear me?
Now? Yeah? Hey?
Jay?
How you doing?
I'm good? Thank god?
Jay.
I wanted to two things.
The first thing I wanted to mention is I listened to some of your live streams in the past who had the UNI on them the other day, and then prior to that, I listened to some Christian Zionist who was like intellectually limited. So my first question to you is do you have a problem getting more substantial people on to debate, like Scott Hand for instance.
Yes, I don't think we've had a quality person offer in a good while. I don't think Scott Hand does manymore many debates anymore. I don't remember the last prominent Roman Catholic where I was trying to set up a discussion with Michael Knowles. I don't think Michael Knowles was interested in that. So I think it's just going to be me and Tim Gordon.
Okay, because it's that so many of them. I remember another one with Pastor p I think his name was, But so much of this it almost seems like God forgive me juvenile delinquency almost like you know, and anyway, I think you can do better if you can find you know, it was just cool.
Well, I definitely think you're right that. Like, ideally, if we were in you know, more of a normal situation, we would have better quality opponents. But I think we've just gotten to a point where everything is just so kind of crazy and everybody's so emotional reactionary, and you know, the protest and Catholic worlds. You know, Orthodoxy has his problems, but the Protests and Catholic worlds are just kind of like collapsing. So, you know, I asked, I mean, Calvin
Robinson is an intelligent man. He's got four hundred thousand followers. I asked him, in a very simple civil way, would you like to do a formal debate? And he lost it. So it's like people are just not able to handle this stuff anymore. Jonathan M. Hello, yeah, what something man?
Oh?
Sorry, the uh for some reason exbooted me out for some reason after I you the So I gotta.
Question about something. I want to see if my argument.
Is good or not because I've never really tested it yet.
But the uh, the.
Question of icons and the paintings of Jesus and things like that, So.
What is it? Let's see, So like, would.
You agree that when you see a picture of Jesus that's obviously not Jesus, correct.
Right, So so then who would that be then in your opinion.
Well, it's an image of Jesus, it's a type prototype relationship.
Yeah, so he's My argument is that, like the painter is not creating a picture of Jesus, He's creating a picture of the values of the of the time period and of the commissioner and what he's trying to draw across.
It's kind of like how Buddha.
The statue of Buddha is like fat in one country.
Yeah, but that's not how Orthodox iconography works. Like, we're not like Jesuits who paint Chinese Jesus and black Jesus. If you look at most Orthodox icons, there's a pretty unified standard as to what Jesus looks like.
So then would you be against Roman Catholic depictions of Jesus versus Orthodox depictions or does it matter?
I mean, I just mentioned the Roman Catholic tradition of deviating by making Asian Jesus black Jesus. I just said that, are you there? Are you there? I guess maybe you've got a bad signal. So I mean, look, anybody. You can't stop people from doing paintings, right, But in Orthodox iconographic tradition there's rules and there's strictures on this. We don't do like Jesuits do historically and famously, and then many other Roman Catholics, Chinese Jesus and black Jesus. It's
not done because it's not true. Jesus was a Hebrew. He's of a certain lineage. The Gospels make it very clear, and it's very important as to who his descent was from. He has to be from the line of David. So he can't be a black dude. He can't be an Asian dude. It's a lie, even if it's good intentioned, because it's gnostic. It denies his Ethnos via his real incarnate state, his lineage, which the Gospels make very and stress, and the Orthodox tradition has almost always imaged Jesus in
this same way. So you can't do black Jesus. There's no Aborigine Jesus. That is a lie to do, So Pat, what's up? Job five dollars? Can you do a Pastor Randy Balls larp stream where you are against Protestants using their own system like Jim Bob did with Christos his new age persona. I'll think about that. I might do a a Brandy ballstream could be funny. Maximum nine one one gifts a membership. What's up? Shout out to the new members and I think that that was the same
guy that's left the super chat. So I appreciate your super chat, Jonathan. I wasn't trying to be rude, but it looks like you have a bad connection, so you dropped out, Pat. What's upthing is white Jesus? Ali uh, Jesus is this person that you see here? So people from the levant, people from that area can have light skin, or they can have more olive skin. So you're deflecting into something that doesn't even matter. White Jesus. Orthodox icnography
pictures him as a Hebrew person. He's not a black person. What's up?
Pat?
A mute Heisenberg Mormon sasquatch? One dollar? We need you to give a take on doctor Michael Cook Cheney he's a Protestant who called out Sam Chamun. He makes interesting biblical points. It's it's never ending of when you're going to respond to this Protestant dude. You under said there's an infinite like there's an infinity of Protestants and they all make the same arguments. So how about we just use the same refutation videos? Why don't you guty to
go clip them? I'm trying to make sure I didn't miss any super chests. What's up?
Man?
Are you there? Heisenberg?
Hey?
Jay?
What's up?
Hey?
Two very quick questions and I'll be out of here. I watching your lives and I've seen like a lot of your book recommendations on like theology, but I was wondering if you have any on like philosophy and like towards atheism per se.
There's a couple of good books like Paul Davies's book Mind of God. That's a good if you're an atheist, that would be a good challenge. Yeah, like that, human, what's up? When are you going to refuse Joel Ostin? Exactly? It's like when are you going to review the Righteous Gemstones? What's up?
Man?
Human? Unmute? Can nobody work Twitter today, King anime, what's up? I think Twitter was was having trouble today. Maybe it's not working right? You want to unmute hey?
All right?
So about the gain cover of Jesus and I don't think it actually matters, but I'm curious because you make.
It seem like he's factual with that.
He looked the way he does in the Orthodox pictures, right, So I'm curious what this one.
That it's an Orthodox tradition, So is it.
Like the So you're saying there's no like Biblical takes back that upward.
Well, if it's an or our tradition, then it's not explicitly in the Bible now, so we don't believe that the only guide for the church is what's written in the Bible.
Okay.
And on the death penalty, I heard you talk about the death penalty before. Not just sure about your position on it, but what do you think about the situation where the woman calling adultry Jesus, you know, basically said he who hasn't saying it can be the first one that goes the storm. Do you think that's like against the death penalty?
No?
Because in Romans thirteen, Paul pretty clearly advocates explicitly for the death penalty, that the state has the right of the sword. So, and there's other places where Paul talks about the death penalty that he says in Romans won
that certain people they deserve death for these actions. So the death penalty is taught in the New te The woman caught in adultery was a setup to try to trap Jesus, and Jesus, being the ultimate judge of the universe, can also commit someone's commute someone's sentence, and forgive them as he did with the woman. So there's nothing in that instance that reverses or does away with the rest of the New Testament and Old Testament passages that legitimate
the death penalty. And in fact, many of the early Church Fathers also continue the teaching of the death penalty. It's really not until much later and then certain sort of Protestant pacifist circles that you even get people saying that it's wrong to have the death penalty.
Okay, and last question, I think I heard you say and when you were debating Nicko Fointez or I'm not sure exactly what debated was, but about certain like counsels Orthodox counsels, being like, there is a possibility that some of them can be wrong and you reject those Is that true?
Well, they wouldn't be Orthodox counsels if we reject them. So no, an Orthodox council by definition is going to be Orthodox. It's going to be teaching what's true. But there have been false counsels. But everybody admits that, whether you're Protestant, Roman, Catholic Orthodox, everybody agrees that there are false counsels. So the question is, well, how do we know and what sort of validates a true council? And that's going to be different whether you're Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox.
All right, thanks, yeah, good questions. Ed, what's up? Man? What's up? Ed Griffon nice Strom five dollars. I love your stuff. I only click away when the person that you debate is annoying to listen to. Well, thanks man, I appreciate that. I think today has been pretty much solid people. We didn't have any crazy wackos. Everybody was pretty cool. I'm pretty chill. Patrick two five dollars. I
don't understand something. And the lecture that you did on Daniel, you said that part of John's Apocalypse is warning about Nero. In a later stream, you said it was about ninety five AD. No, I don't believe that. I've always believed that the Apocalypse was written prior to seventy a D. Because I believed since two thousand and one in a
partial prederres view. So I'm not sure where you're saying that I said in a later stream the Apocalypse is about ninety five a D. I mean, I may have misspoke or said something like saying that the latest date that people give to John's apocalypse is towards the end of the first century. But I don't believe that John. What's up, man, somebody was fussing about some other minor
thing that I misspoke the other day. And it's like, guys, if you do like multiple four or five hour live streams or debates all the time, like you're gonna misstate stuff. And I sometimes I hear if I listen back to a podcast, Yeah, every now and then I'll misstate something, Okay, but like that's not the end of the world, And it's if you tell me or if you have a question, I can explain it or how I perhaps misstated it. But in most of these cases it's actually people misunderstood
what I said. But I do sometimes misstate things, sure, everybody does. I mean that's part of being a fallible human is that you're gonna misstate something. But I don't
remember believing in a late date for the Apocalypse. The last time I believe that was like two thousand and two, because once I read or no, even before that, I read Gentry's book, and I read Chiltern's book, and I read the four or five other partial preadorist books in probably two thousand, So I've been partial predist before nine eleven.
Dogs.
So if I said that John's apartoss was written in ninety five, ad oh, I know what you're talking about. I know what you're saying. What I said was in the Daniel lecture. I said, even the latest dating of Daniel or the Apocalypse still has things that would be admitted to be prophetic because of what happens in the Roman Empire becoming christian for example, you know all that the empire under which the Messiah is born becomes Christianized, Right,
that's the vision of Daniel and Daniel two. Even if you date Daniel to Maccabee's time, which is the liberal dating, it's still prophetic. So maybe you misunderstood the argument I was making, and I said, even if you date the Revelation of John to the late date, it's still prophetic for elements of things like the Christianizing of the Roman Empire and what Christianity would achieve in history. I was not saying I believe the ninety five eighty dating. What's up, John?
Hey are you doing?
I guess you can hear me?
Okay, huh, all right.
I wanted to get your position on Christian nationalism.
I don't know if that's something you hold, but my.
Question regarding that would be, how would if such a Christian nationalist type scenario were to come about with an Orthodox type leadership, how would the Catholic and Protestant church's fair under that.
I mean, that only exists when you have a majority of the population being Orthodox, so it's not even really a relevant question. I mean, I do believe that nation states when the vast majority of the people are Orthodox, the state, through what's called symphonia, should reflect those values. And that's what Roman Catholics and even some Protestants used to believe. At least Classical Reformation people believe that the state had a duty to God as well, even in
Protestant Nation States. So yes, the traditional teaching of the church, whether you're Roman, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, is some type of Christian nationalism and or Christian Orthodox imperium that was the norm throughout the Byzantine period.
Okay, I was just curious to see what you thought about that. There's been a lot of that on Twitter x recently, and so his for you to ask.
Thanks for having me on man.
Yeah, I mean it's there's a lot of traps I think going on with that stuff too, because we're not at a period when this is really a viable thing. And so I don't agree with James Lindsay on his Enlightenment stuff, but I do think that there are people who could conceivably conceivably be entrapped through some kind of wild Christian nationalism. This could just not even relevant to now. That could be breeding grounds for fed stuff. But that does not mean that I believe that there's some sort
of pacifism or No. No, there ought to be a Christian imperium when the majority of the people are Christian. We don't live in that right now, So if that ever happens that's like way down the road, Jonathan, what's up? I mean, Christianity is not a go after the state and enforce the type of thing. It's a bottom up. You convert people the way that we do it, and if from the majority of the people are Orthodox, then you get a Christian state. What's up?
Man?
Hey can hear me? Okay?
Yeah, all right, Hey, I had a question.
So I am promisant, but I have listened to you, so I'm curious.
You know, haven't read anything, so pretty much just taktok brain rot here.
What do you think about the gates of Hell referring to an actual physical location.
I don't find that very convincing, because you know a lot of times that you have a patristic exegesis and the church fathers refer to the gates of Hell as the mouths of the heretics.
Okay, got it?
And then what about how God.
Interfaces with the culture over time?
Does is it necessary to be orthomous to be saved? Or you know, I mean I heard you earlier state that to MUCHO much is given, much is required.
But I now have heard.
Written office requirements and am not inclined to pursue it. You know, probably because I just enjoy the freedom that I think Protestants in grants week, I recognize there's a lot of cognitive dissonance.
Within it from hearing your arguments.
Your thoughts on that. Well, I mean, I think that's a bad reason to remain Protestant because of quote freedom. I mean, I don't even know what that means, because that could mean to live a skittles lifestyle, that could mean all kinds of things. I'm not saying I'm being serious. I mean, I'm not saying that's what you mean. I'm just saying, like, I don't know what that means. And so I don't think just an appeal to some sort of amorphous, abstracted notion of freedom is any kind of
coherent justification from why Orthodoxy isn't the true Church. I think what you need to look at is what church put the bubble together? What did the Christians of the first thousand years believe? And if you're wanting to card do for a sort of a you know, tailor made buffet style approach, well that's the definition of a heritic or schismatic.
Joe Ed.
Jay one dollar. Is there a prophecy that Rome will return to orthodoxy. I don't know that's I don't I don't know. There could be I'm not aware of that. What's up man? Did you turn your mic on? Hey?
You're there?
Ye, what's on your mind?
So? I know it's a little off topic.
But the Christian nationalism thing, like if you had a magic wand then you had the choice between having separation of church and state in America or in the West in general, versus a orthodox based nationalist country, what would you choose?
And have to quick follow up on that.
Well, again, it would only work when the majority of the population follows and believes the religion.
So if.
Yeah, okay, cool, I'm glad to hear that. And then those on like Project twenty twenty.
Five and.
The the budget director I think his name is Islamic last names like Vault. He was caught on a undercover camera. I'm talking about how he's trying to slide in a lot of like evangelical fundamentalist type of policies.
And kind of like not maybe.
Hijack or secretly hijack Trump's administration with some of his policies, and you're seeing some of that actually come true.
What's your thoughts on five and the cur administration.
I've heard people talk about this. I haven't put much thought into it. I don't think that you're actually going to get an evangelical theocracy. I mean, I think that's kind of crazy, but I mean it sounds like something that the left is just sort of creating into a giant bugaboo. It's probably a nothing burger. So, but I haven't like read through it or whatever. I doubt that that would go very far. So I'm looking for people who disagree it's our last chance. I see a lot
of people who agree. We're not taking orthodox calls right now. Walter, what's up? Gonna on? Mute? Walt Walter on you?
Oh why?
Why?
What's up?
So?
I've been watching your debate with Alex Malpass on the Losso logic. I think it's a very interesting topic. So I was wondering if I could ask a couple of questions about it.
That was six seven years ago, but I'll try to remember as much as I can. Go ahead.
Oh yeah, it's a basic question.
So what At one point he said that I can't talk us about a priori truths and things that are truth according to the definition of words and gives the example of the truth a square.
Is a polygon.
That's just truth by bility of the definition of the square and polygon. So my question is, could it be that, for example, I think it's identical to itself.
Could it be that it's just true.
By built by the definition of the war identical.
I didn't hear the last part. Why now, I mean, for.
Example, or let's take law, the law of identity, I think is identical with itself? Right, maybe that I think this is a trivial truth from the definition of identical, and it recall is no grounding.
What would you say about this, Well, it's missing the point about what grounding is. I mean, saying that something is true by definition still doesn't ground it, because well, how do we know that it's a true proposition just because it appears to be self referencing or true. I mean, that's really just missing the point of what self evidence is. Like, it's not a question of so if you say A
equals A, is it self evident? Yeah, in a limited sense, but it's still not solving the criteria problem, right, So it's not addressing the epistemic question of justification. When you say stuff like okay, well, A equals A seems self evident.
Okay, I see, Okay, Well I have a second question. So when atheists ask Christians, okay, why can't God make a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it? What Christians usually say is, oh, he cannot do it, because this is this contracts the loss of logic. But this implies that the loss of logic govern God. They limit gods of nipoptance, So I mean, how could they be granted in him if they actually go earned him?
They covert him just like the That's not the route I would take. It's a question of the word omnipotence, and so they're importing a definition for the term that's alien to and not what the system would determine. So, if Christianity is true, if God exists, then what omnipotence is is going to be conditioned by who he is, his nature, his character, and so in the Christian definition, God doesn't contradict himself and doesn't lie. Paul says, is
impossible for God to lie. So God cannot create a rock that's bigger than he is, or impossible to lift or whatever, because it's a outside of the nature of God's determination.
Okay, I see maybe one just one last question. What if someone say that the fucks that logic also logic, but facts.
Well, just asserting that they are the case doesn't tell me that that that's the case. That's an assertion. So how does that solve the criteria problem? So we have this question come up at the beginning. Criteria problem is if you assert that you have knowledge, that assumes there's some criteria of knowledge or what counts as knowledge. But to say that you have a criteria knowledge before having
knowledge is itself a knowledge claim. So the criteria problem is never addressed by people who just assert that, well, that's just self evident, says who how do we know why?
Okay, thanks here.
So they're just sort of like ad hoc arbitrary assertions, and you can't do that in philosophy. Eric, what's up, guys? In remind you head on over to chalk dot com. He's from Jay forty. You get forty percent off all those great products over at chalk dot com. You can unsubscribe at any time if you don't like the product. I think you will, though it is a recurring subscription. It gets you forty four percent off all those great
products over at chalk dot com. If you just want to test it out, like the Tone Catiale, like the Seven Wonders, like the Chad Mode, like the Action two point zero, you can do so by using j Y forty. That's j Y four zero, and you can buy these individual You don't have to buy the whole stack. You can get the individual products over at chalk dot com. What's up, man, Hey, how are you good? What's on your mind?
Okay, so this is.
In the realm of disagreement, but with an open mind, trying to understand the Eastern Orthodox slash Catholic position.
On the Eucharist.
Okay, And so I know they're probably.
Slightly different, but it's somewhat similar in just in layman terms that you guys believe that the Eucharist becomes the actual body of Christ and the blood.
The actual blood.
Right, So.
It's just I know, it's kind of a basic question, and you're probably tired of going over this.
No.
I like this question because it's a very clear way to demonstrate the necessity of the essence entergy distinction, because if you don't have it, then you don't have the real presence, and any Roman Catholic that you talk to will agree that the Eucharist is not the essence of God. Nobody's eating the essence of God. And if you read Cyril in the two Letters to sixth Census, and if you read the decree the Anathemas of Ephesus, you'll see that the argument about the Eucharist is a pretty strong
clincher argument. And if you read Cyril, it's only sensible if you believe in the essenceyenter distinction, which Rome doesn't. So I would like to ask you, how is the real presence if the grace that's there is a created reality?
Uh?
Can you ask a question one more time?
How is it a real presence if what you're getting in terms of the grace is a created reality? I don't know exactly. So either there's multiple gods, because there's created God and uncreated God, or there's an essence energy distinction by which we participate in the uncreated life, light and immortality of Christ through his deified flesh.
So I guess does it become his actual flesh.
Or what is I would?
I don't like.
So the Roman Catholic dictum is body, blood, soul and divinity. I don't have a problem agreeing with a Roman outlic about that. But the question is, Okay, what do you mean when you say divinity, because it's if you don't have the energies, you don't have the divinity.
I guess I'm just confused on whether or not it's symbolic because when you're taking the Eucharist, it still is the bread, right, and when you're drinking the wine, it still is the wine.
I thought, so, I thought, you're arguing in the Catholic position.
No, I'm you know, I No, I'm not. I'm not a Catholic, Okay, no, No, So like I'm more of an inquirer.
I see, But I was raised Protestant, and so I'm sort of, like I said, I'm disagreeing, but I'm open minded to you know, like hearing.
I'm open to being convinced of your position.
Basically, yeah, I mean, visibly speaking, it has the appearance of bread and wine, but we believe that it really is changed during the uh you know, Epiclesis and the priestly prayer, so it really is the real presence.
And you're you're getting that from the passages in the Gospel where Jesus is saying drink of my blood and eating my body.
Is that where that comes?
I mean, I think there's a whole bunch of passages that contribute to this, as well as Revelation five through nine. The lamb is slain in heaven, John is seeing a heavenly worship service, which is the same worship service as what we see in the liturgy. I think it's also in First Corinthians when Paul talks about the dangers of partaking unworthily, which wouldn't make sense of his only symbolic but he says that if you eat of this in
unworthy way, you can die. Hebrews thirteen has a significant section when it talks about the altar that we eat from. That's where Paul uses the terminology of eucharistic altar. So I think a lot of passages, not just John six, but a lot of passages contribute to the real presence doctrine, as well as the tradition in every one of the ancient seas having a liturgical service that is a eucharistic
offering sacrifice and mentioning the real presence. So the ancient liturgies themselves also prove this.
Right.
So the Okay, to the real presence. I guess I would need help with how I maybe I can go do some homework as to like.
Understanding what that means, because in the context of the English language it literal means like very literal.
Right, Like there's a change. And I'll tell you that. If you want a great Orthodox statement, read what Cyril writes to the two letters to six Census, Saint Cyril of Alexandria. You can find those letters online. And the way that he talks about the deified flesh of Christ in the Resurrection, he says, that's the exact same deified
flesh that we eat in the Eucharist. Hence, read those two letters and then read Cyril's anathemas that the twelve anathemas against the story said ephesis, and you will see the connection between christology in the Eucharist says that we eat his deified flesh. That's what deifies us. Okay, And the Walman Catholic Church is crazy because they don't have this clear teaching.
What's the difference between Orthodox.
And Catholic Because they don't have the essence energy distinction, and so they don't have a notion of the flesh of Christ in the incarnation, being deified by the uncreated energy, energies and immortality of Christ who took it on and thus by extension brought the bread and the wine, becoming the deified flesh in the Eucharist. That's only possible with the essence energy distinction, because there's there's limited options here.
Are we eating the essence of God or are we partaking of the energies when we eat His flesh and blood? There's only two options. If you are Roman Catholic, you're not gonna say we eat the essence of Gud. Nobody says that. Okay, So what's the divinity that we're eating body, blood, soul, divinity? What is the divinity in that phrase? Roman Catholics have to say, it's a created supernatural reality. Okay, Well, that's
not deification if it's just another creature. Jesus says he came to gave us, give us a share of the glory and immortality that he has with the Father John seventeen. That's not created. God's glory is not a creature, it's uncreated glory. Well, how are we partaken of that? If the If we don't particure of the essence. It's the essence energy distinction.
Okay, I'm going need.
To study up more on that, and I'm really interested to learn more and not to be too autistic, but like when you're in the liturgy and you're about to take the sacraments, are you about to take the Eucharist?
How is it facilitated that.
The essence of Christ is in the ukras that I just said, it's not the essence of God. And that's the Roman Catholic would have to be. The Roman Countis have to be in that position if they believe that you're eating the divinity. Okay, so we're eating body, blood, soul, and divinity. The Orthodox position is the only one that can make sense of this by having the essence entered distinction,
because that's what deifies Christ's human nature. What we are partaking of in the Eucharist is identical to the human nature that he assumed his body. Ephesus teaches this as clear as day in the anathemis. I'm not fussing at you, I'm just saying, like you would think people could just go read the two Letters to six Census, where he says that Christ's body is not deified by the essence, it's deified by the uncreated gifts of grace and immortality,
and the same principle is applied to the Eucharist. It's very clear. I'm not fussing at you, but just saying, like, Roman Catholics cannot get this, even though every Roman Catholic who's worth assault believes in the real presence. The only way to have the real presence doctrine is if you believe in the essence inergy section and it's I.
Think I'm coming at it from more of a Protestant position, even though I'm not Protestant.
Is how it's raised.
So it's more of like trying to grasp the real presence like versus the symbolic.
But no, I mean, I'm going to read up on what you what you mentioned.
And then I was also just curious, like, during the liturgy, is it when the priest blesses the Eucharist.
Is that one called the epiclesis, which is the calling down to the Holy Spirit and the words of Institution. Right, so Roman Catholics believe, for whatever reason, that it's literally just the words of Institution when the priest says the magic words. The Orthodox view doesn't have this weird legalistic attitude as if you could, as if the Epiclesis, which is the calling down the Holy Spirit, is not part of it. So you're just gonna get too that they're
just hyper rigid legalists. They're silly. I mean, I don't It's like, I'm not trying to be rude to you, it's just I don't understand why this is so confusing to these people, not you, but to the Roman Catholics. It's actually not that confusing if you're a Protestant coming to this, believe it or not. And I've been making this argument for years now. Oh, I mean, I've never heard Roman Kelly address this. But you know why, because they don't care what Ephesus says. They don't read ephesis.
Remember Voice of Reasons says Ephesus aired, And he doesn't even realize how stupid and damning that is to his own position. When he says that Ephesus aired and condemning the Storius because the Storius wasn't actually heterodox. You understand that means that the acts and the anathemas are also therefore erroneous, because the acts and the anathemas are all about Nestorius. Okay, let's go down to the anathemas. Don't talking about the canons. About the anathemas. Okay, every one
of these anathemas is about what Nestorius teaches. They're about him by name. And he makes an argument about the Eucharist. If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life giving and belongs to the Word, but maintains that it belongs to another beside him, a mere man, let him be anathema. That's talking about the Eucharist. If you read Cyril's writings, he argues this argument against Nastorius about the Eucharist. But when did Roman Catholics ever care
about the context and the actual theologians arguments. They just care about what the documents themselves say that supports the papal position. But I've read Cyril at length of Alexandria. You could just read, for example, a small work like on the Unity of Christ, where he will make these types of arguments, and it's not that hard, you would think to understand this. But there's a veil over their minds. They are their minds are cloud. They cannot grasp this
because they don't understand the basics. They don't even understand the Trinity. They think the Trinity is some weird diad of an absolute essence, and it's like, that's not even the right starting point for the triad. Starting point is the person of the Father, as the Creed says. So you're dealing with a weird philosophy cult when you're talking about most Roman Catholics. And again it's funny because no Roman Catholic will say that you're eating the Essence in
the Eucharist. Okay, well what are you eating? The only other option for them is to say that it's a created, supernatural reality. Well, that means that it's a created God, and that means that you're under the anathema of Ephesis Anathema eleven because what you get is not life giving. If it's a creature, this is life giving, because Cyril says in the Two Letters to six Census, it's the uncreated immortality, life, light and grace that deifies the flesh.
If any Roman Catholic actually understood this argument, this alone would refute Rome. This refutes them, and it's not even that difficult of an argument. Jaden, twenty seven, Canadian Jay dow or the goat please to offer you some shuckles keeping me entertained. Keep up the work, good work. I figure out stream labs this next time, this money is
going straight to you. Well, yeah, you could just click over if you want to the next time, the stream labs link will take you over to a different page and then you just have to put the information in there. But of course stream labs is all given to the creators. If you use YouTube, you know they take thirty percent. Lower score golf with Ryan five dollars. I would argue against your eucharistic view. Yeah, please come back on where you're at. Oh are you that Roman Kelly did? It's
super annoying. Again, you're not even listening to what I'm arguing. I know that you think as a Roman Catholic you're partaking of divine life. But the argument is that it's not a consistent position because it's not the essence of God. What's your other option? Your only other option as a Roman Catholic is a created reality. Ryan, what is your profile name? I need to know your profile name. This is going to be challenging. Let me see if I can find his Tell me your handle and I can
unblock you. If you go into blocks like there's just tons of people, I'll never find you in there. So what's your actual handle? Ryan? I need your handle? Okay? Ryan?
K here?
All right, Ron, I'm sending you in DMS the link. Yeah, I got him. I unblocked him and sent him a link. So we're just waiting on Ryan to show up. Hit request to speak Ryan. Where you're at?
Ryan?
I thought you were about to pop up. We'll go to Wizzy while while we're waiting on Ryan. What's up, Wizzy? I'm you got I'm mute Wizzy. Yeah.
So I'm just currently Roman Catholic.
I'm kind of on my way out, and I'm just wondering about the limbo of the Fathers and if the Orthodox hold to this.
Well, we believe in the heroling of Hades, so there's some overlap with the Roman Catholic idea. But look up the you know, heroling of Hades, that's a universal Orthodox teaching.
Oh yeah, and then just a second question. I've been kind of focused on more of the papers, see, but I kind of neglected a lot of the theological differences. It's just there any good beginner resources for things like essence, energy, distinction and theosis.
Yeah, I would start with something like mystical theology of the Eastern Church, and then I would move on to something like Professor Manseritis's both deification of Man. Those would be places to start, uh, and then you can kind of work on from there. Where's Ryan? At Ryan? We're waiting on you? Where you at.
Ed?
What's up? While we're waiting on Here's Ryan? So we'll go to add and then we'll go to Ryn. What's up?
Ed?
I'm you.
Let me help this time.
Yeah, I think there is something bugging with it.
How you doing?
Man?
What's up?
I wanted to pick your brain.
I know before we kind of talked and came to a consensus of like, secularism is a mistake just as a whole right. But I feel like maybe there is an argument to we had about misinterpreting religious freedoms in
the United States. Do you think it's just wholesale religious freedom or do you think maybe it is specific to what I would think is like the context of the time, not wanting to be persecuted by state church, not wanting the benefits to be denominational specifically the Anglicans, and you know quotes from John Adams about like the Constitution is made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for any other right.
I would then kind of.
Be led to this idea that if the state and the nation are separate, I don't know if this is just semantics right the right then if a nation is a group of people's and not necessarily the state, right is it would it then be I guess on target to say the state was meant to be secular, but the nation was not.
The peoples was not.
No, I mean Romans thirteen says that the state is a diaconos, a minister of God. So it's never been secular.
Sure, But I'm talking about in the in the context of the Framers.
In the United States.
Are you so you're saying they said it was secular. I don't have any opinion on that. Maybe they did, maybe they thought it was a quasi Christian.
Well, no, I'm saying as they wanted to set it up here, right, not in relation to.
The Church as a whole.
I'm saying that I understand that there are traditional American debates about how quote Christian the Framers and Founders thought that the church and state relationships were supposed to be. I'm just saying I don't really care about I'm not being rude. I just don't really have any set opinion on it because some of them were Christians, some of them were Deists.
I mean, okay, I guess uh. The only thing I would have left for you is if I could follow up with a question about a tag position. I think tag is a strong argument. I've you know, done my due diligence and trying to understand the position, and you know the.
I read a bit of the Emmanuel.
Kent but.
But I mean Kant is not TAG, so but go ahead.
Well right, yeah, But the in trying to understand transidentals show My question then is how does it only lead to the Christian God.
I mean, I've got old talks that address this, but to go into it, just in brief, I would say that the reason that it points in the direction of Christianity, or specifically Orthodox triad is that really only the Orthodox worldview gives you the metaphysical toolkit to do the grounding work is and that takes quite a bit of argument and time to flesh all that out. But I want our Rouman Catholic buddy to come back and argue about the Eucharist. Ryan, you want to, I'm mute, hey.
Excorry about that. I didn't realize the transition over you might you might be disappointed.
I don't necessarily have a full blown argument for this yet because it's one of the distinct arguments of the Eastern Orthodox that is sort of on the list.
And you be actually is kind of giving me articles here and there and STU have to read. But I think I have like four categories of like potential pushback on it.
One uh yeah, yeah, yeah, ok, so as ince and energies, and it basically falls into like it compromises the divine simplicity of God.
So man, I mean, I'm not trying to be rude too, dude, but like this is like, do you not think that we've dealt without objection? I mean, I thought you want to debate the Eucharist, and now you're saying you want to talk about like the number like the number one objections about sincerean distinction.
Well do you?
I mean, when you were just talking about the uchars in that Protestant or non precedent, you know what whatever he was called, in the way you articulated the argument I actually have never I don't think I've ever read it or heard it.
That way, and it sparked interesting me. So that's why I commented.
It was like, hey, I would actually like to formulate an argument against this potentially and bring it to you.
I didn't mean now.
Once I'm able to, but I did want to get some clarification on it because I think I might have some misrepresentations of it.
So first of all, if you read the debate between Pola Moss and the Barley Mind, which is an eighty page debate, the debate actually goes into what we partake of and how do we partake of God without compromising his simplicity. So I can tell you from the outset the idea that a strong real distinction in God compromising his simplicity is itself a problem in the Romancalolic position, because you believe that the persons are really distinct in
the trinity. So if real distinctions compromise it, you're already compromising it by being a sanitarian.
Okay, So yeah, that the composition issue. The other part of it was the.
Like the cappit Docians in Dionysius, they used to use language, and I could be wrong. I'm going out the top of my head processions, right, and like operations.
The word is still in the Greek inner gaea. I mean, you know that's in the New Testament, right.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, But did they ever posit a real metaphysical like divide from God?
Not a divide. It's a distinction, is not division. Just like when Basil makes the same argument about the persons, he says that the distinction between God and his energies or operations is no different than the distinction between the persons or the person and the nature and the triad.
Okay, what was the what was the the poalmus? And what was the other person?
Dialogue with the Barley of Mind is an eighty page book that is a debate on this very topic between a can Dinos and Barlem.
Okay.
And I think part of the problem is I'm not like I don't I'm not scholastic and full in the sense of like Aquinas and stuff, So like I had more Ciscotus on that side, So that might be some of my confusion.
Well, I mean, but Scotis doesn't really help the case, because a formal distinction doesn't really tell us anything about what we participate in. So in the dialogue that I'm recommending to you, the course of the argument proceeds from originally questions about composition and simplicity, and it eventually moves into Palamas, arguing, well, what do you think we participate in if there's not actual energies that are different from the essence, The Paloma synods end up using the terminology
of a different reality. The reality of foreknowledge cannot be identical to the reality of providence and the reality of the divine essence, because, for example, God does different things and does different works. So if for example, he creates a world over which he's provident, the exercising of the attribute of providence requires a world. But God did not eternally have a world over which he was provident.
You see.
So there has to be some distinction in God between energies that are potential or that are powers versus those that are actualized. And this is part of what the essence sentity distinction does to make the note that God does different things. God wrested from the work of creating, so he's not eternally creating.
Right.
Likewise, it says in Scripture and Zechari and in Isaiah and in the Book of Revelation that there are seven spirits of God and it lists those spirits as being upon the son of God. Does that mean there's seven holy spirits? Is God's wisdom? Knowledge?
Fear? Is that?
Are those things creatures?
So?
Well, did you hear what I said though, the seven spirits of God?
Well? No, obviously the have of not say that. That's I don't think I would.
Agree with that obviously, Okay, so are they? Are they the essence of going?
Well, that that's kind of that's my I think that's my next obvious question then, is like how do you have like are the energies actual ontological distinctions in God or conceptual distinctions?
Now, they're really different realities, not mere conceptual distinctions, because the reality of the divine essence cannot be identical to the reality of providence, because if the divine essence is necessary and eternal, then Providence is necessary and eternal. Then there's a world over which God is providential for all eternity necessarily.
So it is multiple realities.
That's the terminology that the palmit sonods used. Different distinct realities.
Okay, all right, that makes it and if you.
Look at one hundred fifty chapters, it's like ninety eight till like one oh three where palm moss E gauges in and reductio arguments to prove that there are different realities. And one of the arguments that he uses in those reductios is what you just heard me.
Use, okay, And you would probably believe that, like the entire Latin tradition fell into heresy because Palamas teachings were pretty much condemned in entirety, right, correct, So you would agree that the Latin tradition fell into heresy from that point or some point, Yes.
But particularly during the period of twelve seventy four alliance with the dogmatic definition of a double eternal hypostite procession. The response Council Blackerne, the Palomite Synods and the Council of Florence is the official departure. And there's a great orange book here called Palamas's Readings by Norman Russell, and it has all the Palomite Synods in it.
Is there.
Like pre schismatic language for the essence of energies.
Yes, letter two thirty four Basil says that we do not know or experience God's essence, but the energies or operations the energeia come down to us. You could look at Basils on the Holy Spirit, where he argues that one way that we know that the Holy Spirit is fully divined is that he has the same energy as the Father and the Son. To have the same energy signifies the same nature. You could look at Sat Maximus, a confessor who uses the energies all the time in
his polemics. In his dispute with Paris, he uses the energies. Saint Cyril of Alexandri uses the energies to help explain what it is that's going on in the Eucharist and what's going on in Christology. The Six Ecumenical Council, even in the Latins with Pope Agatho, says that Christ has two wills and two energies. That means he does different things. So to have Theophanes, for example, requires the essence energy stinction.
There's no other way. There's no other toolkit or system that explains or allows for the Theophanes to be real other than the orthodox theological system. And that's why all the Thomas have been openly denying it. In the last month on Twitter.
Interesting, Okay, And for the sake of sounding like reducing this to such a ridiculously simple.
Degree, what is like?
Uh So, in Eastern Orthodoxy, you guys believe that you guys are consuming the the divinity.
Obviously, obviously both sides believe that.
But what's the what would be the term that you would distinctly say is different between what we're consuming.
We believe that we're partaking of a deified flesh that is deified by the uncreated energies of Christ, and a Roman Catholic must believe in some way that it is a created reality that is the grace, the grace itself. We're not talking about the elements. We all know the elements are created. We're not talking about Christ's physical body, Okay, we know that's created. The grace itself in the Roman college system must be a created reality because it is not the essence of God.
Okay, So that's what I was going to, the essence, not the energy. Okay.
Well, no, I'm saying the Roman Catholic position it doesn't have the toolkit to explain it or to agree with Ephesus and Cyril, because they say, well, we're not eating the essence, So what is the divinity?
Then?
Well, if you read the polemight the debate between pallem Aus and Barlamite Barley ends up I said, I can I know something Barlin. Barlin ends up arguing, or maybe as Ichonis for you, but he ends up arguing that it's a created reality and he says, so there's created God and he says, yes, well that's polytheism.
Right, yeah, clearly, Okay, you might have asked one more question.
Sure, so if God, uh, obviously I think you'd agree, like, God's not subject to time or potentiality, right or would you disagree with that?
So the if you look at the Cappadocian teaching on first and second actuality, they point out that God has powers that he doesn't have to actualize. So from all eternity he has the power of creating. That does not mean that he has always been creating, you see. So that's the difference between the dunamis or the power and doing and acting on the power. Okay, so in that sense,
there's first and second actuality in God. But no Tomas would ever say that, because they would say that that necessarily means God undergoes change and that he's a creature. But the only way to maintain free will is to believe and to point to what we're talking about.
Yeah, and I don't know that Scotus would agree with the Thomas on that one.
But well hold on.
So uh.
Even so, the formal distinction of the attributes, the only analogy that it shares with quote pallemism is that it's a stronger level of a distinction between the attributes and the divine essence. But Scotism does not in any way help answer the dilemma of the Eucharist and what you partake of and whether the grace that we partake of
is uncreated. It doesn't even really go there. It's only a position about a quote formal distinction, which is really, according to critics, and I would even agree with the Thomas, it's kind of unclear as to what exactly that is. And you know, in the Patristic tradition, when you have the six Council or Maximus against Peuris at the sixth Council. In his book, like he's not using these Scotist ideas, he's just simply saying that now it's a real participation in uncreated energies okay.
And that leads to me just one more question, sorry, motion with God? Like would are you okay with God? Because you said I agree with the potentials. Actually they've always agreed with that. It always bugged me that the West kind of had issues with God's potentials.
I think the.
Protestant view actually, if you remember Calvinism, like the decreed will and the permissive will, that kind of think.
A line of thinking, well, this is more to do with what's possible for God to do in time and space. And so the ultimate difficulty here is number one, the Theophanes. But when Roman Catholics struggle with or deny a Theophanes, they don't even realize they're already negating the incarnation. Because the incarnation is the second hypostasis of the Godhead becoming incarnate in time and space. He's self limiting. So the Philippians two passage, the Kenosis passage, means that the second
hypostasis is willfully limiting himself in time and space. The Father is not becoming incarnate, the Spirit is not becoming incarnate. So you need a metaphysics and a toolkit that allows for one hypostasis to enter into a motive being that
the other two do not. But in Catholic absolute divine simplicity, reducing God to actus purists and so forth negates already the possibility of one hypostasis entering the time of space that the other two don't, because in their view, if God's reducible to essence, then it's the essence of God that became incarnate. It's just stupid, yeah, and that is.
It is something I've always had an issue.
I think the adoption of the Thomas view in such a grand sweep has been a problem with that. But so then you would say, like, if I wanted to argue against this, right, obviously I got to go do Like I've been working on the people and fallibility stuff for so long, I've been looking at your arguments for that.
Right.
Well, just look at Leviticus nine. It says that the glory of the Lord appeared visibly to all the people. Fire came down from God and consumed the burnt offering on the altar. When the people saw it, they shouted and fell in their faces. So here is a manifestation of divine glory. Nobody believes divine glory as a creature, as far as I've heard that would be idolatry just to assign to a created thing divine glory. I mean, that's definition of idea culture.
You would say that, like humans never see the God's essence.
Then correct, this is an energetic manifestation, a divine theophany, which is the divine energies in time and space.
This might be such a stupid question, but how would you reconcile that with Like, first John, what specific sorry specifically like we shall see him as he is.
Well? But in Tewo Corinthians three he ascribes that aschotological reality to the here and the now. He says, Moses saw Christ's face to face, and what was unique and rare in the Old Testament seeing Christ's face to face on the mountain of Mount Sinai is now available to the Orthodox in this life because glorification is here and now. That's Paul's argument in St. Corinthiy's three, what was unique in the Old Testament is now the norm for the
Christian of the New Testament. We see Christ face to face, he says. He says, moving from glory to glory, that's glorification here and now. So that's a reputation, by the way, of beatific vision.
So like First John three then and Red twenty two is like, for you guys, it's Jesus in that specifically Jesus in that view the incarnate face rather.
Than the it would be no essence of the Father or anything.
Well, John saying eschatologically that we will all see him as he is, does not deny it or negate that in this life we also see him as he is. For example, Stephen, when he's being stoned, he looks up into heaven and he sees the uncreated light shining off the face of Christ. He sees the uncreated glory here and now. So even the Book of Acts was Stephen's martyrdom, refutes the idea that First John is excluding anybody from seeing that until the escatone.
Okay, so just one last thing, just so, way, make sure I'm headed down the right pathway here as I try to, you know, engage this and hopefully come back with an actual argument.
Okay, that you would say that the main pinnacle of this thing is like that, I.
Would have to prove that we don't believe that the U Christ is a created and created energy.
I'm sorry, h Well, I mean it's already in Roman Catholic dogma that it is a creature. So you can look at Luluigot when he talks about sanctifying grace, he says, it is a It is not God himself, It is a supernatural created accident. So I think you're gonna have to unless you can show that aught is wrong there or something, I think you're going to have to go down the route of saying that's a created God.
So what would.
If you could articulate, like like what I was trying to do just now, which is like articulate the thing that I need to refute but object to.
Or rather, I guess, explain to me what the divinity is that you're partaking of in the Eucharist.
Okay, all right, that would be cool.
All Right, I'm gonna while while while I have you, let me show you exactly where, because we've already got Roman Catholics or people that are saying they're Roman Catholic. I don't know if they actually are.
Or not, but because I know that, I mean obviously like.
We we are partaking in the divine, like I understood that very basic essence or essence that's rock words for right now at a very basic level like that is with the Yuchs alvias Is and coming from Protestant theology, I for me, getting to the real presence point of view took you know, a while or whatever, blah blah blah. So now engaging this is just like it seems like a whole nother hill. But I mean, I think it's necessary.
It's probably I would say, one of the pinnacles screwed people and failability and stuff.
This is more important.
Actually, I agree with you because you know, when I was back in two thousand and seven eight, when I was kind of struggling between being Uniate or being Tradcat or being Orthodox, you know, I'll put a lot of time into papal stuff and I kept I found I found that I kept going just in circles with papal quotes and quote minds. And then then you find out about forgeries, and it's like, how am I I'm never getting anywhere with an infinite stream of papal quote minds.
And uh, that's when I started looking at the theological issues more specifically versus the ecclesiastical and ultimately that's what made me never go back to the Roman Catholic Church now. Uh, in this arguent article that I wrote many years ago, Roman Catholic absolute divine simplicity refuted. If you scroll down past a lot of the refuge references, eventually I get
to the section on created grace. And my argument is that created grace is solidified in a few different places, one of which is the Council of Trent, which talks about the fact that in baptism, when you're baptized, the grace that you're getting and the righteousness that you're getting is quote not God himself. It is not the righteousness or justice of God, but it is a created reality that makes you just That's in Trent Canon's ten and eleven.
And then if you go down to literally God, he says, this is the sections in the funnels of Catholic dogma on grace. Proposition number one is sanctifying grace is a created, supernatural gift really distinct from God. So there you go right there, and then literally contradicting that is proposition five. Supernatural grace is a participation in the divine nature.
Can you can you expand on that just a little bit in terms of like what the contradiction.
The divine nature is not a create your creature. So if sanctifying grace is a creation distinct from God, then it's not a part in the divine nature. But proposition five says that it's a participation in the divine nature.
Okay.
My immediate thought is the sanctifying grace as a created supernatural gift?
Is it has less to do with the.
I mean this is again the wrong word to use, but the material or essence of the euchris and rather the fact that.
We are partaking in it, which would allow for supernatural grace. No, that it actually doesn't work near mine? Okay. And this articles on.
Your site right, Yes, it's called Roman Catholic absolute divine simplicity refuted. And okay, the towards the bottom is the section on created grace.
Okay, yeah, I'll get this. And then you said Columbus the eighty chapter.
Yeah, the look, it's an eighty pages, it's not very long. It's called Dialogue with a barleyon Mite. Okay, And you can get that from NYU Press. It may be on Amazon. I'm not sure what why is this not a matter of debate more, We've been bringing it up for ten years.
What do you mean?
Like I keep seeing everyone debate again papal and fallibility.
Like, I feel pretty confident in arguing for that.
I feel pretty confident in arguing for the unity of the Church and all that stuff against the Eastern. But like this, I don't think I've ever seen an actual debate on this. Is there anything you can point me to that are remotely recent or now?
There's no Roman Catholics that are smart enough to debate it. They're stupid. I'm not being mean, it's just the fact the last time there was an attempted debate on this was just a conversation between me and Lofton eight years ago. Okay, so there's a conversation between me and Michael Lofton. You can still find it where I go through this book right here, dialogue between Orthodox and borlow Man. By the way,
it's free online. I don't even realize it's on. You could go to archive and just download it and print it out if you don't want to say it's only like twenty bucks.
Though, yeah, I'll probably do that, and I'll go through your article.
You will see, by the way, if you read this book, everything that you hear me, like the stuff that I argue, it's all just from this.
So does anything from Palamise like outside of this in his theology, you know, raise questions for you at all or no or it or you like is it? Do you think he was articulated as a heretic in those things, those that were done because they strictly flew in the face of the West.
Yeah, okay, yeah, I know. He's one of our pillars of worthotoxy so.
Right, okay, awesome, Yeah, dude, I appreciate your time, precio. I'm blocking it. I know we last time we had a fucking yeah.
Fat well that s there's a lot more civil conversations. I appreciate it.
Yeah, not me too, for sure.
So I'll hopefully come back and throw throw an argument together and you can shoot on it, so we'll see.
No appreciate it. And I think we've got another one here. Here's our other uni eate guy who's always wanted to throw in the uniate stuff. Oh, I just took a bunch of uniate argument notes. Go ahead, what's up? Are you there, Jim?
Jim?
Are you there? Bond? Since twenty five, he says, is Mount Tabor the only time that God the Father speaks to man. Well, God of every action or every theophany is triaddic. So no, but I think you're saying, like, is that the only time that we hear an energetic manifestation proper to the Father? Well, at christ Baptism, this is my beloved Son. So even though that's an energy proper to the Father, it is still triadic, right, just like the Theophanes in the Old Testament, those are proper
to the Son. They're still triadic. And there's still a sense in which it's the trinity as well. Now it's not the whole triad or the divine essence in time and space, but you never have, for example, the presence of the Son without the Father and the Spirit with him, because they endwell one another.
Right, So.
Where'd that gotta go? Jim? Where are you at?
Man?
Thought you're coming about? Here you go, Let's try again. I think Jim's a union.
Hey can you hear me?
Yep?
Hey can you hear me?
Oh?
Sorry, yeah, I was watching.
My question is on natural theology.
I was watching.
An interview with Richard Swinberg and Bradshaw.
And the thing to be advocating for natural theology in a certain way, and my experience with it is the Eastern northernox Church over the past century is kind of skeptical of natural theology that we don't really advocate for it, particularly would your.
Yeah. I mean I think doctor Bradshaw, like most academics, as probably being as charitable and as amenable as possible. The book that they put out about natural theology doesn't really even address the Orthodox critique until a very late chapter, and it basically just admits that. Yeah, some of the you know, famous Greek theologians have been critical of it, like Losky, some other Russian theologians too. I think I
mentioned about Britn's school. I forget who it says, but the point being is that, yeah, well of course we critique it. Losquit has many critiques of it. Stanielou has critiques of it.
Yeah, And is swin Bird an advocate of social trina pairing Trinny and Terroanism because a good question.
I don't actually know. I've read one critique of him. He's a He's a Thomist, so I don't understand why anybody wants to follow a Thomas and the Romanelly Church, but I mean Northup Church.
Yeah, he's so he's kind of a weird cat because he is Orthodox. He says he's Orthodox, but then he's like way off on some something.
I know exactly. Yeah, the best critique of the best critique of swinburn on this point is have you read Theistic Fallacies?
No?
Oh, you got to read this. So this is an article written by doctor Gariby and it's right here.
Uh.
He takes Swinburne as his chief example of someone to critique, and he just takes him to wich Wood Shed. Basically, all right, I'll check that out for doctor Gariby Theistic fallacies.
As I'll check that out.
And another thing is, you know, I don't I don't know if you realize, but the guys like you and let's say Joside trying to like uh, converts who started in you know, as as Protestants.
And major way all the way to Eastern Orthodoxy over the you know, just the vast amount of communications and information that's been available on the internet.
You know, I was born into Greek Greek Orthodoxy in the seventies and we had converts coming in and you know, they just couldn't assimilate. Now, as we've become second and third generation, it's changed and it said, you know, you go to your Russian Orthodox Church and there's not just Russians.
There's Americans, there's you know, Africans, there's Asians.
It's all the stuff. But dude, keep going because you don't.
I don't think you realize how like, really effective.
It is when you have someone from with you know, out like you or.
Josiah Trump coming in and like communicating to the Massis. And I'm surprised you're not like a lawyer for the ecumenical patriarchy or something like that, because you'd be awesome.
At well it'd have to be the CIA to do that, So I'm not I thank you for your appreciate your compliments. But stuff on DV fifteen dollars. The debate with Dasha was pretty cool. People don't understand how the internet works. Anyway. You see Islam taking over Western Europe. I'm in Switzerland, so our turn is coming soon. How is it in
the USA? Is it a good option to move there? Well, I've not been to Switzerland, so I can't speak to that, but I mean, as far as I can tell, the Nordic countries are being you know, islamicized as the rest of Europe America is definitely way behind on Islamisization. It has grown in the last few decades, for sure, So there are more Muslims in America than there ever have been.
I think, you know, we drove to Vegas a few months ago, and I noted that I saw, you know, mosques on Indian reservations, so you know, moss are popping up. But you don't see Muslims everywhere, you know, Like if you go to London, it's londona's dan right. I went in twenty nineteen. I give a talk there, and I mean, it's just Muslims everywhere, so it's not like that, but there's definitely more, so it would probably be a better experience.
I'm guessing depending upon where you move. Now, there's some places in the US that have been like flooded with Muslims, certain areas, so you might want to avoid those areas. But I thought I missed somebody super traid. Let me see Brandon Brands stutter for two dollars. Have you seen Michael Horton's video on soul scripture? Now, I don't I mean people, I think people think I keep up with all these Protestant dudes, like I don't keep up with
an these people. In fact, people were asking me questions about did you what about Dasha and Hurricane connections to Bronze Age pervert and this and that and the Bronze Age. I don't know anything about any of that. I mean, I know who Bronze Age pervert is. I don't track and keep up with who's attending what event and who's part of Oh, that's part of the Peter Teele network and this and that. I don't just don't know this stuff, Like if you create your own content and do this
stuff all the time. By the way, I've been writing Esa Clay with three of the last six months one year. I don't have time to keep up with who's attending damn socialite events. I just don't have time for him.
Bro Us and.
Scott Horton Sola script Solo solo Solar panel, Solar Scripture. I don't even know what Scott Horton looks like. Is that this boomer do here solo media? Is this him? So ten thousand views? This is pitiful, dude. Like when I hear the name Michael Horton, I think I thought it was like a young guy. This is Michael Horton. He looks like he looks like somebody's like dying uncle. I didn't realize he was that old, but whatever, Look he's me and he's me right, raife Ralph Silky ten
dollars Jay explain Calvin Robinson's version of Catholicism. It's very unusual.
I don't know what his view is. I mean, I don't like I just asked him to come to a debate twice and he just flipped out, so like he's got this weird like superiority condescension complex that how dare you ask me to debate you and your This just shows you know how bad you are and this is your stick and this and that, and I'm like, did all I did was send you a DM saying would you like to have a debate about the Philly oquay
or orthodoxy? Gethalsis? I mean, he sends me this big, nasty like this is why you're such a piece of trash, why you're so evil. It's like this is what people like, Why would you post dms? Because people think that they think that I'm just like this randomly just rude person, like I'm just going around being rude. Well, you publicly said that he was scared. Yeah, after I DMed him twice over several months to see if you'd like to have a conversation. And now, oh, he's now becoming a
branch of old Catholics. Well guess what. Old Catholics are. A bunch of skittles and spooks if you didn't know, and a bunch of occultist. So that's even worse that he thinks he's an old Catholic. By the way, there was an old Catholic weirdo guy following me and tweeting at me, and I'm pretty sure he was Skittles and I ended up blocking that dude. We had a meltdown.
By the way, why again, as I said at the very beginning of the stream, like educated people are supposed to expect to have people pushing back and asking to do a formal debate. All you have to do is say no. But he acts like, oh my gosh, look at the audacity that someone would ask me to do a public formal debate about the Philly OK, what's up, hello, Jake?
Uh My question is more gear towards how would you convince someone that is a theist of Christianity in particular as somebody that's gotten to the point where I am convinced generally of the existence of a God.
How would you get me to the point of Well, I'm not trying to be read to you, but like today, the topics are very specific. They're specified as Protestant, Calic Orthodox, So we're not doing deism today, we're not doing atheism. If you do want to talk about that, definitely look for another situation, Scott Grace, This looks like a Protestant man here, he's got Protestant pastor vibes.
What's up, Scott, Hey, j how's it going. So?
I was calling in today because I wanted to debate perseverance.
Of the Saints.
Well, okay, that goes along with the rest of Tulip right, So are you a full on Calvinist or you just want.
To do that one?
Uh, that one in particular, although I would be totally open to doing more in the future. So there's a lot of different ways that we can go with this debate. I know it's very nebulous.
Well let me ask you this question for it, like do you so? I mean, for for example, a person could be an Augustinian and believe in the perseverance that gifts of the perseverance and also believe that you fall away and apostotize. So are you are you defending a full Calvinists position or Augustinian position or what.
I would say the position would be more Calvinist in nature, because I believe that if someone is truly saved that they will persevere to the end.
I don't know if that clears anything up, but well.
I mean, this seems like no true Scotsman fallacy to just read state what it means to quote be truly saved, because for example, in Hebrew six people partake of the Holy Spirit. They eat of the you know, a good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then they can apostatize.
So when we're talking about this topic, I would refer to Versus in John for example. Within the context of the verses, you know, they talk about that they were with us, they participated in church, they were believers, but since they left, it proved that they were never really with us.
Well, that's one class of people who might have been subverters or infiltrators. But there's another class of people in Hebrews, say who partake of the gift of the Holy Spirit and the life to come, and who fall away.
So with the first verse, we don't exactly know if they were infiltrators, I think, and it's okay to read into the text. You may be right on that, but we don't exactly know. Just looking at the verse in itself, I think it's easy to come away with some underlying principle.
But even in John ten it talks about it.
You're missing the point. You're missing the point.
Well not Paris, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
You're missing the point. So I understand what you're saying about first John, but I'm saying that it doesn't matter if in that situation those people were never amongst us or whatever. When you go to Hebrew six, there is clearly another class of people who do have a partaking of the heavenly gift and the Holy Spirit and taste of the word of the Word of God and the age to come, and they fall away.
Yes, So I want to address that now as well. So with that verse, I don't think.
That that's necessarily a concrete example, because we also see that in the end times when people come to Christ and he says I never knew you. Their response is that we prophesied in your name, We cast out demons in your name.
Sir, assuming that there's one senseil knowing.
Hold on, hold on, clearly you can have gifts of the spirit. I mean, Judas was a part of the Twelve Apostles. He was out there healing people.
What does it mean to be enlightened in the New Testament?
Explain what it means to me.
I would say, to have an understanding of Christ, have an understanding that the God had nobody.
And what does it mean to become a partaker of the spirit, That you.
Are participating in things of the Holy Spirit. So you're going to church, you're partaking in the sacraments.
Things like that.
Okay, so you just redefine it to be everything external and nothing internal, because enlightenment is not external.
I would agree it's internal as well.
Just wait a minute, so now it's internal.
Internally, Okay, that doesn't necessarily.
Can they can they spring up? Can it be a springing up to new life? Like the Parable talks about the Parable of the Sower.
Well, I would say, if you have if you're reborn, if you're reborn in Christ, then I would say that you were saved individual.
Does the parable of the sewer? Does the parable of the sower mention a new life that springs forth and dies? Yes, but you just said if new life springs forth, you can't die.
I would have to study the context of that verse.
For sure, child papist. Can you explain Calvin Robbins Catholicism. I don't know. It's the lowest common de nominator. Anglican branch theory is kind of the proto Ecumenism. It's the origins of Ecumenism. So Calvin Robinson's version of it seems to go from Anglican to old Catholic to who knows, So it's not Catholicism. It's lowest common de nominator proto ecumenism, child papist, I'm you.
I had a question on a actus purist and divine simplicity and stuff. It just sounds like a repeat. Feel free to like cut me off and directly to like a source where you've already explained it. But I'm in this medieval philosophy class and I'm trying to write against actus purists, and one argument that they use is that I try to say that, well, actus purists can't work
because then guy would have to be eternally acting. And they say, oh, well he could have willed eternally to act at that particular time, Like what, I don't know how to respond to that.
Well, I mean, the Vine revelation says that he ceased from the work of creating, so that alone should be enough to refute God as identical to act as peers. If you watch the debate between Bradshaw and Toomashevsky, the Tomas this comes up and Tom Bradshaw says, well, when it says God rested from creating, it seems like he's not doing something that he was doing. And Thomas says, hmm, good point.
Yeah, what's what's that called? Bradshaw?
I think it was on Sue on Sona's channel, and it's like Bradshaw and I don't even know how to spell that guy's name, Tomas. But if you look up Sue on Sona's channel, I forget to do it's something like intellectual conservatism or I don't forget, I remember his channel is.
So it couldn't be the case that if he ceases from creating, like, it couldn't be the case that he could have just willed to stop creating at that point in time eternally.
Well, the point is that his will is identical to his essence intumism.
Oh right, yeah, I guess that's true.
Okay, So his channel is intellectual Catholicism.
Excuse me, and welcome to this episode of intellectual If you go to.
His channel, you can search for Bradshaw actual catholicismshaw Okay, and it's the second one that comes up. It's Palmism and Thomism Bradshaw and Christopher Tomaszewski.
Okay, I see it. Thanks. Yeah.
So they actually have a pretty extended discussion on this specific topic that would be perfect for you.
All right, thank you.
Yeah, that's a great question. Also, if you really want to get into it, you can to get uh doctor tikon Pino's dissertation book right here. It's Essence and Energies, Being and Naming God in Secretary pemas.
Uh.
I think we're gonna do last one. I'm getting pretty tired, Hawsani, what's up?
Dog m?
What's on your mind?
You that it's a little bit off topic, so of you.
You there, you're cutting out, man, We can't heard you. Last one. Nico Damus.
What's up, Dudek. Good on you, Niko Davis, you want to I'm you?
Hello, Jay, thanks for taking me on. Glad I got these in. I got some questions that are kind of threw me off a bit. I heard another content creator who is identified as Orthodox make some claims that I've.
Heard for the first time.
So would you mind telling what.
You believe the official Orthodox stances on these two things? I greatly appreciate it, sure, thanks sir. The first one is about John the Baptist being the last prophet.
That's the first time I ever heard of that.
Well, I think Jesus says that in Luke sixteen sixteen, so he says that the law and the prophets were until John, and since that time the Kingdom of Heaven has preached. So it's definitely the term profit is used for appalls and people in the New Testament, but I think it's a different sense from what we think of as the office of an Old Testament prophet, because Christ
is the final prophet, priestinc king. So you do see people like Agabus and you know others in the Book of Acts who have the gift of prophecy, and we would agree that you know, saints have clairvoyance or the gift of prophesying, and prophesying, by the way, is also just preaching, it's not just predicting the future. So but in this in the Old Testament sense, yes, I think Luke sixteen sixteen is saying that.
I see.
So in other words, a prophet and prophet and prophecy is not exactly one and the same two separate things as well. All right, my god, thanks, Well, I just.
Think there's a difference in like the what we think of as an Old Testament prophet like Ezekiel or Malachi, and you know what they're looking forward to versus what Jesus says is the end of that era, that age, right, he says that the law and the profit if it's work until John and since that time the Kingdom of Heaven has preached. And that's Luke sixteen sixteen.
Okay, all right, So the gifts that we get, like you're saying, the clearvoyants and so on, that's a little different than.
Than than that. Okay, all right.
So the second thing was the Theodore was being sinless. Again, that's a new one to me too. Is that an official orthodox belief that the.
Yeah, so I have a video that you could do that's it's a lengthier take on this because we have a much more fleshed out, sort of holistic view that Mary was also predicted in the Old Testament, and so she's the new Eve. She's what is the Temple of Ezekiel forty four? She has the door that opens and never that the Messiah goes through, but it's never opened, so she's ever virgin. So there's a lot of things that go into this, as well as Revelation twelve Queen
of Heaven. So our dog of the Spotless version, which is not the same thing as the Roman Catholic Immaculate conception teaching our doctrine is derived from a lot of passages, interpreting those passages as well as church tradition. So now there's not an explicit text that says Mary is the Simleus version. But thank you for that question. We'll go to Hasani and a couple of other other people getting I'm just getting really tired, so you guys can call back in next time. Last supper.
What's up?
If you go to YouTube my video and Mary. The longer video it's called Veneration of Mary in the Bible or something like that. What's up last day, last.
Supper on your whistle, Jake Hey, So I was reading up on sing Guria Poulamas, and in the section the Philolia in the defense of those who devoutly practice the life of Stillness, if you're going down to section eleven, he mentioned Saint Nilos of Italy.
St.
Nilos of Italy and then and Elias, which I believe they're both from Colabrio. But the interesting thing about Nilos is that he founded the monastery of Gratto Ferrada, and after this schism they still remained a Byzantine Greek monastery, but they were they were in communion with Rome.
So it's it's really interesting because Saint Nilos is mentioned by Saint Gregory Palamas, and then the nearest saint to him was after the schism, I believe in ten sixty, which is Saint Peter of Gratto Ferrada. So if they never accepted the created grace, which is uh, is that totalistic the created grace?
Ultimately? I mean, I think it's in Augustine, but yes, Tim Bose of them.
Oh gotcha?
Okay?
Well either way though, I was just kind of like wondering like what would make their or taking in the communion become in vain or like not Orthodox if they were sticking to the teaching of Nilos, who who founded the monastery.
Because yeah, I mean, I don't I don't have a I don't have a problem saying that, you know, I want to have as much flexibility during that period as possible. So I mean it's not like I think that the severance comes not so much when things are unclear, but when people affirm like lions or something like that.
Gotcha. So it's a little bit later.
Than that, I would say. So, yeah, I mean, I'm sure that probably a lot of people in the in those places at that time probably had an Orthodox conception.
It's interesting because that monastery is still there today.
So if they never accepted the.
The kind of Western claims, but they still stayed in community with Rome.
Well it's not I mean it's like eventually though, like being quote in community with Rome means that you are also by you know, by default accepting the Roman Catholic cumenical councils and the things that they reject. So you know, when exactly that is, I don't know where is this, Where is this.
Can you tell me what it's see? I was listening to it on on audio then I had to find it. So it's in in the defense of those who.
Developed No, no, no, where's the monster. I'm just curious because we were.
In it all. It's called it's in. I don't think it's in collaborate it's in. Uh, it's a it's near Roome.
Okay, because we went to a lot of places. I'm trying to see if we Oh, I don't think we went here.
Grotto Ferrata, it might be the town actually, Okay.
That's a metropolitan city of the Roman capital and founded by Saint Nihiles the Younger.
Yeah, I believe that's the same. Uh.
Nilis that Saint Gregory Palamas mentioned Nilas of Italy Rosano. It's crazy because Barlin comes from Calabria too, but obviously that's much later. He doesn't have ties to this this Nilus who is from Calabria as well, and is from Calabria as well too.
I'm just trying to remember if we went here, because it looks kind of familiar, but like there's one million churches.
Would you go last year?
Yeah?
Yeah, I wasn't a last year too.
You were you on our coverage? No, No, I wasn't, okay, gotcha? All right? Well, thanks man, I appreciate your comments. I just can't remember if we went to this place or not. We went to so many places. How Sonny? What something?
Man?
Try again?
Hey, Jake, you hear me better?
Now?
All right?
Cool?
Yeah, it's a little bit off topic, but since I'm like the last one, I thought it would be cool.
Did you take a question?
It's actually like kind of two questions, like kind of about feminism.
Is that fine? Yeah?
All right?
Cool.
I wanted to see if you if.
You saw what Andrew the whole Andrew and you know, Tommy learning thing on Perris Morgan.
I'm not seen that yet, but I did watch all of the Jake Rattlesnake Jim Bob debate last night, gotcha?
I did.
Well, see it's the other way around for me. I didn't get to watch that yet, but I'm gonna watch.
It's the dullest I've ever seen in my life.
God, I know, uh that not so aarondyke chick was up there.
She's she's one of the most pretentious, annoying motherfuckers on the internet.
Man, So well, the the guy, the vet guy is just as bad as hers.
So yeah, from from what I saw in the comments, he's like a like was he just simping and saying.
Like what was he doing? Well, he was a perfect feminist because he let her talk most of the time.
So yeah, yeah, then that checks out. She and she does like the talk, so that that definitely checks out. But the whole Andrew thing was it boiled down to one question.
He literally just because obviously, you know, she started off.
Saying how men, how men today? Or this or that we femin and blah blah blah, and his rebuttal was was one simple question, and she spurreed, she spurred out, and a pissed off Peers didn't allow Andrew to press it on it.
He literally just asked, through, what are women's duties?
Two men? And obviously and obviously the application not.
Just not just men, but to society at large, and her her immediate response was and then well, when he asked her specifically, the first thing she said was I'm a successfully independent woman. And then she she said that her husband's a fucking baseball manager or some it's just some some brain dead it's hard at like covert feminist takes.
Let me pull it up. We'll say, hello, how long is yeah?
As short as like?
If you just find the clip where it's him asking her and then her giving her immediate response, it should be less than a minute and a half, so you will you'll probably be able to.
Pull it up real quickly.
All right, yeah, I'm looking here. Let's see. Appreciate that I don't want a thirty minute explanation of it. Let's see if this is it. Everyone knows you need a lawyer after a car accident injury. But what if I told you there's a better way.
One look at.
The conservative check We all she is in some closet.
I don't want his commentary. I just want the clip.
I don't know.
Maybe we'll try to find it tomorrow. Some my mind as much. JB three two dollars. Have you been to Greece? No, I've only been to Italy, Rome, a lot of places in Italy and London. Actually was gonna go degrees and then koof happened, so that never happened. Snapping like UFA boy two one who is a genius, best thinker in Orthodoxy. I mean we've got quite a few, you know, really accomplished scholars, doctor Branson, doctor Bradshaw, Uh, doctor Tikon Pino.
I'm sure there's many more, doctor Vinnie Ahman Larshay. I mean there's there's a bunch ed faith before fortune five dollars. I love what you do, brother, pull me out of the mid with madness. I hope you're willing to form an opinion on the religious freedom socck I brought up. Uh, you mean the Church, you're the founding Fathers. I mean, I just I don't. I mean, I don't know what to say, Like, I don't know if there is a
real consistent position. Again, I've said many times I think that the Founding Fathers are a mix of Enlightenment, Deism, Masonry, Episcopalianism, Catholicism. Even with the Carrol family, I mean there's a lot of things going in Baptists, so it's somewhat Christian. But anyway, that's about it. Everybody have a good night, and I got to work on the new Sam Heights, So look forward to uh Sam Hides episode five and six. That's gonna be fun, or wait, episode four and five, forget
which one we're on. Really relentless twenty bucks