The FTX collapse, the Voyager collapse, the Celsius collapse, and this allowed the normies to say bitcoin, crypto dead. That is no longer the case. We're back at post halving precisely on time, almost on time, right, one hundred k bitcoin,
So we're only I don't know what it is. I haven't looked at it in a while, but we were in the nineties of this morning, so we're only about ten percent eight percent away from one hundred k bitcoin, which will put it where we expected it to be via the Plan B stock to flow chart, and Plan B has in his model what year is this around twenty twenty six, And again this could be a little late, right, it could be over here twenty twenty seven. One million
dollar big one. I absolutely believe we're gonna have one million dollar bigcoin. I believe we're gonna have one million dollar bitcoin. When we had three thousand dollars bitcoin. That's when I first figured out what this was. And the point I'm making here with all this is it's not about when's the right time. It's if you think long term, if there's million dollar bitcoin in twenty twenty seven, you will wish you were buying ninety thousand dollars bitcoin. Do
you see what I'm saying? And when there's one hundred thousand, when there's million dollar bitcoin, there will no longer be one one hundred thousand dollars bitcoin. I mean, when bitcoin gets to a million, the crash will be to like three or four hundred thousand whatever I'm most likely and this isn't perfect, but whatever the cycle top is this cycle, which could be two fifty three hundred. If we have crazy balls banana zone, we could have three hundred thousand
dollars bitcoin buy May June July. That will probably be the cycle top, right. And then if we have a crash down to worst case scenario sixty seventy eighty thousand by the time we get to one million dollar bitcoin in twenty twenty six seven, that means the crash will be the previous cycle top to fifty three hundred. So
there you go. So what should that What that should tell you is DCA if you're not a big level investor with a lot of money and you want to do big things or whatever, like if you're a working class person, what I would do. I'm not telling I can't tell you what to do. But what I would do is I would DCA and I would make BTC my savings account. That's what I would do. I would not put my savings account in dollars, but I can't tell you. If you want to do that, that's up
to you. Some people think gold's a safer If you want to do that, that's up to you. However, if you chose gold throughout this time frame, you made a dumb decision. I mean, you missed out on I mean the last ten years of your savings in gold versus the last ten years of your saving in bitcoin. I mean, come on, we've shown this chart many times. Do you want like a two x or do you want like one hundred x? Okay, it's not rocket scienceer. And that goes into why bitcoin as far as superior to gold?
And I played many videos. I think the best video proving that bitcoin is superior to gold is the Mark Moss video. What did he title that as?
Really?
He actually shows you with a lot of mathematics. I think it's the video already says how do we get to a million dollar bitcoin or something like that? Let's see, it's not this, it's from like I think it's this one. How math shocking math to how bitcoin could reach forty three million. Now he's saying forty three million by like, you know, twenty forty, right, he's talking about way down the line if we have global adoption. For those that
don't know, Bitcoin just flips silver. Silver's market cap was just surpassed by Bitcoin's market cap. And as Max Kaiser said on Alex yesterday, the next logical step bitcoin will flip the market cap of gold. Now people laughed and said it would never flip silver. It just did. How do we get to flipping gold? Flipping gold is leads us to a nine hundred k bitcoin, So gold like
seventeen trillion. If bitcoin flips gold, that means each bitcoin is literally nine hundred k. So we're almost at a million dollars, so basically a million dollar bitcoin when we flipped gold. And I'm pretty sure this is the video where Mark Moss explains how you get to that level of flipping gold. Yes, I think this is it your gold here he's somewhat gold standard, yes, And this is where he explains exactly and precisely why bitcoin is superior
even to gold. And I hate I'm not trying to hurt gold bugs feelings in the chat, and a lot of people love gold. Let me tell you, I'll I'll give you an example though. In twenty nineteen and twenty nine,
I didn't have like a huge amount of goal. I think I had about thirteen thousand dollars in gold, like actual physical gold, right, So I had a nice little pile of gold and I sold all of that in twenty nineteen and put it on into bitcoin because I was convinced at that time as well, this is this and I don't remember what what bitcoin is that I I might have gotten one bitcoin out of that, don't remember,
but like I was convinced even then. Oh wait a minute, this is this is a period waste of periit to gold gold gold is like, we're not going back to conquistador. Okay, We're not gonna be a Viles and Magellan floating around on ships with you know, giant treasure boxes full of gold toaballoons and Spanish medallions or whatever. Okay, that's just not we don't We live in the digital world, people, and so doesn't it make sense of have a digital money? Well, of course it was anyway, Uh, if you get me
talking on this I'll ramble forever. So I'm not gonna keep going on this topic. I got I gotta get to get some coffee, and we got we gotta get our Mormon bro in Here, Nick sends another amazing wow, one hundred dollars super chat. I have enough BTC. I don't rely on super chats to a living stick to the topic, bro, I'm gonna talk about whatever I want to in any video. So again, uh, your passive aggressive of sending me money but then dissing me kind of
a weird flex here. So I'm glad that you have BTC, But if you're really into BTC, you would know that all BTC people want to evangelize BTC because we believe it's ethical money. We believe it's the future of you know, fair and balance financing such that the government can't steal from you. And so I will always talk about bitcoin on my streams, and I appreciate you donating, But like, if you want to preach at me, you can just keep your money, man, Nick, fifty dollars, You're bitcoin analysis
is so low tier? Why are you giving me money to tell me that my should is low tier? Why don't you play a bit Boy video for well, Bitboy was a scammer who pushed all kinds of scam coins, so why would my coin analysis be at the level of bit Boy. By the way, I'm all refund your superchats so you don't need to keep sending me super chats, and I don't care how much money you want to flash at me. Let's just go to streamline. I'm want to block you and refund your money because I don't
like your attitude. Let's see, let's go to tipping tip history and I am gonna refund his money. So let's see, let's hit refund refunded that one, yes, refund the second one yes, and hit block Yes. Take your shitty attitude elsewhere. All right, Uh, we have a message from our sponsor. Our sponsors, of course, chalk dot com the best and supplementation. You can't beat chalk dot com. I'm gonna tell you.
Let let chalk tell you about themselves, and don't go anywhere in the chat over here on X I'll be right back.
I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dies and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences.
There's a new.
Certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and
effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode colored with organic blue spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry, and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract, which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts. Chad Mode will allow you to fire your boss and dominate anyone who opposes you. Chad Mode will make you more dominant in your daily life, so
proceed with caution. It's as simple as mixing one or two scoops of our fine powder into water or juice, providing you with a delicious, energizing beverage featuring a burst of sweet organic fruit flavor. Chad Mode will give you the extra edge you desperately crave. Don't miss out. Secure your supply of chad Mode on TikTok shop with a limited time massive discount. Elevate your workouts and supercharge your days. Not for your average jimbrozoomer who consumes synthetic blue dyes
on the daily. Buy on the TikTok shop now with a massive discount provided by TikTok for a very limited time. Buy now while This is still available, or go to Chuck dot com and use code in caption. Chad Mode has been flying off the shelves because it's the first of its kind, certified for Alpha males only. Do not buy. If you are a beta. We will refund your money. I'm gonna put you on something crazy real quick. Most of these zoomer Jimbros are consuming macro guzzling synthetic dyes
and synthetic sweeteners on the daily. They don't even know it. Goofy af. There's nothing great about that. Do not listen any further unless you are an Alpha or Sigma male. This is important and there could be consequences.
There's a new.
Certified Sigma male pre workout powder for sigmas only. It is guaranteed to empower you to dominate your co workers, fire your boss, aggressively, gamble, or invade a small village. Chad Mode stands out from the crowd by excluding artificial flavors, preservatives, sweeteners, and dyes. We've even avoided so called natural flavors, which are actually not natural at all, ensuring a clean and
effective formula. Experience the pure goodness of chad Mode. Colored with organic blue Spirolina extract, organic lemon cherry and organic maple crystals. Forget synthetic caffeine made in a sketchy Chinese lab. Embrace the natural power of organic green coffee bean extract which will get your mind going and pump you up to the max. Chad Mode is made in America with all clean ingredients, the first clean pre workout of its kind.
Why are these people adding synthetic sweeteners to every single pre workout when there are many studied downsides to consuming nasty fake sucralose. Each dose of chad Mode contains the kick of a cup and a half of coffee, delivering a surge of energy alongside essential vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and herbal extracts.
Chadmark Welcome back. Remember head on over to chalk dot com. That is c choq dot com, the best in supplementation that you can find out there on the world wide Web. They are our sponsor. They provide the best in terms of really strict purity guidelines for their products, so you know you're getting really truly rainforest sourced. Actually not joking.
If you go look up the ton catile ee and those products, you will find that it is one in percent purely sourced from rainforest sources, and their products do not contain any genetically modified gibberish, crap toxicity, nothing like that. If you go over there and use the promo code J forty jy four zero, you'll get forty percent off all those products if you want to test it out, if you're new to chalk or you can use the
promo code J forty four life. That's JAY four four L I f E to get forty four percent off those products. But remember that is a subscription model, and you can unsubscribe at anytime if you need to, so you get a little better of a discount if you utilize that time. Utilize that, assume that promo code. All people talking about info wars. No, bitcoin is not unregulated.
Fiat bitcoin is the opposite of fiat. I mean there is a technically speaking, there is a quote fiat element in the issuance of bitcoin in terms of the halving, but it is not fiat because it is capped at twenty one million. Open up stream yard. I don't have stream yard, dummy, Just why are you spamming the chat?
I've never used stream lard Yard if you want to call in to debate, you call in here right here at the status or excuse me, the X link so you can call in there on X and I recommend you check out the ton Kettlee It's my favorite, again proven to boost test austerone. I think Chalk said that there's going to be some Friday sales, so we're actually
going to have some Friday sales elements to push. If you want to keep paying attention, there might be some good discounts coming up Friday, but as for right now, utilize those promo codes to get access to four percent off that performance stack. You can also utilize the Male Vitality Stack there. It's a little bit less the maximum Performance Stack, which is you know, two chunks of that Chad mood stuff is crazy. It's really strong, so be careful. And then for the ladies too, we have ten percent
of this audience is ladies dudes, which is fine. I'm okay with all of the dude bros. But for that ten percent of ladies, there is also the female Vitality Stack as well. If you are into health fitness and utilizing products that will accompany your GEM attendance, your workout attendance, your healthy diet. So to the Bajete dude that was going crazy in the chat, you're welcome to come and debate. I don't know what you're telling me to open up
stream yards. I don't use string yards. Okay, Ben, let's go to Ben. What's up man? I did a whole video called election Predictions. What do you mean you can't find it? It's literally right there on the channel, Ben, what's up making I'm mute?
Oh? Hey, hey nothing?
How are you good? What's on your mind?
Well?
I just saw you included Mormon in the title.
So I wanted to.
Talk to you about that.
Sure. Yeah, we had a Mormon guy come in about the first hour, but that didn't go so well. So you're welcome to make any arguments or haven't. If you have any questions or anything you want to present, you're welcome to it.
Sure.
So first off, you're.
Are you like any particular We're Orthodox or Orthodox Christianity, so like.
Okay, So I I served an LDS.
Mission in Russia.
That's Russian Orthodox, so I'm kind of familiar with that. But there's there's not really too many significant differences between the different.
Orthodox churches, right, no between strictly speaking Orthodox churches. No, they have the same dogmatic decrees, confession and catechism, et cetera. All right, cool, did you have to learn about like Russian Orthodoxy before you went there?
I mean I did just out of curiosity. The missionary training is pretty like standardized, and it's just about our core doctrine because it's like you get, it's eighteen year old kids, so it's.
Like you just.
You just have to like teach the basics.
You know.
But yeah, so.
I'm down to debate about any issue.
I feel like, I feel like the main.
Issue that the LDS have differently from the Orthodox, well, obviously we have the Great Apostle see that no other Christians really believe in. But then there's also trinitarianism.
Well, how about this topic? You know, in the in the all the translations that precede the translations that Joseph Smith did in Luke sixteen sixteen, Jesus says the law and the prophets were until John, and since that time the Kingdom of Heaven has been preached and everyone is pressing into it. Now. This to us, along with Galatians one eight and Jude three, teaches us that there's essentially an end to the prophetic line. We don't need nor do we have any prophets or new prophets or new
divine revelations after the death of the apostles. And so if that's the case, that automatically cuts out any cult, religion, or sect, be it Muhammadism or Mormonism, that purports to have a new prophet with new divine revelations.
Okay, So it's Luke sixteen, I read through that, And what was the other one.
Jude Jude three? The faith is once we're all delivered to the saints, speaking of in Jude's day Jude three, and then Galatians one, particularly round verse eight, where Paul says that there can never be any new gospel or new revelations, even by an Angel, that differs from the revelation of the Gospel that Paul has in the New Testament.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, so uh okay, So I guess I'll address those scriptures just.
Oh my gosh, I gotta stop.
Looking at chat Uh.
One by one.
Okay, So, Luke sixteen, I guess. So, first of all, would you agree that there's no one thing of scripture like everyone that reads scripture, there's like a few different meanings that you can glean from the same.
Set of words.
Well, in the Orthodox tradition and the history of the Church, both East and West, we have the idea that there's layers and levels to scripture. So this is sometimes called the quadraga or the four levels of scripture. The literal level, which is kind of the immediate historical, grammatical historical context.
There's the anagogical, there's a tropological, and the allegorical. So those layers and levels, though, can never differ or contradict the immediate grammatical historical, So there's a kind of limitation on any kind of over allegorizing or over speculative hermeneutic that we might use. So in one sense, I could say, yeah, I think that the scriptures are deep, and they have, if you want to simplify it, a literal meaning and
then a quote spiritual meaning. But that has nothing to do with whether or not there could be contradictory interpretations of texts that are quote valid. There are no contradictory interpretations.
That are valid, Okay, I mean I can so contradictory with the overall Gospel message.
Right, contradictory in any sense, whether it's the Gospel message, or whether it's contradicting other Bible texts, whether it's contradicting basic principles of logic, reasoning, et cetera. There's no possibility of the revelation having multifaceted and quote interpretations that contradict because that would be a form of postmodernism or relativism. Yeah, no, I agree with that. Okay, okay, cool.
So the main versus sixteen then in Luke sixteen sixteen, the law of profits were until John. Since that time, the Kingdom of God has preached in every man presses into it. So I mean, I I mean, I agree with that.
I agree with the Well, how would you agree with that if Jeb's a smith is a prophet giving new revelation eighteen hundred years later.
Well, I don't think it says in that specific verse that there won't be subsequent profits.
Well, if the lineage of profits in the Old Testament sense ends that John the Baptist, it does say that.
Well, it says they.
Were in til John.
And this is Jesus speaking like while like during I don't know if John was alive.
At this point.
I mean, this is like in the timeframe of John. He's saying, along the profits were intel John, just.
Because he's not.
Saying he's saying that this thing happened, the law and the prophets were to tell John, and the law in the Kingdom of God was preached. So he's to me, he's giving like historical contexts for the lesson he's teaching. He's not making a statement about prophetic line ending.
Are you aware that in the Joseph Smith translation he changed this verse to not say what it says in every previous translation. Yeah, oh you are.
Yeah.
Well it's funny because what he changed it to says and they said, unto him, we have the law and the prophets. As for this man, we will not receive him to be our ruler. So that's Luke sixteen sixteen in the Joseph Smith translation. So all the previous all the previous manuscripts say what I'm saying. Joseph Smith translates this to say what it doesn't say, which.
Will there's Have you read verse seventeen in the Joseph Smith's translation.
They said, unto him, the law and the prophets testify of me, and the prophets that have written even until John foretold of these days. That does not say that the law and the prophets were until John, because were until John. Suggests that there's no more prophets in that Old Testament sense now that John came. Why is that? Because John is the announcement, the announcer of the coming of the Messiah. Now that Jesus has come, the role
of an Old Testament prophet is done. There are no more over old tipmate prophets, because the finality of revelation, as Hebrews One says, Are you familiar with the way Hebrews The one says that in former times God spoke to us in various ways and in various means, via the prophets, via science, symbols, etc. In these last days, he has spoken to us through his son. There's a
finality to this such that anyone after this time. And you may not know this, but a few centuries after the death of the Apostles, there was a group called the Montanists. Have you heard of them? No? So, the montanus existed around second century into the third century, and they were a quasi quote charismatic group that resurrected this idea that hey, there's new revelations, and Montanus is the
voice and mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. And because of these new revelations, what was prior revealed in the Bible and the Old Testament, in these in these New Testament passages and texts that were circulating, that's now superseded by
the new direct revelations of Montanus. The Church at that time, explicitly in ecumenical councils and in local synods, rejects the entire premise of Montanus as a new prophet and voice of the Holy Spirit because of what I'm saying, which is that there are no new prophets and no new revelations after the death of the apostles. There's a finality to divine revelation, and that means that all cults and sex be they Islam be they Mormonism are false religions.
Okay, So first.
First all address the scriptures, and then I'll address the Montanism.
Have you heard of Tertullian?
Oh? I can I address those things? You can?
I'm just trying to kind of jog your memory, maybe help with associations. You know what Tertullian is? No, no, So he's the most famous second century patristic writer theologian. His name Tertullian. So if you were familiar with church history, you would know that the most famous writer of the second century became a Montanist. He went into the cult of Montanus and fell for this delusion, and that's why he's not believed to be a saint in the Orthodox
or Catholic churches. So I'm just giving you an example of a historical time frame and a person that you could look to to say, ah, here's a guy. Second
century Tertullian becomes a Montanist. The Church universally rejects Montanism, and so in order for your position to be maintained, it would require this quote great apostasy position, which contradicts Jesus teaching that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church and that His spirit would always be there to lead into guide the successors to the apostles and to the end of the age.
Okay, well, you're you're you're bringing up these different arguments. I just want to like get into the weeds with uh, with.
All of them.
I mean, we've spent Yeah, fine, Luke sixteen sixteen is mistranslated by your cult leader to say what it doesn't say.
Okay, well, so here's here's what I'm saying, is Luke sixteen sixteen, And the same thing is in Hebrews. They're they're creating a historical context of God sent prophets, and now He has sent his son.
So just because they say.
This, it doesn't exclude profits from ever coming again. They don't explicitly exclude.
Well, then, so then the faith was not once. So then the faith was not once for all delivered to the saints past tense in Jude three.
But.
Six times the faith was delivered to the saints.
Now, if there's ongoing new revelations, which Paul warns about in Galatians one, about even if an angel shows up and preaches you a new gospel, which is the very thing that your cult is based on, an angel showing up and preaching a new gospel.
We don't believe there are new revelations. Well, we don't believe they are new beliefs. We don't believe they are a new gospel. We believe they're a restoration of the lost Gospel.
Well that's all bullshit, that's all comic book stuff. So where is any evidence of a restoration?
Well, I mean the restor of the priesthood of the church organization.
And where was any of this that existed prior that you restored? Where is where did it die? Baptisms?
Baptisms?
For I didn't ask you about your specific I didn't ask you about your specific I asked you where specifically was the last time this existed such that it had to be restored?
Where's that point? Where? What? Give me an example of this?
Where the Twelve Apostles baptism for the dead.
That's a basic noess, hold on, hold on, that's a separate So you believe that the Twelve Apostles taught what you believe?
Yes?
Do they teach the Trinity?
No?
So the New Testament? Have you read the Gospel of John?
Yes?
Does it teach the Trinity?
No?
Do you want to walk through the Gospel of John? Where did you know? Every chapter, every chapter, every chapter teaches the deed of Christ and the triad explicitly. If you if you.
Had read the Book of Mormon, you would know that it also uses that type of language that.
Yeah, but you're cult lies and uses the language and then gives a different meaning because you're you're a polytheistic cult. You believe that God the Father was once a man who became deified and had offspring and physical sex. That's why it's a stupid cult. No, no, it's not. Don't lie.
You're not.
You're not talking to people who we know what your church teaches. You're saying that you don't believe that God the Father was once a man. You don't know what it says. Hold on, So you're saying your church doesn't teach that God the Father was once a man. It says he was like so you're lying. He was like Christ, he was one. That's so he was a man with a body. That's a man. Right, yeah, we believe. So now you're lying, so you do teach that.
We know you're saying that God the Father was once a sinful man.
I didn't say that. When I didn't say that, I know what you're making up bullshit and put it in my mouth. I didn't say that. By the way, why does Joseph Smith add all these verses to Genesis fifty.
Well, you're you're not arguing in a in a coherent or honest way.
You just literally lied and attributed to me something I didn't say, and then admitted that you do believe that God, God the Father was once a man? And I'm just simply I'm asking. I pointed out that you're dishonest about that, and then I'm asking a separate question because you're not honest there. Why does Joseph Smith add versus about himself in Genesis fifty? Why are you are you're going to
giggle at me? You're giggling at meument because you lied, and because you lied and weren't honest about God the Father having a body and being a man. You lied. Do you want me to address that? I want to know about Genesis fifty. Why does Joseph Smith make up bullshit versus about himself? He's a con man? Genesis fifty, Genesis fifty, Stop deflecting Genesis fifty. Answer the question about Genesis fifty or I'm booting you.
I'm not familiar with.
Yeah, we're done. This is this is That's what you get with this dumb, cold tim what's up for those that don't know? Again, Joseph Smith, this is how stupid this is. Because Genesis is talking about the patriarch, Joseph, this dumb ass con man inserted himself as if Genesis is talking about Joseph Smith. I kid you, you can't make this up. It's right here on the screen for you. From their website, the additional verses that Joseph Smith added to Genesis to predict himself. If you can't see that
that's a con man, there's no hope for you. I can't help you. Imagine the people that believe this nonsense. This is so stupid. And then you heard that whole like he knows. I wasn't. I was saying that he teaches that God the Father was once a man, and then he lied and said, you said a sinful man. I didn't say any of that. I just said he was a man who impregnated women, had spirit babies and all that and became God the Father. O. No, we don't teach that. That's a misreading. But actually he was
a man like Christ. It's literally one of the dumbest cults out. I mean, I don't know who's dumber, Mormons or Muslims. It's hard to say loved, and you know, I hate the condescending giggle. As soon as somebody does the condescending giggle, I'm out, what's up?
Man?
Loved? Well, God the Father wasn't a man, he was a guy like Christ. Exactly what I said, Elias, what's up?
Hey? Sorry, I was not a paying attention.
I have a couple of questions regarding ontology ontological arguments.
Okay, appropriate for you're cutting out, so go ahead. It's hard to hear you.
Oh shoot, is that better?
No, it's better, go ahead.
Yeah, I just I asked some questions regarding cosmological arguments. I'm in a philosophy of religion class and we're kind of we're going over them. I have a project I want to incorporate some kind of Eastern Orthodox theology into it. Would be okay if I asked some philosophical questions or are you just wanting to base today?
Uh? Preferably be preferably debates. I mean, I don't like, there's no offense to you, but it sounds like a really long boring question. No, no, I'm not calling you boring. I'm just saying, like, what's the question.
I was?
I was just going to ask about the veracity of cosmological arguments in general.
I know that a lot of kind of like tag proponents.
Will Yeah, they just rely on a lot of things that are in question, and they kind of assume that it's the Christian God who's the first cause. And that's all begging the question. So I don't think they do very good. I mean you could make you could make a transcendental version of a cosmological argument, which would be good.
Yeah, And I've heard that some of Maximus the Confessor. I'm reading part of his on the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ right now. I'm kind of getting my way through it. I've heard that he does rely on some cosmological arguments, not necessarily as proofs, but just as understanding Christ and God the Father.
I might be wrong here, This is kind of hearsaying. I haven't read the entire thing yet, but I.
Also wanted to know if you have you heard of those guys that Telos bound, that that group who does a lot of like I think they call it communal ontology. Have you heard of those guys at all? On h What are your thoughts on that? Because I find it pretty interesting from what I listened to. I'm not super like versed in philosophy. I'm trying to learn it as we like you knows, as.
I think that there is a lot to be uh derived from the notion of reality being fundamentally triaddic and a triad in communion. So I think there's a lot to be gained from that. And uh, you know, I think if you read somebody like Steinyloy three Orthodox Dogmatics, Volume one, Uh, there's some really good information that regard there. W. What's up? W? You know what I mean? I'm going full red stick snap into us slim jem W can't connect Parker, not Lewis Parker Scott, Parker, Scott, what's up? Man?
I have a week kind of week right now. I need some substance. What's up, man?
Yo? Can you hear me? Uh?
Huh? What's up?
Okay?
I've listened to most of your debates and I'm just a little interested in because it seems like with most of your debates, like Alex Malpass, you guys are kind of debating if God exists.
And my main.
Question for that was for the Transton dental argument.
How do you take it.
From say they were like Alex Malpass is like, okay, sure I believe in like a deistic guy, how would you then use the transcendental argument to point back to specifically Orthodox Christianity.
I haven't heard a debate when you get that far yet.
So I was just wondering what your logic is on that.
I did a whole talk on it. I've done multiple on it. So go back and watch the critique of Ed Faser. I'll talk about it there Ali, Ali Noggle.
Hey, Jay, can you hear me?
Huh Hey, thanks for having me on. So I am coming from Protestantism and I've been inquiring into Orthodoxy thanks to your channel.
So thank you.
And I just have like some like slow boy questions, and I know that this might not be the in Gopher today, so maybe I can just ask you you can let me know if these are in Scobe or not.
I mean, I'm trying to be rude to you, but you know, if it's like Kate Quisa's questions, you can take those to your priest or you know, if you could read the Pomazansky book today. I'm just really looking for people who are disagreeing or would like to debate. But what other questions, Well.
It's I guess you could say it's a little bit of a debate because you you hold the reception theory of ecumenicism.
Is that right?
Or like depraming whether ecumenical councils or.
Can ecumenicism is the acumenist movement that has nothing to do with ecumenical councils.
Right, right, right, Sorry, I misspoke.
I think a reception theory is part of our position. It's not the totality of what makes an ecumenical council and ecumenical council. It's just that part of what will be the public indicator or identifier is if the entire church eventually does receive it. The Orthodox world. So for example, the Palamide Synods, they're not ecumenical councils because they were local to Byzantium. However, the entire Orthodox world has received those pan Orthodox that you could call them pan Orthodox synods.
Now yeah, okay, And so that's kind of where I think the debate comes in, because I was just reading and searing some arguments against that position, such as like, so if you have like the Fourth Ecumenical Council where a significant portion of the church like disagreed, how do you determine, like if you're living in that time period, whether it's a schism or whether it's a robber council.
There's nothing in the immedia other than whether the council is teaching something true or false, that's going to tell you that there is no there is no perfect visible indicator, and the papacy does not provide that and cannot provide that. There's multiple cases in the history of the Church where we can't even identify the Roman Catholic listing of that cemitical councils. They differ, they're inconsistent on what the councils are. So there what is being required in that case doesn't exist.
There is no such thing. There is no public, juridical thing that can with assured certainty certitude tell you what is a true versus a false council in some like you know, juridical way, because ultimately it's going to depend on whether the council is teaching truth or falsehood. So on a personal individual level, this still requires and relies on the Holy Spirit, Okay, okay.
And so you would just simply say that there is no system that would offer like that normative certitude, but it would come down to like an individual.
At that point, No, that's normative. Normativity is not certitude. Certitude has to do with your individual existential like convincing of something normativity has to do with moral questions of oughts, and you know, does any group within history have the authority to bind you, to bind anyone to their interpretation those there are two different questions.
Yeah, okay, okay, thank you so much.
Sure, no, those are those are great questions that I'm not trying to be impatient with you. It's just a I've been in I've been in debate mode all day long. So lef Ski, patron of Satan. Uh oh to the guy in the chat, Yeah, why don't you call in? If you don't call in, then you just couldn't do it. What's up?
Man?
Hey, what's up?
Yeah?
So I'll just say my position from the get go.
So I'm an atheist.
I was raised with an Islamic background, but I very quickly I came to realize that all religion is basically fairy tales and I don't I'm not convinced any supernatural deities exist. So my position would be sort of antithetical to yours. And I think you're you're a deist looking at your profile, sorry, A theist, A Christian theist, yes, sure so, so do you engage in conversations with unbelievers and vice versa.
Yeah, I've debated all the top atheists for the most part.
Sure, So are you like a YouTube you just do this thing on like radio spaces and are you debased on YouTube?
No? Only on AM radio.
Right, right?
But I mean, one good thing is I would say, is it's good to I like to hear the opposition's argument because that makes you better able to everyone, able to better understand their positions, because what happens a lot of the time is people who don't follow a belief
system will straw man or misrepresent the positions. I like to hear firsthand from someone who holds that belief system right, and then they can present their argument in a way that is appropriate to why they believe because a lot of the time, I mean, I'll give you a quick example. When I was growing up, I was getting taught about Hinduism, and then I was getting told, oh, they worship statues.
But then when I actually spoke to Hindus, they were saying no. For most Hindus, it's allegorical and metaphorical, so they're not literally were worshiping slashes. So that's why I do like to speak with people on the other side of my beliefs. We're the political religious.
Okay, Well, what I would say is you believe in magical fantasies and fairy tales as an atheist?
Sure, sure, but I haven't.
I mean, are you saying that from the generic atheist position?
Yes, any any atheist position believes in fantastical, magical fairy tales, like words having meaning?
Okay, I mean what do you mean by that? Could expounder in that piece.
Yeah, if you read the wvo Quine paper called Two Dogmas of Empiricism, he notes that within the empiricist tradition, the end result is that there's still this nonsensical idea that words in some way convey meaning about the external world and about events and phenomenon objects, because it relies on all kinds of things that are not justified and
cannot be justified in an atheist empiricist worldview. So I would just simply say that you believe in all kinds of If you think that words convey and have meaning, you believe in flying spaghetti monsters.
Okay, Well, we use words for descriptions of certain things, so certain concepts can be of words which I use for description are used.
For scientific concepts. E.
G if you look at if you look at the sun, it's called the sun in English, but in other languages.
It will be called other things. So in do it's called.
Sewage, but it would still be the same concept.
So whatever, And.
What is the concept in an atheists paradigm?
A concept of world?
What is a concept at all?
A concept? Is?
It's a commonly understood theme of any anything.
It's a thing. Okay, does it matter? Is it molecules?
No, it's it's it's a it's a product of what we are.
But so it's a product of what we are. Dude, you killed it right there. I'm an atheist. Now we're done. That was too high here, Jim. What's up man? It's a concept, is a product of what we are. Got it? What's up?
Hey? What's up? Jay?
What's on your mind?
Okay?
I want to talk to you about Panaea tocos for a second, real quick, just an idea I've never really heard about. Maybe you hit it real quick and then and then let it go. So in orthodoxology, we believe that the Pataya achieved theosis in a perfect and unrepeatable way, hence making her the vessel for the incarnation. She was the incarnation was able to happen because she said yes. Free will was a gift from God that could not be taken away. The incarnation required the pa to say.
Yes in order for it to happen.
Calvinists and other people that don't believe in free will, who are determinists, for example, they'd have to believe that some babies that die at birth are of the unelected. Then there's elect babies and not elect babies. Sure, as a Calvinist, as a determinist in theology, would you have to believe to some extent that the Panayea was impregnated by.
The Father.
Without her consent or without her knowledge if you don't accept free will and orthodoxology in that sense.
Yeah, I mean, in other words, from the Calvinist perspective, everything is under the direct causation of the divine decree, and that would include the moving of Mary's will to accept exactly I agree with that.
And then the last thing, which is.
Kind of well, I was I was formerly a Calvinist, So yeah, that's that's what they would say.
Yeah, it just daunted me.
I wanted to get your thoughts on.
I think it's kind of interesting. And then what are your thoughts on William Lane Craig in the last month coming out and saying he is a neo, a pollinarian monophysite, and he believes that the ecumenical console's aired.
I mean he he's been in a pollinarian for a long time, so he's been open about that position for years. The monophysite part is crazy, though, I didn't know he stay to that. But he also, by the way, you'll notice, the confusion of nature in person is precisely what would lead him to say he agrees with him an off side position. He also, i think, rejects the eternal generation of the sun. So he's like total heritit.
But yeah, and when you tell him that a Unitarian would use the same argument that he does from sol subscript soloscriptur to do what he's doing, He's like no, or like Kevin Ortlund talks about icons being not good, a Unitarian can make the exact same argument they can, and it's just ridiculous.
But that's it. I'll let you go.
I know he wanted it more debate, So now, yeah, those are great questions and a great point. I think, you know, you run into all kinds of theological issues with the basically, to speak, in terms of philosophy metaphysics, Calvinism denies secondary causes, and so if they were consistent, they would really be Muslims. I mean they're really they would be occasionalist like many Sunni Muslims are. And actually
some Calvinists have been occasionalists. For those who don't know, Jonathan Edwards was famously an occasionalist, so pretty pretty much identical to Islam. Tim. Now, guys, remember we're supposed to have a Roman Catholic debate tonight. I forget the guy's name, but he's just one second. He's Tim Gordon's buddy and nice guy. I think his name's Chris or something like that. But he took issue with my video on the temporal supremacy of the pope. When I'm signed them, go ahead,
Hey Jay, what's up? What's on your mind?
I had a couple questions.
One of them was not not sort of a debate, more of a clarification. The other one I wanted to kind of challenge something. But the first one I just wanted to preface it with a a and like a kind of apologize for anything I will say because it's it can be viewed as maybe blasphemous or maybe out of my ignorance, but I just wanted to like have a clarification. Why is the Eucharist not viewed as a like a ritualistic cannibalism.
Like, well, the liturgy it calls us, it calls it the bloodless noetic sacrifice. So it's a bloodless rational offering because Christ deified the flesh that he assumed. It is not a human sacrifice that is, you know, appeasing divine wrath like some sort of you know, like Zeus or something.
Okay, so the difference would be kind of cannibalism is where it's not consensual.
It's also not an offering of the dead, right, it's an offering of the deified living flesh of the god man who as the high priest, is offering his humanity to the triad. And that's explained in the medieval Byzantine Synods that it's not a human sacrifice, cannibal offering of the dead to pay off the angry God the Father.
That's all pagan theology. Orthodox theology is that the second person of the God had assumed human nature to deify it, to raise it up to divine trinitarian life, so very different attitude from the sort of pagan view.
Okay, that makes sense.
And then my second question was as someone coming from Protestant background inquiring into Orthodoxy, and I do think that historically, theologically, the Orthodox, I would say, is much more correct on Protestantism. But I just maybe you can clarify on a critique of sola scriptura, the critique of the interpretations and the
normative authority to tell you which interpretations are correct. So why, for example, when between like Orthodox and Coptic and Catholic interpretations of tradition, you would argue, like, the coherence of the tradition correct.
No, I don't know that I would if I was arguing like with a Coptic or a Roman Catholic person, No, I wouldn't argue that coherence necessarily proves it, unless it was some sort of like a roundabout or argument like I mean by extension. When I debated with Obara, I was kind of arguing that there's no quote coherence because Roman Catholicism at a fundamental level can contradict and pre
Vatican two and post into teaching. So in that sense, it was kind of a coherence argument, but not really like most of the time, if it's a Roman Catholic or a Coptic, you kind of have to go into the history to prove that case. Like there's no way to really argue like papism without looking at the history of the rise of the papacy, you know what I mean.
So I don't know that I would. I don't think I would argue necessarily holism, except in the case of like trying to argue at a system level, like I did to a Barro, because my argument to a Borrow was if Roman Catholicism at a dogmatic level contradicts at all, that invalidates the whole system. And I was doing that to try to not let Eric make the case that he could like stack up one hundred different evidences to
prove ninety eight percent of the papacy. Right, if I, at a system level can invalidate the system with just one dogmatic Roman Catholic contradiction and then all of that wasting everyone's time with yapping for five hours to get out three sentences to prove the papacy, he goes out the door.
Okay, that.
I kind of see what you mean, Mike, Basically my point is, why can't I argue like the same thing within scripture, like if power to its kind of going off of what I said about the coherence, like, why can't I argue like the most coherent view of scripture and disregard all others.
Well, it's not that you couldn't, it's just that that's going to take a really long roundabout. It's going to be very difficult in a debate setting to show that, because a holistic argument means you're reconciling all of the parts. I mean, the Bible is thousands of pages. It's just a huge endeavor. It's kind of impractical on a debate
setting level to do that. Now, if you're like teaching a college course and you want to demonstrate the coherence of Christianity, you know, throughout a whole semester lecturing through the totality of the Bible, maybe you could do that.
But just for like a debate setting, it's just very difficult to try to argue holistic coherence accept in the case of like atheism, because atheism is so fundamentally incoherent at a base level that all you really need to do is demonstrate not that your worldview is exhaustively coherent, but that you have the possibility of coherence at all,
versus an atheist worldview where there's no coherence. The problem is that when you're arguing with other theistic positions, they're not going to immediately be fundamentally incoherent, like like an atheist would be. Does that make sense?
Yeah, I see, okay, that makes sense.
Yeah. I think it's just a longer, more difficult route. Like I mean, even in that Ibarra debate, like I don't think for a lot of the Roman Catholic audience or for Ebarra himself, like I don't think they got the point I was making. I mean, I tried over and over to say that I'm just going to add a systemic level, try to prove that the Roman system contradicts, and that just blows their mind because they don't think in terms of systems. They only think in terms of
like piecemeal building it from the bottom up. So so I guess I just don't, like give me an example like you're saying, like what if I tried to debate a Protestant that my worldview from the Bible, I can give a completely coherent totality interpretation of the Bible and your Protestant world. You can't do that. It's going to be really hard to demonstrate that. I'm not saying you can't, but I'm just kind of I'm sure.
Is the critique of the different interpretations of the Bible a very good critique for solicituture, because I mean one could a Protestant could just argue that themselves, even though for them it would take a really long time. They could just argue that the Bible is my only authority, and I will provide a completely totally coherent world you strictly based on the Bible.
So I'm just wondering if well.
At that level, no, I wouldn't even grant that. I would just go to, well, you can't really have the Bible without the Church determining the canon. I wouldn't even go into all that would just cut all that off. And otherwise, like part of debate is also I think the skill set of knowing like quickest cut to the chase, rather than allowing the opponent to like yap for hours, and that just ends up kind of distracting and going down you know, red herring trail, rabbit trails, and in
a debate. It's a lot more effective to keep it on one topic and just cut to the chase. Now, you might say, well, when you argue with that Mormon dude, you moved to a different topic. I moved to a different topic when the Mormon dude lied about God the Father and wouldn't he wasn't gonna be honest with that.
So that's why I moved over to theseph smith adding verses to Genesis, because like, let's move on to a different topic, right, So I think part of that what you're talking about is like experience, lived experience with debate and figuring out, like what for the sake of the audience might be a better course to take rather than letting some goober yap for five hours to try to like it's just like, yeah, let some Protestant come on and give a ten hour course lecture to prove that
he has a coherent interpretation of the Bible. Is just I think that's a complete waste of time.
Yeah, And then so yeah, the interpretation critique isn't self isn't sufficient on its own and about the canon?
Would let me let me restate that I think that the interpretation critique is a good way to demonstrate the need for normative authority. That's where that works, because no Protestants believe that there's any body of men within history that have the normative authority to bind your conscience to an interpretation. So it is a great apologetic and practical point to say to the Protestants, you don't think Jesus provided the Church any means to, you know, settle issues
authoritatively and bind people's conscience. When the framers of America were smart enough to know that we needed a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, they didn't just mail out constitutions to everybody in America to interpret on their own.
You see. I mean even the founding fathers had enough foresight to know that we would need some governing body to interpret the document authoritatively versus you know, Jesus just gives everybody this, you know, these letters and then you know, good luck, hope you hope, you hope you keep it together out there like he did that provide a group of people to know rule the church.
Yeah, My question is they would instead of appealing to normative authority, like you'd have a normative authority to tell you that this is the correct interpretation and then the Protestant would say, well, I can tell you why this is the correct interpretation because your interpretations incoherent.
Why is that not like a valid thing they can do well? Because it's missing the point that all classical Protestantism is built on history. Who can bind your conscience? Protestanism is built on the idea that the foundational doctrines of the Reformation are things like freedom of worship and freedom of conscience.
Okay, so okay.
So if they if they started so, they would be surrendered to, not hold to that would mean surrendering basic Protestant principles.
Okay.
Yeah, So even if they provide a fully coherent and show me that my interpretations incoherent, they can't actually tell me that I have to believe their their interpretation.
Basically, Yeah, I mean one of the Protestant basics is the right of private interpretation. As Orthodox or even a Roman Catholic like that doesn't exist. Where did you get the idea that you have a right of private interpretation?
And then about the canon, I just want like a clarification about so like a common thing they will try to say, isn't that these scriptures and self themselves are like inherently authoritative by nature, and then whichever ones of those are, they come out in history. And I understand that it's kind of begging the question, but I just want to.
Well again, think of that, think of the analogy to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. I mean, it's fine to say that the documents are authoritative, but documents don't do any thing on their own. They require interpretation. And it's obviously ridiculous to think that, oh, well, this is just up to everybody to figure out on their own. And think of the implications of this. This would mean that nobody within history can actually resolve any issues because
they could conceivably be wrong. And then every successive generation must reinvent the wheel and rediscover and go through every historical chaos and squabble all over again. So we're we have to read to the airing crisis, we have to read to the montanous crisis. We have to read So it just is silly and unworkable to think that the texts do anything on their own without people interpreting the text. That's why Paul says the pillaring foundation of truth is
the church, the living community. It's not the books or the parchments that are the pillar and ground of truth. The church is who produced the parchments, the writings, the text. They have authority, but they only have authority within the context from which they emerge and the very community who decided what books go into that book.
Okay, yeah, that makes sense.
And about the church, what exactly does it mean that the Church is the body of Christ.
It literally means that the continuation of the incarnation is that the Church is a theanthropic god man institution, that we are the actual limbs and body of Christ on earth.
Yeah, but it's you wouldn't say, like one part of the church institution on earth is like the eye of Jesus or the liver of Jesus.
Doesn't mean when Paul explains that, he means that spiritual gifts is what he's referring to. Right, So eyes are like foresight, the gift of prophecy and so forth. I don't mean prophecy in the sense of Old Testament prophets. That just mean it in the sense of like elders and some of the spiritual gifts. Obviously, he's not literally saying like you are the eyes of Jesus.
So what distinct like if Jesus took upon a universal human nature, would in Jesus's body be all of all of humans. What distinguishes Jesus, the body of Jesus Christ being the Church, from all other humans.
What that means is that in his single divine hypostasis, he's able to recapitulate all human nature as the second atom. It doesn't mean he assumed every single human hypostasis. He assumed in his single body and single human nature, the universality of human nature by recapitulating it. Just like Adam. What Adam did, it affected all of his descendants. So likewise, Christ as the new atom, will affect all of his descendants. So every human being will be resurrected because of that universality.
But it doesn't mean that every individual human person or human hypostasis will participate in theosis, because that's dependent upon you in your own mode of willing, attaining the virtues, attaining the Holy Spirit, attaining thiosis, et cetera. But it does not mean that Christ is incarnated in every single human being. It means that in the single human body that he took from the Virgin Mary, he was able to recapitulate and encapsulate all human nature. How because he's
a divine person, that's all. That's the explanation that's given at this sab of Ecumentical Council in St. Theodore's writing about how he's the universal man.
You could say, okay, thank you. Yeah, they clarified quite a bit.
I mean, I wouldn't say understand everything full least of quite a bit of reading to do, but thank you.
Sure.
Yeah, those are great questions. So I think we had a mkg five dollars, Jay, could you check the second part of the super chat I sent I have to go. I was hoping I'd get an answer to that and later rewatch, let's see, let's go back. I just know that aside from Hebrews, is there any other texts that I should read in order to discuss this point with you? I mean, you know later, I mean, really, this comes down to a presupposition about the doctrine of the church.
So you know you're gonna need to read like the Gospel of John or we have the promises that Jesus gave to the church and the apostles that the Holy Spirit would come upon them, lead them and guide them. That's what we see an acts two. That's Pentecost. And so the idea that you know, Paul could get everything wrong and the other Apostles were right, but Paul rebuked them.
I mean, this would really just be to undo the entire promise that Jesus says in John fourteen fifteen, sixteen seventeen that this Holy Spirit will guide the Church, lead it into all truth. I will never leave you, forsake you. I will not leave his orphans. I will be with you until the end of the age, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, those are all promises that relate
to Pentecost and the company of the Holy Spirit. So the idea that the Church could be in some great apostasy, I mean this is really remember MKG, this is what the Mormon guy was saying, right, Mormon is grounded on
this idea. After the Apostles died, there was a great apostasy, and so this lunatic Masonic con man eighteen hundred years later is restoring the original Apostolic Church and teaching right similar idea to if you believe that Paul subverted Christianity like Mormons or Acumu like a Muslims, some of the Muslims say, first of all, that didn't make sense in Islam, by the way, because in the Quran it actually says that the followers of Jesus will be made victorious by
a law, as Samshuan points out, so that means Paul, Paul was a follower of Jesus, and so Paul's victorious. So again the Koran contradicts. But you know, to get back to whether it's Mormonism or whether it's some I mean, there's some sects like Marcian. Marcian said something like I think, didn't Marcian say that Paul was a subverter of Christianity. So really this would be to deny the promise of the coming of the Spirit, is what that amounts to.
And it would be to admit that that the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church, because essentially, after the death of Apostles, none of these weird cult sectarian positions succeeded. Remember the debate with Bryson, what that he is? Fallacy, what that he is? Remember remember Bryson Gray Bryson says, oh, you know, the true Judaism, Christianity of arian Rian Judaizing, whatever gibberish, he's made up. That's the real Christianity that's
secretly existing in all these centuries. Oh, what's the evidence of that? Because Juizers, that's them, that's the amp Oh, it's a million different groups with a bunch of different conflicting the theologies. Some of them Arians, some of the Trinitarian. That's the true Christianity because they're Judaizers. That's so stupid.
The Bryson argument was right. In other words, what the the premise that you have, MKG is essentially the Bryson, Gray and Mormon whatever premise that Jesus didn't provide the guidance of the Church to the Holy Spirit at Pentecosts. Normy Slayer twenty five dollars, jay, I, thank you. I think that once we get rid of fluoride in the water, a lot of these normies will perhaps begin to understand
the words that come out of your mouth. You know, that could be a factor obviously, you know, dumbing down toxic environment. But keep in mind too, as we point out, as fda off and points out, you know a lot of the issues that we're discussing, that we're talking about, there is an intellectual element and component but the ultimate root of all the problems is not intellectual. Man's problem is not intellect. Man's problem is not a lack of
facts and knowledge. It's pride. Pride is man's problem at root, not intellect. And if that intellect can be a great stumbling block and a source of pride. Now there's a factor, an element to which, yes, people need to be presented with the correct positions against their false positions, which does relate to intellect. But coming out of a false position and into the true position is not ultimately KeyPoint an
intellectual problem. It's a pride heart problem. And so no one will accept the truth without repenting first, and repentance requires humility, which is the antidote to the vice of pride. Nicodemus one dollar. I bought zero point one BTC in August. It has doubled since then. Almost I couldn't have done this without you. Well, hey, look, as everybody at the Bitcoin says, every SAT counts, so even if you're buying small amounts of SATs, it all will count in long run.
Buggy three dollars. A month ago, you made a comment about Pope Francis. At the end you said Vatican one says that the pope is infallible in faith and morals. Yes, even if he isn't speaking ex cathedral, where is that? Yes, it is the Vatican one statements talking about ordinary magisterium.
So let me show you that. By the way, I've made multiple videos on this topic, so you can go back to my Vatican one documents or videos that I've done have dent at least two or three of those of Vatican one, And you can look at the video
I made called was Vatican two Infallible? Which refutes the tragcats who think that they can really nearly hand wave Vatican two and they're not bound by it, because the stupidity of this position is that, I mean, even I don't think that it's not dogmatic, Vatican two is absolutely obviously a dogmatic Roman Catholic council. They point to these ridiculous statements like when Paul the six says it was pastoral, So something pastoral. Calling something pastoral doesn't mean that it's
not dogmatic. Guphases. You could literally say every ecumenical council is quote pastoral, that doesn't mean it's not dogmatic. And then they go to this other stupid quote which says that Vatican two, uh defined no new dogmas. Yeah, so what that doesn't mean that it's not also still stating older dogmas. This is the level of casuistri and sophistry that you deal with it with these idiot Roman Catholics. I mean, I've dealt with it for a year when
I was an idiot Romancalic. So let's look at Vatican one. And I don't know why this is, but for whatever reason, you have to go to papalencyclicals dot net for the This might be why some of these Romancalics don't even know what Vatican one says, because their own freaking Vatican website doesn't far as far as I can tell, doesn'tny have all the decrees of Vatican won on it. I mean maybe there is somewhere and I just haven't found it. But you have to go to Papal encyclicals, not dot net,
which has all of the decrees the Vatican won. And every Roman Catholics should print this out and read it. I don't know why they're too lazy to do this. Remember that guy that called in was like, I'm going to read a ten page paper. I'm like, well, then don't even why are you even calling into debate If you don't have time to invest in the religion that you think is true. You can't read ten or fifteen pages, Why are you wasting our time? Get out of here.
So uh, this is called ordinary magisterium, and many Roman Catholics don't know what this is, even though countless Catholic theology manuals openly write and talk about this. It's not a mystery. When Vatican One defines what is dogmatic and must be believed by everyone, does it say that you only have to believe the ex cathedra statements. It does not say that, In fact, that's false. It's actually condemned position.
It explicitly says that you must believe, by divine and Catholic faith, all the things contained in the Word of God, scripture and tradition that are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed by the Solemn judgment or in her What does that say? Solemn judgment refers to what we call ex cathedral that's the extra normative things that define dogma. That is an ex cathedral statement or an ecumenical council. Those are the two extra normative Solemn judgment types of things.
The other things that must also believed be believed that are under the patrin keroism of protection of infallibility and cannot error are what are called the ordinary and universal magisterium. Do all of you hard headed goofballs see it right there, clear as day. So what this means is that if you're a Roman Catholic, you cannot say I only have to believe what the Pope teaches ex Cathedral. Now ninety five percent of these goofballs believe that they literally believe
the opposite of what Vatican one says. And it doesn't matter how many times you tell them this, and you can, you can machine gun this at them until you pass out. They don't get they cannot get this. Now, amazingly, some of them do get this. For example, believe it or not, Michael Loft Doog actually understands this. Yes, you heard me correctly.
Michael Loftdog is actually correct. And when he argues against the tradcats, he actually argues correctly on the basis of Vatican One, that you do not have the right to reject the ordinary teaching of the Church. Now what is the ordinary universal magistrum? Now, remember Romancantholicism thrives on open ended ambiguit definitions, so there's never any defined statement about what all the dogmatic statements are. It's so stupid this
thing is. Keep in mind, if romic Thousism is true, couldn't we at least expect a dogmatic list of the dogmatic teachings? You would think, Oh no, no, you don't get that. You get generic principles that you're supposed to figure out of out of these thousands of pages of documents. What goes into what been This is the religion that's supposed to be sold to you by these bad car salesmen as the religion that gives you certitude based on the
office of the papacy. What it actually gives you is mountains of documents that you in a worse situation than a Protestant, because a Protestant only has to try to make these thousand pages make sense. No, no, you got these and the endless papal documents and concil your documents which include extraordinary and ordinary universal teaching. Now get this, It gets even sillier. So what are the ordinary universal teachings? Ah?
You see, those are the get this, I kid you not those are the things that the Church has always, at all times and everywhere taught. I'm not joking. So another totally ambiguous, open ended good luck with that, thousands of thousands of pages. It would be nice if there was a list of what those things are. Now, the closest I could think of to a list would be Denzinger, right, I mean, Denzinger is like the closest thing to what the list of the dogmas are. But Denzinger isn't even
all the dogmas. And to further expand on this point, you have to know that just because something is not let's say universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, right, the two things that are governed by the patrin charism and by infallibility, and that the Church cannot err in right, there's other teachings that you still have to submit to with quote docility. So for example, canon law, the pope's juridical decisions according
to Vatican one. And we've covered this a million times, it's in some four places in Denzinger to tell you have to believe this. Let's say the Pope decides that Archbishop so and so is excommunicated, do you, as a Roman Catholic believe or think that you have the right to reject the Pope's excommunication.
You do not.
Vatican one is clear as day, and even going all the way back to Octorum feedde, you do not have the right in Roman Catholicism to judge the First See or to reject his canonical juridical decisions. And so the
entire basis of the SSPX is fraudulent and schismatic. Via Vatican one, you must submit with docility, even if you think that the Pope is wrong in matters of ordinary teaching, in matters of universal ordinary teaching or extra extra ex cathedral teaching, there's no question of whether you have to submit. You absolutely have to submit. You don't. You don't even have you submit, because it's dogmatic and it is inerrant. It is the Church is indefectible, The Pope is indefectible.
Now ordinary teaching, not universal ordinary ordinary teaching. That's where there can be error. But in the Roman Catholic system, do you have the right to object to and oppose the Pope Hope in ordinary teaching, which he admittedly could err in, No, you do not. Even in the ordinary teaching. The traditional Roman Catholic moral theology says very clearly, and I think canon law is that you must submit with docility, even to the matters which are not directly under the magisterium.
That's the Roman Catholic system. And so every trad Cat and somebody sent me a Bishop Strickland today, one of the trad Cat popes or excuse me, bishops. He's not. I mean, if you're in the no disorder, you don't even trad Cat. But I don't know if he's Strickland a Latin mass person, I don't even know. But he's praying and protesting Frank Francis and is saying that Francis is not a Catholic and is not teaching Catholic dogma. Okay, that's a direct violation of Vatican One. It's a direct
violation of the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. Canon law. No one judges the first Sea. And even if you think Francis is an error, you must submit with docility. And so all of the Roman Catholics and trad Cats who are pretending that they can do all of their rebelling and all this, they're actually operating like Orthodox and or Protestants. That's the funny part, and they don't care, and they don't read Vatican one. And when they go
and rea Vatican one, they then say, kid you not. Well, that's the papal reading of the papal reading a Vatican one. Oh you see, that's the ultramontanous reading a Vatican. Vatican one is an ultramontanous council. Of course there's going to be an ultramontanous reading of it. That's what it's about.
Well, that's the liberal reading that it could do. Vatican two is actually trad if you mix up all the words and make them have the opposite meaning that they normally have a little look at my magic work. Yay, it's trad.
No, it's not trad. You'll ever get tad out of Muslims, Jews and Christians and Hindus worship the same god. That's never going to be tried, dummies. Anyway, I went down a rabbit hole, esoteric. Noan, we got hyper nome hyperborea in the house. Look, I got energy, and I'm in debate mode. And so in one and a half hour we're supposed to have Roman Catholic dude come to bate. So let's now He's a nice guy, seems very charitable, very easy to talk to. So I'm not gonna be mean.
We're gonna have a great, hopefully civil conversation. In my experience, everyone in the Tim Gordon's sphere is very civil. Remember the football player AJ Hurley. You know, we had a two hour discussion on atomism. Great conversation, nice guy. We got we got heated, but everything was cool, right, nobody.
Remember, Okay, remember when I came to your town, saying Augustine and I debated your whole city.
Yes, and you won. And this they gave you the keys. They gave you the papal keys to the city. All right, let's see esoteric. Are you there, I'm man, Yeah, I'm here.
I just have.
I saw one of your streams earlier, and correct me if I'm wrong. You said something along the lines of the Roman Catholic Church, uh says that you, through natural theology and natural theology alone, can basically come to the whole of the Christian paradigm and theology.
No, of course not. That's okay, the opposite of what I argue.
No, I'm saying that like from the that's what you said.
The Catholic Church they don't believe that you can never get you can never get supernatural revelation from natural from natural theology. They're two different they're two different series. Yeah I never said that.
Yeah, yeah, sorry about that.
Then that's right, right, So the definition of natural theology, whether it's John Paul's and cyclical Fetus at ratio or whether it's the UH. I bought the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and William Lane Craig wrote the entry I think in there where he defines natural theology in exactly the same way that John Paul the Second does, which is that it is reasoning about God from the natural world, apart from any divine revelation. That's the definition of natural theology.
So there's nothing in that that could lead you to accepting trinity or incarnation, because they're two different domains in natural theology.
Right.
No, I will hardly agree with that. Yeah, it was just something I misinterpreted.
Well, my critique was that all of that's dumb, it doesn't make any sense. So if you watch the Trent Horn debate that we debate at every point, Okay, thank you, Yeah, No, it's fair question, and I'm always happy to clarify voiceless in Toronto. You got I mute?
Oh was that director to me? Sorry, I couldn't hear anything.
What's on your mind?
Hey, g oh, I just heard you speaking about Hinduism.
So I was born Hindu.
But it's it's it's not even a religion. It's a teaching that was co opted by Brahmins uh to to just install the cast system. So a lot of people don't even know that Hinduism is not really intended to be a religion. It's just a teaching and then it became, you know, the major religion.
And so are you saying that what we know of as Hinduism is more of a state controlled system. We're saying, I'm.
Not sure however you want to take it. I mean, it's for example, the cow is considered like a holy animal, and most kind of orthodox Hindus.
Don't eat beef. But it was just installed.
As in animal into the into the scriptures to prevent it from going extinct because the population was growing at such a rate that it was better to keep it alive because of the advantages it gives what it's alive, rather than just kill it and eat it. So you know, there's many things about hindusm is taken from a book that then became something called above it Geita, which is just you know, kind of like teachings. And then there's a group called the Brahmins who installed themselves.
At the top of the cast system.
Kind of well, I guess what I'm saying is that are you saying that it's essentially it evolved to be calm an elitist mechanism of control by the Brahmins, is what I'm saying?
Correct, Yes, sir, Yeah, so that's all I want to add.
I'm more of a faist now, so I just believe in God, but not really a follow of religion. You know, I went to a Catholic boys on the boarding school when I was growing up in Zimbobwe, which was then, which was you know, a British calling.
Yeah, well, yeah, I appreciate that. That's a good insight there. There is almost always some sort of you know, kind of an elite control mechanism going on in all religions, and I mean even in Orthodoxy. You go back to the you know, the emperors had in many cases, the evil Emperors, they had machinations and designs through heresies to
control the Church. For example, you had Aryan iconoclastic emperors who if they were able to install the iconoclass doctrine one of the components of this would mean that it would also allow them to basically control the church, same with the the Aryan emperor's similar state mechanisms for controlling the church. There, Frankish Malchite five dollars I had a trinitarian question concerning the issue of Christ as God specifically got the word if the Father is ontologically greater. Well,
that's the first mistake there. We don't say that the Father is ontologically prior. He is the cause, he is the fount, he is the arka. He is not ontologically greater. And that's why the son has the exact same nature as the Father, communicated to him by the Father, just like a son. If you have a king and the king has a son, the son doesn't have any greater or lesser human nature than his father, the king. They have identically the same nature. But yet the king has
a greater role than the prince the son. And so that's the sense in which we say that the Father is quote greater, is in the sense of role, not in the sense of ontology. That's the Aryan subordinationist argument. You go on to say in your question, is the son the Father's wisdom being the word? Would this mean that the command let there be light would be the
son enacting the father's will. Well, you could still believe that the son is enacting what the Father wants without there being any kind of Aryan subordinationism going on, because in the Gospels, Jesus tells us that he only does the will of the Father. So that's and he's a divine person speaking that. He's saying me that a second person, the God had divine person always only does the will
of the Father. But that does not equate to any aryan Joe's witness subordinationism, because all arianism and subordinationism is built on the assumption that the Father is onto logically superior and not superior by role. But there's no reason to believe that, And in fact, the Gospels contradict that because men many times over Jesus says, everything the Father has he has, all the works the Father does, he does.
Everyone should honor the son as they honor the Father. Okay, if there's a subordination, then that's all blasphemous stuff that Jesus is saying. And that's precisely what the Jews say. The Jews think he's blaspheming because there he's literally saying he's equal to the Father, big Boss. Ten dollars. Did you happen to see where Mel Gibson calls many of the current Roman Catholic bishops of Francis hirelings and then
he says, who is hiring the hirings? No, but I mean Mel Gibson's actually made comments like that for twenty years. I mean going back to I don't know the exact date when Mel became a trad cat because it goes back to Hutton and I remember back when I was a trad cat, I remember actually going I actually read Hutton Gibson's stuff. He used to have a website on it. Maybe he still does, I don't know, but I remember reading Hutton Gibson's set of a Conscious Arguments back in
the day. So that's that was at least two thousand and five, six seven, So we're coming up on almost twenty years of you know, Hutton Gibson having a website. I don't know if it's still up, but no, I mean Mel Gibson has said this kind of stuff for a long time. And if I recall, he built his own trad cat chapel I think out in California somewhere. I forget the name of it, Like, I think it's for a holy family, not the other cults online, nothing to do with the other STA cults in the world.
A set of a contism. It's all very like independent like, it's all very fractured. There's no like over there's no overarching like unified communion of the set of a contests. They're all kind of doing their own thing, even if they have similar names. Let's see, I Hutton Gibson still has a set of a contass website up. Uh So, I guess he passed away. I didn't know if I didn't know he had passed away. And I'm assuming that this is the means by which Mel became a track cat.
I'm just well, I mean, you can't trust googling. It basically doesn't work. You can't find anything you're looking for. But you can find actually you can find his books interesting because apparently they come up here on good Reads. So uh interested, So he looks like Hutton produced a book. It looks like a state a book. He might not have been full of nineteen eighty eight, but maybe he was. That's pretty early nineteen eighty eight, Hutton Gibson wrote a
set of a conscious book. Interesting is the pope Catholic. Let's see if it's full of Saya one hundred and eighty eight pages. We need to hope that mel Gibson becomes Orthodox, because I mean, at a certain point, you know, the Saya world is just so kind of crazy. It's like it just I think it eventually becomes a very obvious dead end. You probably have to use some other search engine to find his website. If maybe if he
passed away, it's no longer there. I don't know anyway, all right, we got one last person, Manuel, and then remember to come back in an hour. Hopefully we'll have a debate with our Catholic friend. We'll see what he wants to discuss. It'll be interesting because his response video was actually addressing the dogmatic teaching argument that I have about temporal supremacy of the pope, and I've not seen any Roman Catholics so far address that argument, So it'll
be interesting to see. Presumably he'll be the first that I've seen addressing it. Manuel, you got an unmute Hello, what's up?
Oh, hijane, I was you know, I was about to call earlier today but my mic he just did not work.
So well you're here, man, what's up? Yeah?
Thank you, thank you.
So I was asking about I had a question because I saw a video by a guy named Planet Peterson or something like that.
Right, do you know him?
Oh, is this that atheist guy that Jim Bob's always debating.
I'm not sure about Jim Bob, but yes, it.
Is Jembob's I've never watched this guy, but I've seen Jim Bob kind of critique him.
Okay, yeah, So I was asking about. You know, one thing that he said in one of his videos. He said he talked about, you know, presuppositions and all that, and he said something along the lines of like, well, you know, the thing with presuppositions is that you can just make it up, and anybody can make up a good I don't know, God with presuppositions or something like that.
No, it's not true. It actually has to do the work of grounding the transcendal categories universals, logic, history, ethics, and so just making something up doesn't do any grounding work.
Okay, So are you telling are you saying that you know, God has to, like I don't know, appear in history or interact with the world, is what you're saying.
I think that would be one of the implications of a coherent worldview in theology. I wouldn't hinge everything just on saying something like God has to enact and you know, interact in history, I mean the incarnation and you know, the revelation of Christian. The Christian worldview does, though, give
an account for a meaning for history. So in that broader sense of you know, making history and all the events within history meaningful, with the doctrine of divine providence and the doctrine of you know, t lost teleology all of that, that would be the route of argument I would make there.
Okay, Okay, And I guess another final question. I have a father, you know, my dad, you.
Know, he's I think we all do. I think we all do.
Okay.
He's an old Mexican dude, Catholic, and I kind of, you know, try to call him to Orthodox scene. He was like, I don't know, maybe if you do me like present me arguments is there like any videos or any quick argument that you can give me to my refuge Roman Catholicism or show clear contradiction something like that.
Yeah, I mean, if you go to my community tab. I recently re shared the video where I just kind of collected together what I toital. It's called top five simple arguments against papal Infallibility. I have another, you know, top ten reasons I'm not Roman Catholic video from a few years ago. Oh, this this one dogmatic contradiction Androme Catholicism video. So those are all kind of intended to be accessible, you know, pop level videos.
Okay, Oh, I guess another question that has been troubling me, and I'm gonna be done after this.
Uh.
It's it's a question about, uh, you know, about Jesus when he goes up to heaven.
Right, So can we agree that you.
Know, you know, God the Son is eternal and that he enters creation right as a human being. Okay, Uh, you know, and I don't know how if I'm whatever right, But the thing that troubles me is that how can God the Son be you know, eternally in heaven or whatever, but then comes down, you know, to earth. And then comes back as you know, default.
Well, it's it's not primarily it's not primarily like because he's omniscient, excuse me, omnipresent, right, so he possesses all the omnies. If you read John one, John says that, you know, we beheld the Son of God in the flesh, who was always in the bosom of the Father. So he never left the bosom of the Father even while he was on earth, because even though as humans we think about it as spatial location, via his divine omnipresence, he was always eternally with the Father. He's everywhere.
Oh okay, all right, okay, that makes sense because I was having, you know, a little bit, a tiny bit of an existential crisis because I was like, how does it make sense that you know he's he's eternally.
Well, it's a both, it's a both. And so in other words, we understand that because he's a divine person, he possesses the omnies and therefore he's omnipresent. But we also recognize that via Philip Beans two, which is the Kenosis text, he was able to enter into a motive being which the Father and the Spirit did not In other words, becoming incarnate, right, which is essentially the mystery
of the incarnation. This is what John presents it as, and the Orthodox Church is always upheld it as as Saint Cyril says, the mystery that God could be born of a virgin. It's a mystery. So exactly how he does that, we don't know the mechanics of that. It's above us. But it is revealed to us that the second person that God had entered into the motive being of being incarnate as a human being and ascended into the third heavens to be at the right hand of
the Father. So it's a both then and on either or. That's why we say he underwent no change when he became incarnate. He never lost his divinity or ceased to be divine, or transformed into a man or transformed into a third thing like of an office site say, he always instill remains the second person of the God had the difference being that he is now existing in a new mode of being as man, as the God Man.
Okay, okay, yeah, that makes more sense. Anyways, I'll have to go.
Thank you, Jy.
I love your videos.
You do appreciate that. And by the way, Also, another good video that might be accessible is the video I made a month ago called the Pope says All Religions lead to God. That one's a good yeah, because you know, it's just kind of presenting kind of basic level, you know, contradictions. Wellington will go to the last one because I'm starting to get a little bit of a headache and I do want to have energy for our Catholic friend tonight if he can make it. Now, he's not guaranteed that
I'll be here at nine, he thinks he can. Maybe I should check my inbox to see if he's given me any updates, so I'll see what he says. Just one second, Bro, I can't hear you? Man? Is closed because no, I can't hear you. I mean I can barely hear you talking. Can you tuk the volume up? It's all the way up?
Man?
Oh?
Is there any way you can hear because I can barely? I mean, what what? What's you have a question? Or what's up?
Yeah?
My question is is not even debate for?
But like, so you don't know Buddhism, right, I.
Know a little bit about Buddhism. I'm not extensively right in Buddhism.
I was I was kind of thinking about this.
I can't hear you, man, I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be rude to you, but I can't hear you. Maybe uh like type your question or something Frankish Melchite will go to you last.
Hello, yo, Hey.
Yeah, I was wondering if I could briefly elaborate on the question I super chatowy.
The subordination question.
Oh yeah, because I'm.
Trying to in my catechises. I'm trying to better understand monarchy and trinitarianism, and there's kind of a question I ran into when I was seeing the Father's ontologically greater. The reason why I termed it that way is because I get concerned with ascribing time, to say, the unbegotteness of the Father and the begotteness of the son, And this kind of goes into the second part of my question.
Well, that's that was the Aryan argument against Athanasius, right, So when Athanasians talked about the father being the cause of the son, the Arians would argue that, well, cause and effect is a temporal thing, so that necessarily means that the son is generated in some temporal sense and Athanasians says, it's just an analogy. It doesn't mean it's an eternal causing. It's not a temporal causing.
I see, I say, okay, And that kind of leads into the second part of my question, which I remember when I was Roman Catholic, I had an Augustinian view on the Trinity, right, and I tried at all times to enforce that coequalities.
Yeah, it's called it. It's called it, a qualitarian view of the Trinity.
Yeah, yeah, focus on the divine assets as a personhood and such a head, things like that.
I remember vividly.
I used to tell people to compensate this, specifically witnesses. I said, the Son came into being when the Father said, let there be light, because that was the first words. But I see now that that's been very delicious.
No, that would be that would be an Arian argument.
Oh really, So there wasn't even like the area state even believe there was a stasis, you know, with that the Son was being created before he even said the words let there be like by the father's.
Well, they would just argue that the first work of the Father was the creation of the son, and the is kind of like this demi God, I see.
I see, so would be accurate to say that it was in fact at the Sun that said let there be lies.
I think the Orthodox view of the fathers is that the Trinity each has a unique each person in the triad has a unique role in the creation of the world, and so Basil's dictum of from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit would apply essentially to all of the actions of God. So, in other words, the creation of the world also happens from the Father, through
the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. So usually they exegete passages like that, as the Father speaking the eternal word of the Logos, and as Hebrews one and Colossian says the world came to be from the Father through the Logos.
I see.
A final final question, who would you say? It's just a chearis of otherwise would be would be the best introduction, you would say to grasp the monarchy Internitians.
The Cappadocians by far, I would say, go watch doctor bo Branson's lectures at If you go to his website doctor bo Branson or bo branson dot com, you'll see there's a section called media appearances, and if you click media appearances. There's a five part lecture series on the monarchia of the Trinity, and most of that is literally directly from the Cappa Docians. If you're looking for specific Cappadocian passages, you could read Basil in the Holy Spirit.
You could read the five theological Orations of Gregory nazian Zeus, and you could read Basils against Unomius, and you'll you'll notice a pretty consistent uh, you know, theology of the monarchia. In fact, I think it's Oration twenty nine where Gregory Nazianzews says, you know, we don't believe in uh Sabellius or the most he says. He says, we worship the monarchy, namely the beginning point of God, the Father. You know,
it's pretty sure it's Oration twenty nine. That's basically all about monarchical trinitarianism.
Okay, Uh, please pray for my christ nation.
Thank you very much. Yeah, I'm glad to hear you.
Now.
Were you a Roman Catholic recently or has this been a longer process for you or what's happened?
Yeah?
So I was raised a Southern Baptist, I grew up, I grew up in East Tennessee.
Near I'm a Southern I'm a Southern Baptist Tennessee boy too.
Man, Yeah, I agree.
I grew up Do you know Crossville.
It's a town in East Tennessee.
Right, Yep, yep.
I grew up there, and I was I was raised Southern Baptists. Became an atheist all throughout my teenage hoods teenage hood, I found Roman Catholicism, my ottinion a mass at Saint Thomas Aquinas, so I became a Thomas, I was baptized, and I started my inquiry to wholly orthodoxy officially last December, a little after Christmas. Oh, it's it's the fullness of the Catholic it is the fullness of.
The Catholic Church.
So I'm tired of.
Pretending, you know, in fictitious institute, in a fictitious institution that made it sells something that they work, you know, and their Unitarians.
So yeah, I would tell you, do you have the uh, the Palmazansky book. It's it's pretty good. I overlooked this book for many years, and when I finally got it back around to reading it and looking at it. Orthodox Dogmatics by Pomazansky is really good.
Okay, absolutely, yeah, have a have the most last day, Jay, enjoy your today.
Thank you very much, absolutely, thank you great questions. Appreciate that from the Frankish Melkite. I don't see any more people in line that haven't already come on, and I got to save some energy for our Catholic. But let's see what his name is. His name is Chris, Chris Plants, and so I just hit him up and I said, hey,
do you still want to go for tonight? And he hasn't replied yet, but you know, if we're going to do it, we'll be back here in one hour and we'll have a friendly conversation with our Catholic buddy over here, Chris Plants Plants and otherwise, everybody have a good night. How do you call in? You call in through the oh I already removed the link. I removed it because we're about to end it. So you call in the next time. We do this all the time. Anyway, everybody,
have a good night. I'll see here in an hour maybe