Vatican Compromised! Jerusalem Vs. Athens - Jay Dyer & FrDcn Ananias Sorem (Half)

added that to my reading list at Jays Analysis. If not, i'll do it, but I think it's.

I want to talk about logos and logi because a lot of people have a lot of questions about that. If we can, I'd like to talk about some of the things that you brought up in your stream that I didn't know. I didn't even I never knew as a apologies as in a Catholic I've never heard the objection that one of the reasons that they got rid of Mary Clergy was so that the church could get the money. That's a that's so obvious. I never I

never thought about that. So I want to talk about a lot of those objections that you pulled up, and then a couple other ones you mentioned I'd never heard actually, so we'll do some of those, and then I want to talk about Amazon's synod. I've looked over the documents. I think many of us have if you haven't seen them Allso okay, it's not a big deal because we kind of I see it as kind of the next stage beyond Vatican two. And so for everybody out there,

remember to subscribe to Norwegian News when he talks. I'll by the way, I forgot to know I did add his channel in there. I think his channel is in the yeah, gets in there. So everybody subscribe to our friend Norwegian News on YouTube. And then the second half of this talk will of course be for subscribers, So you have to subscribe to Jay's analysis or you can subscribe on the YouTube channel as well. Either way, it's the same material, it's no different, just two different ways

to subscribe to the same content. So let's get into this. Let me ask you a question. Playing Devil's Advocate. I've answered this a lot on my streams and on my shows and podcasts and essays, what would you say to the person who says, you know, look, you come at us, say a Roman Catholic, or could even be a Protestant for that matter. In some cases, with this critique of Hellenism, and you're criticizing Hellenism, isn't orthodoxy just Hellenism itself. Doesn't

it have a medieval synthesis of its own? Aren't you just being hypocritical and having a double standard by calling out the attempt to merge your revealed Hebrew theology supposedly with the ideas of the Greeks. I mean, isn't that what's going on when John says the word logos. I know we've touched on this a little bit last time, but I want to reiterate this because it's a big deal.

With Owen anyway, I'm sorry, father, dig go ahead. What do you say to the person who says, hey, look, we're all doing medieval synthesis. We're all just trying to merge with and talk the language of philosophy. Why is it such a big deal.

Now that's quite different than using philosophers to point to the truths that are higher truths in the faith, than to actually take one's theology and marry it to a particular philosophy. Then you're committed. So for example, we see this synthesized and reach its pinnacle and aquinas in the Scholastics, and therefore you're admitted to certain type of Aristotelian evenimes neo Platonic language, potency, actuality that really ends up causing

some theological problems. So it's not that again that we're fideist that we wouldn't use philosophy. The difference is embracing a whole metaphysics and forcing your theology into a philosopher. And as we talked, one of the primary problems that arises from this is the Greek understanding of being necessity and the divine is an impersonal, absolutely simple force that when you embrace that, if you can't separate from that, you're going to have some theological problems as we do. See.

So I think for you and myself that this is what we're pointing out. We're not saying that we never use, you know, philosophy. We don't embrace the metaphysics the philosophical projects and then try to force our theology into those paradigms. The West has done that, and that's why we have theological problems in the West.

one God. So let's take the phrase one God. Does that mean that because many different religions, many different groups would say I believe in a God or one God. That therefore the meanings across all these systems are synonymous. No, I mean, of course not right. So if I said I believe in one God, could I join forces with someone who believed that that one God was Satan? What about one God equaling Father? That would be our view, We believe in one God because of one Father, Paul says.

Or what about a Greek philosopher Aristotle, perhaps Plato? The one quote God is just an abstracted monad thought thinking itself the one whatever. Right, So we can have a term, a phrase that means that has different meanings in a whole bunch of different context. Now, I know that's kind of a basic common sense idea, but unfortunately, especially in the Tomistic scheme, the idea of generic theism, the idea of classical apologetics. The tendency that we run into is

the assumption that words are synonymous across systems. Right, And I think we did illustrate this. Yeah, they have a unifical meaning across systems. I'm not talking about Aquinas saying that we can't predicate unifically of God. I'm talking about system to system. Right, when the Satanist says there's a God, or if a I don't know, a Buddhist says there's a God, right, they all mean different things. So the phraise the we can't commit what's called the word concept fallacy.

And that's what's key here. And I'm saying this because this is a problem that I've run into over and over and over so many times with the Thomas. It's a problem I had, and I've seen it come up this weekend debates and discussions. It's an issue I had when I was a Thomas and I was looking at orthodoxy and I kept wanting to say, well, look, we're all just saying the same thing. We use the same words. Why can't it just be that we're speaking the same language.

But we got to just be clear on what we're saying and realize that we're all saying the same thing. And then I realized, oh, we're not saying the same thing, right.

he's getting at. It is the same principle that you know, we have the secular culture of saying love wins. We have Crolyism saying love is the sum of the law. These are all the same words with entirely different meanings. For the secular world and the occult love means something like personal desire. For the Christian and the Orthodox, love is canotic, it's pouring out, it's sacric it's just the opposite.

It's the inversion of surprise, surprise of the world. And so it's very important that we understand, well, what are we signifying what reality? The word isn't important. It's the concept that it's signifying. And Christ realizes us too when he says, who do you say that I am? Or you get the evangelicals say this all the time, I'm a believer? Is he a believer? Believer in what? Who? An historian? Jesus, the ary in Jesus the you know, take your pick. That everybody has a different gen So

it's quite important to hammer these things out that. Obviously the word is equivocal in this sense, and it's important. So going back to this kind of generic notion of God that we'll all just mean the same thing. What's the analogy that man's blind and God's an elephant? Ridiculous metaphor, but we're all just trying to describe different in different ways because we're limited. Well, first of all, the problem with that is a denial of what's revealed in scripture.

God is the Lord and he has revealed us himself to us. And that's what's so important about the Orthodox faith is where is our starting point? Is it in pagan man made specuative of philosophy, in which case, yeah, we are all blind and not only not feeling the elephant, we're just locked in our heads doing this metaphysicals and ontological speculation about and of course you're going to get

all kinds of different descriptions. But when your starting point is the Lord God, who has revealed himself to us, then he tells you who he is, and he's not a generic monad. That God's being and this was the problem with the Greeks, is that God's being an existence, was through his ussia, his his substance, and that is Basil and the other Fathers explicate and explain that God's

existence is contingent upon his hypostasis. It's God is hypostasis, the father hypostasis that gives his being, and not the other way around. That you see it as first and then let's try to work out personhood. And so when you embrace that type of philosophy, then of course you're going to come up and say things like, well, we're all just worshiping the same God and different stuff. And that's why Besil says you cannot conceive of God apart

from trinity. There is no God apart from hypostasis. The Greeks never were able to develop a notion of personhood. And I would argue, as you would as well, probably the West has never developed any sufficient or robust understanding a personhood. And for the Greeks, being was the unifying principle, the united the many in the universe. But there was the universe and cosmos. For the Greeks had a notion of necessity. And so this question arises within Christianity and Orthodoxy. Well,

is God utterly free to create? And these are issues that you brought up with the problems with absolute divine simplicity. If all predicates are absolutely ontologically ident identical with God's essence, in what sense is he free as creator? His nature is Usiah would bind him. And so the Greeks were never able to work out this dichotomy between being is necessity and the cosmos and the freedom that lies in

person of it. And this is what the Orthodox are able to do by saying that God is first and foremost person, and that his being himself the divinity is not through his usia, but through the hypostasis of the Father, and therefore he's utterly free. And you and I talked about this too. In what sense does hypostasis transcend nature or being? Ussia it's because is I might have a nice quote here from Basil at Saint Basil.

with as and synergi distinction. But I'm gonna put this in description as well, and let me add two. So I've added that. I want to add as well that the if you want to read Edward Fesser, the famous tomester my Nosi festor Is. I mean, he has three essays on Plotinus's doctrine of simplicity, and if you read those essays, I've got a link there, you'll see that he says everything that I've been saying. There's no I've not been wrong on any of the critiques of Tomism.

In fact, I've had it right the entire time. And I want to make a point too that what you're getting at here is that we could look at another diagram that might handy little diagrams here if we took the word hypostasis. If you read the Aeneids, Plotinus uses this. Okay, he uses this term. Now where exactly he got it is an interesting question. Perhaps he got it from Greek philosophers, perhaps he got it from New Testament writers. Right, we

don't know. Maybe some philosophers or scholar knows. But let's keep in mind that what this means in this scheme is not what it means to us in Orthodox theology. And that's why when you read that letter Basil, you'll see that it doesn't mean the same. So, for example, in his scheme, if I recall I'm going from memory here, Plotinus thinks that you have the one, the one gives birth to the diad I think is the noose in

his scheme. And then these two together, looking at one another and loving and reflecting on one another, produce the world soul, the anima mundi, which is the third principle. So you get this this succession of beings that that kind of comes into being the world soul or the news. I forget which one I had some article pulled up here, I can't remember one of the two links our world to that world. I think the noose links our world to the ideal realm. Anyway, it doesn't mean the same. Look,

noose is another example here. Noose here does not mean what we think Noos is. Okay, Noos for us is not some second demi urge principle in the original triad of platonis. You see, so hypostasis doesn't mean the same thing. Noose doesn't mean the same thing. Right. These are terms that the same terms in Orthodox Christianity used in Platinas, but they have completely different meanings. Yeah.

dependent upon its archaean principle, which is hypostasis. And so it is the Father who is the cause of his being and the processions as well. It's his hypostasis, and that is and again, when Jay gets back, I think it would be nice to talk about how the Greeks use the term hypostasis and versus the fathers and why that change occurred.

multiple places in exposition of Orthodox Faith. It's also dealt with very well in God history and dialectic, especially the way it's treated of in Volume one, which I want to touch on a few quotes out of this. When you make your point, so go ahead.

the general, unifying principle of nature. So it's abstract and it's general, whereas person is concrete in particular. And so again you get this with Plato. What's his ultimate arcade the form of the good being, and then the form of the good which gives being too. The forms, but that's all general, and so he was not able to work out any kind of individual concretization of the abstract idea. So again we see these dialectics that are unable to

be synthesized. And then obviously with Aristotle you get just the opposite. You get an emphasis on the concrete individual man, but you have a separation from the eternality of being in the generals. So this poses and again with the notion of being or substance of the unifying principle of the cosmos, you get problems of necessity. So we've got two issues here going on. The inability to synthesize a kind of arcane first principle of being with a concretization

of the individual, the individual man, the individual book. Greek philosophy isn't able to work that out, and subsequently as well necessity and freedom. And there's obviously a link because in Greek philosophy hypostasis stasis standing under is the idea, and so hypostasis and Greek had the notion of substance, and obviously there's a link between hYP personhood and substance, but it's never articulated and worked out and tell the

fathers where they have to address these things. And so what you begin to see is a changing of those words, you start to get a little bit of some Tertullian Obviously, it gets worked out much more in the Cappadocian Father of Saint Basil Saint Gregory, because they're having to address these issues when critiques are coming in. And here this is why Saint Basil says that being cannot exist in a naked state nature, essence in the sense of essence cannot exist on its own, but always exists in the

mode of hypostasis, the person. And so in that sense, person or hypostasis is primary. And then when you make that primary, is the father say it is the hypostasis of the trinity that creates the world and creates being. And so Platinus doesn't have this right. He has this kind of monad, and he tries to draw these kind of distinctions out and to create world spirit and this notion of creation, but they're unable to articulate it, and.

ontological status. Right. The fact that we are distinct beings from the one requires us to go on our long platonic mystic journey back to absorption into the one.

It still has a link to being in the original sense in the Greeks, but now it's given a new meaning and provides a context in which being can exist because it cannot exist in the mode of nakedness, right, but always in the mode of person that you get the synthesis between the one and the many. That again, and this is going to play out also in the essence energies distinction too, right, How can you have one in many?

tropos of persons. This is why, in perfect harmony with what Basil says in the Letter thirty eight, this is why Saint John Damascus can say in Book three that all the heretics, the root of all the heretics errors is in the confusion of nature and person. Says that on page two seventy two. If you have this volume, it's book three, chapter three of whatever volume they have. And so then he goes from there to moving on to talking about the person of the Father, right being

the sole arcade of the trinity. This is another reason why we don't have the philioquay because we can't confuse the father's hyposthetic property with the son. The son can't take on the father's unique hyposthetic property. He goes on to kind of illustrate and lay out in a more clear way than he did previously, in what sense nature is common amongst the father's son and spirit, and then in what sense each of the persons are distinct. And

this is important too for the philly Okuay. I didn't really intend to get off into philly okuay, but it's just the way John Damascus takes it in his work. Because we don't want to We can only say things about God that either are applicable to him in terms of his unity, or they're applicable to him in terms of the persons. So if we say sonship, right, that's an that's a property, a hypostetic property that's unique to

the sun. But if we use the term love, that's a attribute and energy and operation that's common to all

three persons. Now we might be able to say, as Gregor Palomos does, and as the counselor Blackernae does, that there's a sense in which perhaps the spirit manifests eternally love in a special way, but that doesn't mean that he is more love or he's identified with an attribute those That's where you get all the confusions and nonsense in the Roman Catholic scheme is they will collapse eternal manifestation,

the eternal processions into hypostatic properties. And this is a very important This is something I never got as a Roman Catholic, as a Tomis and it's because I didn't make these proper triadic distinctions, because that's where it begins, right in the triad in this theology. And by the way, everything that's true in this sense in the triad is then I mean obviously not saying that there's each ternal

energetic processions in the incarnation. I mean they do come to us from the Father through the Son in the spirit, but I mean it's not exactly the same. But what I'm saying is that the way that we conceive of the relationship between Father, Son and Spirit, person and nature is also going to be applicable to the incarnate Christ because all of the teachings and beliefs that we have about the hypostasis in the trinity, it's going to be consistent with one hypostasis entering into the mode of the

state of being incarnate. So we have to have a doctrine which allows for that, if we have an absolutely simple essence doctrine. Again, the way look at the way that Fessor explains and explicates the standard Roman Catholic view of simplicity. There's no way that one hypostasis in the trinity could enter into a mode of existence that the other two do not, right, if that doctrine of simplicity is true. So it all hinges on what we're talking

about here with person nature making that distinction. Making in distinction doesn't mean they're divided, right, So it's all it's a distinction without confusion, without division, and it protects the father's soul causal role. Right. And then when we come to Christology, when we understand what Saint Cyril did so brilliantly with hinosis, which is where he compares the relationship of the body and the soul and man, where he

says that that kind of of a union. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's a kind of useful analogy because here we have a human whose body and soul it's a it's a true union. But we don't mix and blend and confuse soul and body even though they're truly united. And that's Cyril's analogy for what goes on in the incarnation, in that the divinity and it's not

just a generic divinity. This is why we can't have this roma caa the misunderstanding of the incarnation to think that, oh, well, it's just the divine nature melding or uniting with the human nature, and that equals Jesus. No, No, Jesus possessed his hypostasis from all eternity. He's the eternal Logos. That's hypostatic, right, and then he assumes the human nature, and the human nature has for its hypostasis the person of the logos.

There's no human there's no created hypostasis in Christ at all. That's period and that's why Cyril is so important.

to express this and to see this. And so obviously one of the problems that we as Westerners before we converted, when you were a Roman Catholic, we were saying, I wasn't able to grasp this is because the paradigm that if you embrace this sort of Greek Aristotilian paradigm where you're unable to make the proper distinctions, then you don't see it. And I mean we see this all across history, for example, that our paradigms don't allow us to see

certain realities. If we have the incorrect paradigm, we're limited in that sense. And so that brings up a really good point that we've got to make sure that we have the right paradigms so that we can be able to articulate and see the realities that are present around us.

really good. It's very deep, very difficult. I just got a hold of this and I haven't I read a little bit of it, but the concept of person and Gregory of Nissa by Lucian Rescuescu, you would know more about. I don't know my Romanian but and then got what's that one? Have you read God History and Dialectic?

that's not what a person is. A person's just an instance of nature. Then when it comes to the trinity, we would be Sibelians, we would be modalists. We would just say, well, the son is just an instance of the divine nature. The father is just a particular instance of the divine nature. And that's not what it is. There's a real distinction, a real say level up right

beyond what usia is. That is person that instantiates the nature, all right, And this is how we can be truly trinitarian and truly have a distinction between the first the persons, And as was pointed out last time, that's why the grace that we get is not just generic nature. We don't just participate in some uncreated generic energy. We participate in sonship. We participate in a hypostatic, uncreated grace. You see. If it was just generic, then we wouldn't be made sons.

We would be made gods, you see. But we're not just making god. We're not making gods in a generic sense. We participate in sonship obviously by ad option, because we're creatures. But that's why the grace is hypostatic. That's why it's important to understand that uncreated grace, as secondary or Palma says to the barley mine, is in hypostatized and to say that does not mean that persons are therefore oh their intense like you said, you said it well last time, Oh,

they're intension with nature. Right, the person is so mysterious and it goes so beyond nature that we just can't even know it or talk about it. And therefore maybe we should consider like perennialism or something, right, like all the religions are teaching it. You know, that's where somebody might try to take that kind of a mistake of going too far in the mystery of personhood, that it's it's totally you know, we can never say anything about it.

and the natural philosophy as well. And so one of the problems too, is that and this ties into your comment about you better be careful if you don't make these distinctions, because you'll run into Sabelianism. Is that for the Greeks, person lacked ontological content. This is why Prosopone had this meaning of a mask. The real being was the Usa in the essence, and therefore the mass lacks any ontological content and has to be put on to give.

In Orthodoxy it reverses that again that personhood in hypostatsis is what gives being to Usia, because Usia, being in substance, cannot exist in any can state. And this is why Saint Basil and the Fathers say that it is hypostasis that has created the universe and sustains it in not ousia, not being. And if you don't make that distinction, you either go into Sibelianism or you can end up in Try Try Theism.

a different, distinct hypostosis. And so there's some sense then, in which hypostosis each of the divine hypostaces fully instantiates or fully includes the divine nature. There's no lack there, right, the son doesn't have any lesser divinity.

really are distinct. And I think that a lot of people, as you've been pointing out, when they try to do trinitarian theology, they will miss the mystery aspect of it in a real sense. Here I'm not saying mystery in a bad sense, but in the sense that we have to accept what revelation and tradition tells us in that God is just as much one as he is three, and he's just as much three as he is is one.

And this is the way that we avoid falling into on the wrong side of that false dialectic right of absolute divine simplicity over here, or perhaps we're so stressing distinctions that we, like you said, fall into tritheism. This is the only way to really properly balance this. And that's why the Fathers are so important, is because they have hashed this out over many centuries.

of being. Personhood, like you said, it exists, so nature and being always exists in the mode and tropos of personhood, and in that sense it's primary and it transcends, so not only in the sense that we have no metaphysical or natural laws that can encapsulate and bring down personhood the way that we can with being in nature, but also in this sense that it's the primary archaic, the

first principle of being itself. And this explains to what you were talking about with the essence energies distinction, that God's entergaea is his eternal actctivities are being. This is what in the West they don't get because they associate God's essay in the senseia is one. But we understand and only through this distinction. This is why these distinctions are so important to make hypostasis primary and as the arkae is that it is the cause of being, and

therefore yes, you can only explain that. So what you get is a consistent theology when you have the distinctions between essence and energies. So the energies are being not becoming, so they're not creating grace, they're not becoming into being. They're eternal in their God and they find their source

in the Arkae, the Father, the hypostatis in personhoods. So what we're going to argue again is it's consistent theology all the way through and that we pick up on the Greek words because we are christianizing the Greek pagan world. Then so we have to use their concepts in language

without embracing their enterprise and their metaphysics. And then what we do, through God's grace and the Holy Spirit, is we're able to baptize those words in Orthodox Christianity in order that we may solve the distinctions that the Greek

Hellenistic paradigms were unable to do. And so if you don't, if you do not have this theology, if you're committed to a scholastic embrace of Greek Hellenistic Aristotelianism or whatever other philosophy and ancient Greece, you're not going to be able to work these things out theologically, and you're going to have inconsistencies, which is exactly what we point out

with Rome. It's not that they deny the incarnation, it's not that they don't deny the trinity, but given their principles and their commitments, there's inconsistencies exactly.

what I said God transcends logic. I was quoting Gregory Palamas who says that, and he's actually quoting Dionysius and the Divine names. He says that God transcends the logical categories. This doesn't mean God's irrational and illogical. It just means that God, because he's infinite, he transcends the conceptual human order. Right, there's a realm of the mind we could call the

noetic realm. That's that's true. It's created by God. There's noedic energies when we think we're in this realm, right, that's still a created realm. It's not a realm of the uncreated. We're not Platonists, right, So that's still a created realm, and we do have there is a sense in which the logi does kind of come into to overlap with that realm. You could say, as well as

a created the physical realm. You know, I'm not trying to make a distinction between the physical, but there is a distinction between and the fathers, the noetic realm and the physical realm, all right, and the spiritual realm plays into the noedic realm as well. So I say that because there's a lot more nuance in our philosophy and our theology and our worldview that the realman Catholic scheme doesn't have. So if somebody were to say to me, why would you dare say that God transcends logic? That

sounds like you believe God can contradict himself. That's not what we're saying. I'm not saying that. We're saying that, yes, the laws of logic are a reflection of the Divine mind. They are not a one to one correspondence to the Divine mind. That would make us platonists. That would make us Hellenis neoplatonists. Right, we would be like Pythagoras, thinking that numbers are God or something that's not true. We

don't believe that. So it's very important to make the distinction between saying, on the one hand, yes, we do have a kind of medieval synthesis. If you want to call it that by what you termed baptizing these terms, baptizing the language. I mean, if you think about the septuagen, that's what the subtuagen is. The Septusian is an attempt to take the Hebrew revelation put it into the language of the Greek diaspora so that they could understand it.

But the key there is that they weren't baptizing pagan philosophers per se. Right. I mean, even in the Book of Maccabees there's apologetic treatises. You could argue against Greek the gayness of Greek wrestling that's actually argued against in the Maccabees. They bitch about the the gross gayness in the Book of Maccabees that's going on in Hellenic culture, right, So they're not melding with the pagan aspects of the culture. They're taking the terms and the concepts of putting it

into that language. Anyway, long story short, I really like that you pointed out that the cause if we understand why does this matter? Who cares? Why does this? Because if we understand that the cause of being in general is personal and not just a super essential essence, that we start with that we reason down from or reason up to in the tomistic analogious scheme, when we understand that we're starting with I am, that I am, and that that's personal, that leads us to understanding that reality

is personal, all reality is personal. God's personal, and in fact, the entire Greek project of impersonalism is undermined through this apologetic and through this point.

the one is a reference to God. Right here Basil does so in a unique sense that confounds any attempt at a neoplatonic analysis. In the Greek, the one is in Poltoni's system, referring to the neuter toe end right, as evidenced by his use of the pronoun it to describe the one. The one's an it. God is an it, a thing, a substance. For Platonis, the one is that which exists, that thing which exists you see, or simply

it's translated as a being. Again, in the neuter toll on for Saint Basil, God is never referred to, but in the masculine the one for him is whole ice. I think that's correct. I'm not a Greek scholar, but and referred to as him. Likewise, the one is he who exists hole on this seemingly minor point will assume crucise significance when we turn to the application of the dogma to art in the iconography of the First and

Second Europe. He's talking about the first millennium of the Church being Orthodox, as the second millennium in terms of the West being Roman Catholic. And even more significant when we look at the Second Europe as a process of the application of the gnostic technique of assigning new meanings to old terms. And then we'll come to understand the

tetragrammatim of Exodus as I am who I am. He's saying, the Second Europe of Roman Catholicism will not interpret this as the personal god of Basil, but in the abstract, impersonal essentialism of Plotinus. And that's exactly what we see if you go through Jilson. When Jillson executes Exodus three fourteen, he says, this means I'm perfect super essence and being right.

What gives becoming to matter? You don't find this anywhere in Aristotle whatsoever? This is again some neoplatonic influence that so he's not just the hardcore Aristotilian. You can find a lot of places that he is actually very neo platonic.

Dinysius is a saint. Well, Aquinus quotes him all the time. So you're saying that that therefore orthodox, he is Neoplatonism, right.

discuss what Dynastius says. But just like with John Damascus, he quotes John Damascus, he'll quote Dinasis, He'll say, the names are just distinguished in our human conceptions, they're not actual, real distinctions in God or in reality. And we simply depart from that and we say we think that Diagnosius really did believe that the energies were real, distinct energies, and that that's true into Basil, and it's true into Maximus, and it's true all the way into Saint Gregor Palamas.

but you're reading it in a different way. You're reading in a very later development of Vatican wants in reading your paradigm into the father. This is why paradigms are so important, and it's why we don't. For example, I brought up in the last podcast that when you see the Fathers arguing with heretics and the councils, for example of Nicea with Arius, and Arius is a master of citing scripture and knowing scripture. What you don't find is that the Holy Fathers get down at the same level

and just start matching scripture with scripture. Well, that's not the correct understanding. They operate in terms of presuppositional apologetics. You do not have the correct starting point and paradigm to interpret these. And likewise, look, we have the same verses, we have the same words, we have God, we have both having a sort of premiacy, but given your paradigm,

you're going to read those with entirely different meanings. And so rather than getting down at the level of your opponent, we analyze things in terms of paradigms and starting points and make our critiques from there. Most people don't do that, and so they get very aggravated.

glad you likened that too. What goes on with with the proponents of papal infallibility, because I noticed that in the in the debate with Abara, because you know, Abara is going to put out these these ideas when he wasn't citing forgeries, by the way, but he's going to put out these ideas that are fine in orthodox way, Right, we wouldn't have a problem with an appellate structure, right that there were appeals that that kind of went up the but in his mind, oh well that's Vatican one,

that's your appealing to the guy who's infallible, right, what else would it be? Right? So, yeah, the assumptions are read into these things, and there's a lot of nuance.

It goes into a lot of these examples. There's a lot of contact that's ignored, especially like you know, people that go to Catholic Answers and they go to the Papal premiscy page and they just kind of throw out all these, you know, machine gun the quotes from the Catholic Answers page on Papal premiascy without understanding that in a lot of these cases there's context and a lot of these cases. Let's take Jesus himself, this is a

really powerful one. Two chapters after Matthew sixteen, Jesus says the exact same thing to the College of the Apostles. Right, So the keys text of Matthew sixteen eighteen remit and retain sins. Two chapters later he says the exact same thing to all of the Apostles. Whoever sends you remit, they're remitted. Whoever sends you retain, they're retaining. It's not

specific to Peter in Matthew eighteen. So the point being is that we can't take that one verse of Jesus and say, ah, that's the verse that means all of the papal premiacy texts that I presuppose, and that's I'm going to read that into that text. And as I think, who was I talking to a recently, somebody had a

great point recently that it was the French guy. How often it then became this norm by especially Jesuit apologists and so forth, to take literally start taking texts that are prophecies of Christ and start reading those about Peter, like the Cornerstone of the Old Testament. Oh, that that's Peter. No, it's not. It's talking about Jesus, right, And that.

to hear, particularly from evangelicals. So you're saying, I'm not saved, that Salvation's is in or everything's read is an either or, because they don't have the paradigm to be able to make the nuances and synthesize what would otherwise appear to be contradictory or contrary.

tension with the divine will. So in Christ there couldn't be a real symphonia in harmony of the two wills. There's got to be some like button heads going on here. And so the Monothelites and the mono inergists argue that there has to be some sort of subsuming and overriding of the human will to replace the natural human energy in the will of Christ, so that the divine basically

just kind of controls it or something, you know. And granted, some of the language of the Fathers can be difficult at times because sometimes actually from Athanasius to Maximus, you have the logos Sarks terminology, where the logos who's already possessing person at where's the humanity like a suit, where's he's in fleshed right, So that's not always wrong, And as Bathrello's points out, you can even read an orthodox correct that's not Monophysite or it's not a Pollinarian view

of the logos Sarks christology. There's nothing wrong with that as long as we don't deny to the humanity the fullness of humanity, right, as long as that's guarded against that terminology is not wrong because it's used in John one. He's the logos became enfleshed, right. So what I'm saying is that there are many places where we can find

similarities of philosophic language. We have to be careful and nuanced with the language, but all the way up into the Sixth Council and the debates there, we can see the assumptions of dialectics at every point, whether it's in the Trinity, whether it's in Cyril and his debates with Thestorius, or whether it's the Fifth Council and the Postcusceledonian Cyrillic debates, then the Neo kirillions that won out in the Fifth and sixth Council, we can see that we're dealing with

this constant assumption that there can never be a harmony. There's always going to be this kind of tension. Jesus can't have, you know, truly human will, because that would mean that if he does, he's fighting against God, and that's not possible. But the assumption is that he is human will would fight against God. It doesn't fight against God.

two is just a stage in this long process. I think that we're going to be vindicated on that analysis. So we'll get to that in the second part. So if you want to hear the rest of this talk, this is a half and half, you'll want to subscribe either here on YouTube or over at Jay's analysis in the subscription section, through PayPal, credit card, or whatever you want to use. So let's take some of these super chats before we get to that part two. Bruder Klaus,

thank you for becoming a member to the website. Appreciate that much, appreciate it. You'll look under the community tab there for the posts for members. Beys Chungus one ninety nine do you have any thoughts on the aerial toll houses. Thank you for the great show. I think that, yes,

there's something to the toll houses. I don't think that we have to go into an extreme of like every little literally every little detail of there being eight or ten or two, twenty three or one thousand and you got to pay all these debts and every but there is definitely something to the return of the soul after death. We pray for people have your death. I don't know what your take on that is, if you want to answer.

justified in making that trust? And for us Orthodox it is the mind is polluted and diseased, and is Saint Isaac the Syrian says, it's through the news and asceticism that we begin to cleanse the mind so that it's able to see correctly speak correctly. And that's our anthropology. And so because they have credentials, because they're holy, and that's good enough for me without having to go into the exact detail of what exactly you know is absolutely

truer about it in what detail? I think that's to get distracted from the issue.

I would say that in a sense, perhaps you could say that that's true because for example, in Judaism, yes they still have aspects of revelation, but you could view it kind of like a cult, like the Jovah's witnesses have aspects of revelation, right, but they don't have they have a corrupted you know, New World translation version of the Bible. So it's corrupted, it's it's not authentic, it's

it's corrupt. And so in the same way, yes, in a sense, do we worship Allah well in the Arabic translations of our liturgies and Orthodoxy that use the term Allah. But is that equated to like we talked about earlier, And if we have the term I believe in Allah, I believe in one God? Is that the exact same? Do we mean the same thing just because we're using the same syllables and vowels. No, Because when we say who we mean who is our one God? It's the

Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. And the only way to him is John fourteen six through Christ in the spirit, right, So you have to be trinitarian. So no, I mean in one sense with the limited aspects of truth that are in Judaism and Islam, because they do have some aspects of revelation. Yes, But also no, because just like Jehovah's witness, they have aspects of the revelation like we do, but they corrupt it to the extent that it's it's not selviffic, is my view.

imagine just as the Greek philosopher's you can get things right. But are we talking about the same God. Well, if you think about what Saint Basils says, you cannot conceive of God apart from trinity, then no, we're we're not. So I think it's perfectly fine to say as you did in a way yes, in a way no, And

then I can provide the distinctions. You can say true things about God, but you don't end up, in your intentionality, end up hitting and talk helping, you know, and worshiping the same God because you have to have this necessary component of trinity.

from Rose is massive biography right now. It's very good. I've read a lot of the biographies of church fathers. Those are really good. That's probably my area where I've put most of my time in terms of hagiography. If you go to the liturgy, you know you'll hear a lot of the hagiography. So, but I don't know of a specific book personally. Do you have a specific book he'd recommend on just the Lives of the Saints?

and their apologetics. I think that's entirely plausible. I don't know if we know for sure, but yeah, I could easily see Plato and Aristotle being influenced by Isaiah or the prophets, or you know, something like that. Maybe they read Moses. It's entirely plausible. I don't know if hey Mody knows for sure, but what do you think on that?

Pharaoh's daughter. Presumably she converted. Presumably people in Egypt converted. We know that when the Jews left Egypt there were many converts who actually went with them, Exodus says, so it's entirely possible. It's entirely plausible that the theology of the Jews did also influence Egypt. We know there was overlap there. I mean, it says Moses learned and knew all the mysteries of the Egyptians, so there was some overlaps,

some interchange there. That's entirely plausible. Maybe that's why the Egyptians had a period of monotheism. But I don't know that anybody knows for sure. But I believe the Genesis account, so I believe that that, you know, Joseph really did do what he did. Needs it, Amy Polino twenty bucks. Thank you, Amy, always shouting out getting them fat super chats. Much appreciated. Amy straw hat Bear five bucks. How how do you read notes? Do you read note intensive or

eyes to words solely or it depends. I'm a slow reader, as you can see. I do it with intense crazy sticky notes. And when I write my notes in the sticky notes, and in the book it helps me remember. So that's how I do it. But do you want to share any tips on how you read?

write stuff out, just solidify. I don't know if that's the best method, and the reason why is because everybody's different they use. There's not a one size fits all because we learn in different ways. But that's kind of my motors operandi.

Thank you. Franklin Chan longtime supporter much to you, much love to Amy and Polino and the long time jasonnalysis NERD supporters Drunken Warlock ten Bucks. A question for both of you, what is your famous favorite book on the saint or saints? Well, as we said a minute ago, he gave, we gave a couple hagiography examples. Uh, my favorite book would probably still be something theological. So I'm trying to think of what would be the most important book.

I think on the Incarnation by Saint Nathanasius is very very important. I mean it's such a great, you know, thirty page encapsulation of the whole of our theology. That's a good one. I don't know of one specific book on a saint or saints. I guess since my patron is Daniel, the Book of Daniel holds a very prominent place in my heart. Do you have any more thoughts?

it's it's hard. You know, there's biographies and then there's the hardcore theology. I love them both.

Look under the community tab. Much appreciated. Glad to have you as a member. Orthodox Pilgrim fifty bucks. Wow, thank you man, much appreciated. Thank you, he says, keep the discussions going. You are reaching people. Well, that's good. God's peace to both of you. Remember everybody subscribed to Norwegian News. I've got his channel linked in the description. Definitely follow his work. Neo Crusader has become a Gold member. Wow.

Thanks man Again. I'm going to put the log in stuff for you guys after this talk on the community tab so that all the Gold members can also now access the archives. It is Nelysis and Warlock two dollars again. Do you have an orthodox view on concealed carry firearms? I believe that firearms are I don't. I don't think there's any I mean, people from Fordham University would tell you, you know, but no, I think that self defense is biblical. I've always heard it was biblical. I never heard anybody

say it's not. Do you have any differing view on that?

outside of military work as well. Now as for clergy, we take on a different role. So so it might be one thing to go hunt or target practice or something like that, or hunt for food, but because we take on the role of Christ and Marredom that we as clergy would not use guns for self defense. We would lay our lives down. But for the lady, Yeah, there's absolutely no no conflict.

fast days on the carnivore diet. I'll let you handle that because you just covered this in your stream yesterday when people were asking you how do you do it? And I think you gave a great example in terms of economium.

how much to apply the law. And so this is the principal economia that's not present outside of the Orthodox Church. And this is why you get this kind of pharasitical legalism. And so again, every priest that I've talked to, if you go first and foremost, you need to go to your father, confessor, your priest and discuss these things with don't listen to lady Lady asks any clergy Lad, You're insane. They have all kinds of crazy ideas. Okay, we have

a hierarchical structure. We go to you know, we're trained for a reason. Go talk to your priest about certain health concerns. In that well, Father, what am I supposed to do during the fast if I'm eating only animal products? There's other ways too fast. I've never come across a

priest that says, I'm sorry. You have to commit to the letter of the law, even if it destroys the ends to which it's your health, or that it's trying to obtain an achieve And so priests will give the blessing and they'll have you fast in other ways, and we get so caught up and thinking that fasting only applies to food.

But of course, remember if you don't want to do it that way, you can always go to Jay's analysis and purchase a membership there as well. So for hour two, he and I will continue this topic. We're going to talk about Amazon synod and what's coming up and what's

going on there. That will be for subscribers. It'll be posted later on either later tonight or tomorrow, and then in another hour, probably about seven thirty or eight, I will live stream on my twitch because I'm having I just want to build up the twitch a little bit as a backup. You know, you never know what's going to happen. I'll put my twitch here in the chat for anybody who wants to. I'm gonna be playing what's this. It's this medieval game what's it called? Plague of Innocence

where you're trying to escape during the plague. So it's been fun so far. We'll be talking philosophy, theology there as well a lot of weird medieval Latin stuff going on in this Plague of Innocence game. So head over to my twitch. I'll be there in an hour after Father Deacon and I finish up the second half, but that will be available to subscribers. Let's see we got another membership, Diego. Thank you, Diego much appreciate it. Glad

you're here. Drunken Warlock asks another question, what do you think about pre marital kissing? I will let Father Deacon answer.

medicine for healing the soul. So for example, if somebody has a serious problem with lust or something like that, the priest might say, you know what, I don't want you to do that. And that's why it's so important to develop a healthy relationship in confession and outside of confession with your priest and discuss these concerns with your priests so that they can give you the appropriate medication.

And what I'd also add too, is that on this kind of medical analogy, that a lot of people will have multiple priests as confessors, and that's equivalent to doctor shopping. That you might get contradictions in the medicines that are applied, and so you stick with one that doesn't mean that you can't later go find a spiritual father, but there's

issues that come up. I have people write me that I have two priests that are giving me contradictory suggestions and prescriptions on and it's like, well, that's a perfect reason why you need one spiritual father at a time.

There it's it's listed and if you want to hear the second part, you'll want to subscribe to Jay's analysis and we will continue with the Amazon discussion.