What Do Orthodox Christians Actually Believe: Ruslan Vs Jay Dyer!

So is orthopos considered a derogatory term. You and Sam have your situation. What was your impression of the debate you had with him as a debate partner on valutainment? And then when do you think that devolved to? What ended up evolving to? Which will get into if.

We don't make judgments about individuals, and like I don't know your destiny, I don't know the work of God's spirit in your heart. I do believe that like the thief on the cross, and I tried to bring some philosophical internal critiques to the table, and I think it was a blowout. If you go to the pressure of a channel, you can see forty thousand ish comments.

Ninety eight percent is un lost.

Some of the folks that I see that are coming towards Eastern Orthodox seem to have a crippling fear and anxiety around their own salvation.

The argument that you're making violates the very thing that you just said would relativize the positions.

The argument that I'm making right now, Your.

Argument is no different than anyone else's argument you're citing. You're saying I have this position, they have that position. You have your position. Yeah, of course, but that has nothing to.

Do with it. Jay's in his stunner shades.

I'm going full Jim Jones because I thought I thought we were going to the Madi, so I was going to do that cult vibe.

I better talk the rest of this in the or show voice.

Cult lads will also have like a booger whistle, if you know, it's like, oh show, He's like.

Okay, so so so is ortho bros considered a derogatory term the only time. The first time I heard it was at Jonathan Pago's conference last year, the first one he did, and so I was like, that's interesting because it because it it articulated for my vantage point a group. There's I have two very polar opposite experience with Preist

Right? Yeah?

Nothing? Is it really a song for the anathemist? Okay, we'll get to the anatherists. So anyway, derogatory term. Are you kind of coined and viewed as the guy who kind of built this Ortho Rose community?

Uh? Or is it? Was it already there and you just of spoke to it.

It was a joke that fothered again and nice made and then for whatever reason, I think, then people started saying, oh, I'm an Ortho bro, and then the people who wrote hit pieces used it as a derogatory term, so so initially as a joke, and then they and then yeah, and then but I would say, like, yeah, I think you've got a full spectrum of like people who aren't

I will say, your guys' cross is definitely the coolest esthetic cross.

I mean, anybody can create a Twitter profile and say I'm Orthodox. By the way, I'm ready to go kill people, right, and I'm just like, I haven't seen that sort of stuff. There was a dude who do that. Yeah, anyway, I also think, like you said, if you know, when you're like eighteen to twenty five, you're really searching and you're very idealistic, you're very zealous.

I was that way when I was in my twenties.

I was a calvalc should have been caged Calvinists right when you.

Were Calvinists before the young, restless reform. Yes, right, yeah, it was a couple of years before that. I'm just saying that I have Do you remember that era though, like as you were I guess Catholic or wherever you were at. Do you remember how like scorching hot like the John Piper.

Yeah, I was really into both of those.

Okay, Yeah, but what I'm saying, like twenty not twenty two thousand and six to two thousand and yeah, ten eleven is like Calvinism.

Well I moved past those guys before that time, but I was really into John Piper and Paul Washer back in the late nineties and early two thousands.

They made me Calvinist.

You were early on that, Okay, Okay, So anyway, Ortho bros.

Yeah, I mean it's I think.

You're gonna have a lot of young people searching who are zealous and who immediately want to start debating. And this is something that FDAFO again and Nice has tried to like warn about, and in fact, he does an Orthodox conference and the last two conferences he's done in

Of bad people. Right. That's not fair either. No, I mean Paul goes out and debates.

You know, so yeah, Act seven seen, Yeah, Paul Nathan's one of my favorite chapters. So would you say the current you've talked about losing your temper is that something you go to confession for or is that just something you personally?

Yeah?

No, I mean I've had to confess that probably ten times, ten times in yeah, ten years or seven years years.

Would you say the general debate culture online is a net positive or a net negative? Because I get I get a lot of this asked in our Patreon community of like, hey, what do you think of this? And we'll get to the Sam Chamoun and all that. Yeah, crazy, Like I think that's way out there, right, But net positive? What do you make of just an overall debate scene.

I would guess that from my perspective, and like when we go to our live events, and I would say in the last five to seven years, we've probably met a few thousand people in person, just from traveling coast to coast many times and going to as churches and whatnot. I would say it's overall in that positive because we've met so many people who said I came out of atheism. I came out of Islam, I came out of you know, all these things.

To Christ because of a debate, and you're seeing these people in church. Now, yeah, that's that's I would say,

It's not just a proposition online. It can just be online.

It can't just be an agreement to said facts, because then that's just gnosticism, you know, it's just knowledge and information. And so I think that's that's cool. So you say it's a it positive. Now can I add one point to that. The other thing too, is like I come out of academic philosophy. So when I was in college,

Yep.

And when I was a sophomore, I did a public debate with one of our professors, like it was just sophomore college college. Wow, I debated my philosophy science professor's atheists. Well, I did TAG and I think he lost. So, I mean, I don't think any atheists who doesn't know TAG right is going to do very.

Well against the presubsisitional argument.

But so I'm just saying, I come out of the milieu of it's expected that you debate if you're a philosophy student. And I mean I think in my in my university, it was one of our like you know, they have like those corny tag lines like achieving excellence, analyzing ideas. You know, we're going to produce the perfect student in this person who can critically think. Well, I come out of the athos of critically thinking and the expectation of you got to defend your ideas. That's what

I mean, one of my favorite classes that I've taken was a logic and reasoning class. Yeah, you know, philosoph and philosophy or religion and how do you come to what your systemology is, like, how do you come to conclusions of truth? I think that stuff is good and I think it's good for us to critically think about these things and how do we come to these conclusions?

You know?

So I think that's a listening to your stuff. It seems like there's always you're even in your debates that are informal, you're still reminding people and infusing people of those elements of philosophy, which I think is helpful. You are presuppositional in your apologetics. Is there a reason why or do you just not like the classical apologetics approach?

I just think that they're not the best arguments.

So I do agree with Vantilhum made a really good argument that you could take all the classical arguments and make a transtal version of those. So you can make a transfial argument for telos tell us, you can make a transfill argument for causation or cosmology, the cosmological argument. So I just think it's a superior argument. Also, resurrection, could you for the classical resurrection? The resurrection happened because

I would do. Yeah, I would actually argue a transitional version of that too.

Okay, Yeah, I'll be honest, Like, I wasn't the biggest presuppositional guy because I would always hear like, kind of fundamentalists type Christians use it, And then I started hearing you and Andrew use it, and I was like, and then Jordan Peterson is very much so he's pretty close to that. Yeah, presupposent, And I'm like, Okay, I appreciate it more here than you guys use it. Well.

One thing I would say too, is like presupposition is not against evidence. A lot of people have this assumption that, oh, if you are a pre supt guy, you don't do evidences. It's rather that we're opposed to evidentialism, as if that's like a superior epistemic approach. We absolutely believe in it evidences. You have to use evidences. For example, somebody comes along and says there's no historical evidence for the person of Christ.

In that case, it would I.

Would be absolutely going to historical evidences because I want to disprove that. But I think the strength of tag is that I want to come along also with a nuclear level argument to undercut that person's entire paradigm to give them no room to even make an argument. I think that's just a stronger process.

I agree, and I think it exhausts people, like I know Destiny is like, was like, hey, you're not one of those presuppositional guys when we were on No Jumper, and I was like, I'm not going to I'm not going to do that with you. Like we could just talk just the basics, I would he would have debate me on that. I want to.

We try for years, and Destiny would not. He doesn't want to debate it. He explicitly says he will not do that. He would only debate me on politics, and I'm not really interested in politics.

Yeah, he wouldn't even he didn't even want to engage with anyone that was presupposition. Yeah, exactly, Which is interesting. Your conversation with myth Vision, I don't know if you remember that randomly came up in my thing and that was one of those same thing, like you kind of chopped the legs from underneath him with the presuppositional portrait, Like how do you even come to know anything?

Right?

We did the same with Matt Dilloney with stuff on moloney, it was all the same type of stuff. Yeah, I'm sure there's been other atheists, but yeah, I think it's just a really strong argument for atheists. It can, in an indirect, roundabout way, work with unitarian Muslim type positions, but it's harder to get to that end goal. So I think with Muslims and other theistic positions, it's better to just kind of go for the internal contradictions like

So yeah, you talk about debating Muslims. I loved you and Sam Schamoun debating on value tayment for the Christian position.

I was like, y'all coming.

Together, the Catholic and the Orthodox together united, and they even try to throw out some bait. They try to get you guys to kind of turn on each other a couple of times, and you guys didn't take debate.

I thought it was a great debate. I thought it was I thought it was fantastic. And then.

You and Sam have your situation. What was your impression of the debate you had with him? As a debate partner on valutainment and then when do you think that devolved to what ended up devolving to which you will get into.

Yeah.

So, I mean we had been on pretty good terms for five years ish, six years.

I mean, wasn't he kind of flirting with.

It?

Yeah? And then I think he decided to go the you know, the paybal route. Yeah.

So, and his thing is like generally like I just want people to go to high church. I just want people to go to Apostolic succession church, you know, which is which is really interesting because I don't think it works that way.

But I don't know, you could enlighten me, no, I mean, yeah, we just did a.

Stream with my buddy Kai from worthwox sh Hot of critiquing that position of the idea of a sort of a generic Apostolic Christianity, which yeah, yeah, it.

Doesn't really make sense.

I mean, but the that debate happened because they were really looking for on freshman fit. They wanted like a high profile Muslim Christian debate.

It was bad, said right, but I mean I just want to give you know, because I appreciate Myrin setting that up. That was cool for him to do that.

And they were like, you know, we want really kind of aggressive debaters because we're going to put aggressive Muslims on and it was going to be Daniel Hakikachu and Jake, and Jake canceled for whatever reason because he didn't want to do it. But so then they brought in Ijaz, who's I don't think a very good debater. But uh, I was happy to like do the you know, step back because Shimoon definitely knows Islam very well and he knows the Hadiths, you.

Know, infinitely better than I do and all that. So yeah, I thought it was a perfect team up for that situation, and I tried to bring some you know, philosophical internal critiques to the to the table. Uh.

And I think it was a blowout because if you go and I mean, it's had multiple millions of views across the platform. So if you go to the fressire Fit channel, you can see forty thousand ish comments, ninety eight percent is Loam lost, So optics were pretty bad for Muslim So, I mean, and that was last That was I think the biggest debate of last year except for West Side Billy Carson, Like, those are the two biggest debates last year in terms of views, so it

With him directly him a chatting directly behind the scenes.

And the weird part was that we've been talking about setting up a debate on his channel about orthodoxy papism, right you and him one.

On one or with a panel we had.

We're discussing all possible options, like we were even talking about doing presentations, just not even a debate like I do it, because we've done that in the past. For example, we had a dispute with VOCB Malone some years ago, so Sam invited me and FDA to come on and do a presentation and then separate VOKEB Malone.

Do a presentation. That way, nobody's getting mad, you know, and you can hear both sides.

So we discussed that as a possibility. We discuss a panel round table. But anyway, long story short, in the context of this, I just sent him a DM saying, hey, it was a very cordial do you want to set up a debate on trinity in the essence sentnery distinction? Because I think it's really important, contrasting to the Romancolic position the worthodox to.

Get the energies. And he just flipped out.

It was like that was just a one How dare you text me while I'm streaming because you're you're working for the double It's like, what, totally cool for six years and then it's like one tweet or one tag.

There was nothing else behind that.

No.

In fact, they even said in the next message, like hey man, it's no reason to get upset. Let's set up a timed response that way nobody gets angry. And it just flipped out, even like it went even crazier. So at that point I was like, Okay, something something else is going on, So I just remove myself from that situation.

Essence energy is distinction.

I don't want to get super in the weeds on it, but it seems like Catholics take a more God's simplistic and that his parts are him. God's love is God, God's power is God, and you guys have a fair to say a bit of a distinction between God's essence and his energies, and that's the foundational disagreement.

So he had the reason that came up was that like mocked the energy's thing a bit right.

After the thing, but like he was presenting a differing views of the Trinity from Protestant, Reman Catholic Orthodox people, and that's what prompted me to message him and say, in our view, there's not just a philly oquay and non philioquate model. There's also the question of the inner juices that we believe is directly connected to the Father as the soul cause or the monarchia in the Godhead.

Yeah, he he had. He had crashed out on me the week before that. He had crashed down on somebody else the week before that, And I was privately talking to him, like trying to get him to walk off certain ledges because it was like a consistent that's my experience of like, hey man, like I'm not trying to attack you.

Like if my.

Audience asks what do I think about this thing that happened, right, I'm going to talk about it. If you don't want me talking about it, I won't ever talk about you again. I won't put you in a thumbnail, I won't do any of that sort of stuff. And then he's like, no, no, no, it's all good. It's all good, brother, thank you for reaching out. And we had a really good conversation and then it just it just completely went left, and it's

I think actually there is some kind of like a probably a bipolar thing going on. And I know he said I had a tough time with his situation, which I don't talk about people's personal drama usually.

I don't know about what's going on with him.

But I think that sometimes people have kind of like what we talked about earlier with Alex, like there might be something going on personally, and then that affects sort of the internet optics and how they're operating on the internet. So I mean that would be my guest, but I don't know.

Yeah, in that I defended you because Redeem Zoomer I think responded to something I defended you, and I said, hey, like Jay's been nothing but kind in our interactions privately and publicly, and I think like Sam's crossed the line. And then people started replying to me and are like, well, Jay is not always the kindness and he's not always the nicest. And there was a thing about something about Coptic Christians and you were mocking Coptic Christians that were martyrd.

I didn't mock anything. I questioned the legitimacy of the video because mainstream news article's sad that the videos are questionable. So all I did was repeat what was in the news, and I didn't say for sure nobody had. I just said, we don't know on the basis of just this piece of evidence, got it. So I've always thought like there's nothing wrong being skeptical about authoritative claims and sources. And if you look at where those videos come out of, there are dubious sources.

But I don't know.

So people assume that, oh, I'm saying for sure that nobody's ever been martyred, nobody's ever been killed.

No.

I was just taking a skeptical attitude. And I still take skeptical attitudes to when I see an immediate fluid situation where something's developing just happening. I'm not going to immediately buy into it. I'm going to wait and see. And I've always had that attitude.

Got it.

So from our vantage point, for my vantage point, one of the things that we hold I guess in pretty high regard fruit of the spirit, right, kindness, gentleness.

Jesus says that the world.

Will know that you are my disciples about how you love one another and treat one another right. And so some of the critique about you is that you're not always the most kind, You're not always the most gentle, You're not always the most loving. I understand as a constant creator, you're on stream eight hours a day. We've talked about some of the stuff privately which we don't need to get into in terms of like some weird kind of death threats and that sort of stuff that

I think in the realm of debate, you're going to have situations that get heated and yeah, I've lost my temper.

I don't know. Like, but if you think.

About in terms of eight years of online debating, and most of those are like three, four or five hour discussions, and if you've got like a handful of instances out of hundreds, maybe thousands of hours, I don't see that as like.

The end of the world.

It's like you're you're ignoring the ninety five percent of the time where we're having cortial conversations in our actions.

Q and A.

Another thing too is like if you've done debates for many, many years, you can a lot of times pretty quickly since when somebody's debating a good faith or whether they're trolling, and if you open it up to the public for hours a week, which is what we do, I mean, you're going to have a lot of people who come in bad faith trolling. They immediately start talking about your wife. Mayby just start talking about your you know, would you do ten years ago when you said this, you know,

So that's going on.

You've got people who don't understand that even in classical pedagogy of debate, rhetoric is part of it. So making jokes, making jabs, that's part of rhetoric and debate. It doesn't mean that your whole stick or debate is rhetoric. In jabs or else, it will be evident that you don't have any substance to the argument.

Right.

But if you can watch a classical debate like Hitchens on the Oxford Union, you'll see him doing a presentation and every four or five minutes throwing in a joke, a jab my opponent. Of course, he's never studied this, so you wouldn't know. But these are little jabs that are just it's just rhetoric. That's part of debate. But a lot of people don't know that, and so they they'll latch onto something like that, or but I also have a side of me that's not the debate world,

It's like, what would you say the line is?

Is the line at like calling somebody an idiot like I've seen people.

Send me closely. I don't even think that's like.

I mean, if Proverbs says you can identify, well, I don't see why it's it's not. Jesus says not to call a person a fool without reason. But I mean, how could I if Proverbs tell me to avoid the fool, how.

Could I avoid the full? I don't identify the fool?

But no, I think you know, if you look at Jesus's like even the way Jesus approaches debates. He talks about the Pharisees as vipers. He talks about Herod being a fox, which is derogatory term, but it's not the majority, right, So I would say, you know what is Paul said, let your let your speech be grace, sprinkle with salt. So yeah, if there's some times there's some salt, but it's not that it doesn't dominate.

Do you think it's because they're remote, that the conversations are remote, that that's why it's hard, Like I avoid anything remote virtual because I know myself and I know I'm way more likely to get nasty or to get combative online online than if like me and you are having a steak and hanging out the night before and then we're having a conversation.

There's definitely a veil of.

Nastiness that can't like because of the Internet, there's a veil, and people can get nasty definitely in a way that they wouldn't in person.

For sure, that definitely happens.

But also like that, when we did the live debate in Nashville, we had that three way debate with me Catholic and a Protestant. It was still heated and aggressive and there was jabs. There was jokes on all sides. So it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't be heated, but it might not get out of hand in person.

For sure.

Yeah, I mean you're pretty buff, dude. You probably you probably beat me up pretty pretty good. So I don't know if I want to like, I.

Don't know about that. Let me see.

Yeah, so I think I think for me, some of the debate stuff is interesting. It's definitely great entertainment. I will say that.

Let me add to that, Like in the formal debates, Yes, I can only think of one or two of maybe twenty five formal debates where I called somebody dumb or an idiot.

If you haven't call anyone's mother or whore, to your credit, now you've never called anyone's mother who I mean.

In the informal debates, like I take the attitude I tell people like, yeah, you're you're not here as the expert debater. You're here as the nube, but calling in sure, and you're gonna be held to the standard that anyone else to be held to because I've been debating for twenty five years. You're not gonna like yeah. So it's a different modus operanda than when it's a formal debate

But I don't think there's any violations of yeah, now that makes sense. I think I think the yeah.

I just I've just made it a point to stay away from anything remote, and anytime I break that rule. Anytime I break that rule, I end up crashing out, and I like stupid in my in my experience, I just had Alex O'Connor calling remotely and I was not pumped with how I you know, I.

Just yeah versus like debate.

It was about the Isaiah word for word debacle with Wes Huff and he was really like, but it technically wasn't word for word, And I'm like, Alex, but ninety nine percent word for word, you know, nearly word for word might as well be word for word. If a compass ninety five percent full, it's full to me, like we're arguing semantics. Since I just didn't like how I how I represented myself and how I represented my faith.

And I and.

I think that that's a pretty harsh stance. And I think that depending on which Orthodox person I'm talking to, it's always is kind of getting different answers, right, So Father Hairs were more or less kind of like, hey, like, I don't know if you're in, Like I don't think you're in, right, And then I talked to other guys and they hit me with the we know where God's spirit is.

We don't know where God's spirit is, you know.

And so from your vantage point that word anathema in that second council about icons, which, by the way, I love your guys as icons, I think you guys crush it with art. Yeah, I got yeah, that's Jonathan Pego Like, I love I love the art. I love the icons like I love it. I've gone to Eastern Orthodox. Where's the last thing I went to? It was one of your guys's vespers. Is that what it's called? Yeah, the vesper.

I would agree with at least what I've not heard the interview with other hearers, But the way that you stated what his position was, I would probably agree with that. Like we don't make judgments about individuals, and like I don't know your destiny, I don't know the work of God's spirit in your heart. I do believe that, like the thief on the cross, God has the ability, through extra normative means, to join anybody to the mystical body

So is that why you guys may call a Gavin Ortlund a herod? I would say, so you would say, so, okay, in your framework, would you say your Baptist grandmother is going to hell? No? I don't, but I'm saying I don't know an individual level, you don't know. But in a technical church, this person is like an obstinate, like promoter and teacher. It's like that in that situation, yes, they would be committing what we would say is a sin, and that cuts a person off. And so is everyone

Vantage like we can't judge that person because God's the ultimate judge. But our position is more like it's a warning of it's a it's a chastisement, right, And like the anathema pronouncements themselves.

Are you going to sing that anathema song? More?

There are chastisements like warnings. So even the church can't like damn a person. We can just say if you follow and take that position, it can lead to shipwreck and you're outside. But there's always but it's it's it's it can lead to shipwreck. It's intended to be remedial, is what I'm trying to say. Anathema is intended to be remedial in the sense of it's a medicine.

It's a chastisement to call you back. But what if not like.

Well, if I'm not in, like what if I am not in what if I've never been Eastern Orthodox, I grew up Oriental Orthodox, not but you know about my back I yeah, so I've I've never been in So am I anathema?

Again? Like?

Yeah, Like the position that you hold is anathema. But I can't judge the state of your soul because I don't know the state of your soul. I don't know your destiny. I don't God's not given me that assessment.

But if I perpetuate on in the trajectory that I'm in right now, yes, and I don't become Eastern Orthodox before the end of my life, or I think this is a nuance and you can correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to misrepresent your sing Or there isn't some sort of mystical working that kind of grafts me into being Orthodox without officially being Orthodox? Can I be Orthodox without take being a catecumen?

Again, like the thief on the Cross, he wasn't like instructed in all the theology, but he had a genuine repentance and a genuine joining to the body of Christ. So it's not so much like that you have to have this vast theological knowledge. It's rather an attitude of humility and repentance that the thief on the cross had. So so that and for us salvation, as I'm sure you know, it's not like just a one point in such thing. It's like there was salvation, it is ongoing,

Okay. So is this similar to like voice or reason, your familiar voice of reason. It's just an impression. He has the best voice voice of Reason made it.

Never he said something along the lines of anyone who rejects the dogmas of the church is rejecting Christ himself. He says something like that, and then those Mary Mary

Yeah, it wasn't later like nineteen fifty nineteen eighteen hundreds.

Well, there is a second maculate conception, and then there is I think you're right that.

There's later Marian dogmas. I think someone will correct me in the chat for that. Anyway, I just said, hey, man, like I struggle to get behind these, are you saying that I'm outside of the church and he gave me the gosh? What is the language? It's like the wilful consent, Like you have to willfully consent to rejecting dogmas you know are truth.

That's what I'm saying that that's what a heretic is. It's a wilful obstinacy against knowing the truth.

Okay, that's fair.

But then if I'm a Protestant and I'm wilfully not trying to reject God, I don't hate God. I love Jesus, And with the information that I have, I'm doing my very best to source through this stuff. I'm very in my verstor to reason to look at the information that's in front of me to come to reasonable conclusions with what I see in scriptures. Wouldn't that categorically not put me in someone that is wilfully rebelling against God.

I don't know the state of it, That's what I'm saying. We don't know. I don't know the state of your soul.

Okay, that's fair, that's fair. I mean it's a similar argument I get from the Catholic.

Yeah, yeah, I think we would agree with that basic idea.

And at that point, like all I can do is say, you know, we would employ you to be Orthodox.

And so so from your vantage point, you would you would be willing to plant the flag firmly in that salvation does not exist outside of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Correct, and that the only if anyone is saved, it's not because they're a Protestant or a Catholic or whatever, it's because.

There's a mystical salvation in some way.

United them, like the thief on lacross to the mystical body, which is the Orthodox Church.

What if all Protestants and all Catholics are secretly united to the mystical Body of Christ and we just don't know it.

I don't. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. I'm just throwing it out there. You know. I'm just listen, man.

I because you're you're looking for like a categorical all and I'm saying that on.

A case by case basis. It's between possible individually, but it's between that person and God and God and from our vantage point, that's why anathema is just like in the a macatholic pable position where they can them a proposition like the anathema is against Like they didn't say, like list every layman who's a part of like an iconoclass church.

They say, if you believe this anathema, what happened to those iconic class churches? Did they all just die or did they go on? Did they like so?

After?

And I see it too in sevent eighty seven, there was about a almost one hundred year period where you had the dominance of the iconoclass, and then there was what's called triumph of Orthodoxy in eight forty three.

It was at the second nineteen Council or okay, and I see it two as seven eighty seven.

Okay, So it says that the iconodual position is the right position, Okay, But the iconic class and the conoclass emperors kept going, kept going, and they like shut down and got rid of the icons Okay in eight forty three, almost one hundred year maybe seventy five years later, right fifty seventy five years later that you have what's called the triumph of Orthodoxy Council. It's a local Byzantine synod, but that's the synod that's considered to be the reaffirmation

They're covering all their basins with that one.

So that kind of class church, those folks that were against the Icons for that one hundred years.

What happens to this, well it's even prior to that.

Yeah, what happens to those folks? Like did they cease being a church? Did they just kind of right off into nothingness? Like what happens? I mean they ended up dying out. It ended updying out.

Okay, So to me, to my knowledge, I'm not aware of like after eight forty three, like any. I mean, there could have been some groups that.

They were they like completely against any images.

No.

In fact, they believed that the only legitimate images were, if I'm going from memory, the Cross and the Eucharist.

They were pretty much against art, though generally speak it sounds like they were against all forms of art and depictions.

Uh.

The basis for the arugmentation was Neoplatonism and the arguments that origin made got it. So they were Originists and neoplatonic got it. So in terms of by the way, one interesting side note on that is that the majority of the people promoting iconoclasm were the normative bishops, that the some of the prominent patriarchs and the emperor, and the restoration of icons came about from the laity and the monastics.

That is interesting that that it was was a lay movement.

Interesting Okay, So it wasn't all bishops that were iconoclasts, right, but it was large. The iconoclass was dominated by the emperor and the iconic class bishops and patriarchs got it.

Okay. That's interesting.

So as someone that's looking from the outside end, right, I grow up our Oriental orthodox, I become a Protestant later, I love Jesus, I'm in a church, I leave my family, all all those sorts of things, and someone's looking at what is the one true church?

Right?

You believe the East Orthodox is the one true church? Now are you Russian Orthodoxy a real court church?

Okay? I was.

I came in under antiochins and twenty seventeen, but they're all unified as as one communion e and then I became I went to start of going to roal Court Church where I found Master as of father in twenty eighteen.

Twenty eighteen.

Okay, So is this some disagreement between the Russian Orthodox and the others over the Ukraine thing?

Or is that so the EP which is the patriarch concept ANDOPLE is still in the status of not being inconmunion with the MP and I forget which it kind of fluctuates as to what the other patriarch it's status says, because for example, Jerusalem at one point was pro MP and then I think they switched due to US pressure from the State Department to pro EP interest.

So yeah, but a little side note, this has happened before.

It's not like a yeah yeah, So so earlier you were saying how you you would categorize a Gavin Ortland as a heritage Yeah, James White, James White, pretty much all Protestant teachers. It sounds like, so, then how do you feel about Gavin being a father? Josiah's conference in October, they're like a marriage conference.

I don't.

I mean, like, I'm not gonna judge, Like having a conference is like, I mean, I'm here talking to you and we disagree theologically. I mean, I don't know that you're a heretic because I don't I have not heard a lot of your opinions or views, or I don't know whether you're obstinate or not. I think it because it's a case by case basis. It takes time to see and to know, like what that person's positions are.

How much do they know? That's why I don't.

We don't throw the term heretic out willie nilly, like, oh, everyone's a heretic, because it's a case by case basis. But there is a distinction between that and what's called the public profession.

So that's why.

Again, just like the Remancatholices did this, the Orthodox Church also says if you believe this position anathema, so it's condemning the proposition because we don't know every individual person's level of knowledge and status and culpability's right, So not everybody's equally culpable, It's what I'm trying to say. But from your vantage point, someone that's a heretic showing up to an Eastern Orthodox conference is not a big deal.

Could you just come to my church service if.

I had permission from my spiritual father. For example, let's say you had a creationist come and do a lecture, and we believe in creationism, right, I could probably do that. I just can't engage in public liturgical worship with you or at your church, but you could come to our church. You could come and worship at our church or participate or visit or whatever. That happens all the time.

And do you guys view canon law as infallible.

No, it's just the normative governing principles of church law that bishops apply to case by case. So it's called economia right, the case by case basis.

And can different bishops supply different canon law?

Yes, because everybody's case is different, like for example, reception of converts. Right, A person who for example, was say baptized as a Armenian Orthodox or a Coptic or something like that, Like many bishops would not do the baptism because they had a Trinitarian baptism, and so they might be received by christmation or just abjuration of air or whatever.

I've heard that was a distinguishment between some folks that were baptized as Protestants don't need to get rebaptized. Other folks that do get baptized do need to givest. So it's like a like a local regional bishop, I guess.

Case by case, yes, and the church the highest authorities a bishop, okay. And so how bishops are there in the world, Yeah, like.

Tens of thousands, okay, thousands of bishops and they're over different regions.

They have a jurisdiction theistic But I.

Mean, is it like there's a bishop of California, so he oversees all the priests in California.

In the US is different because US is a unique place where you have so many people coming from other countries that you have overlapping jurisdictions, which has never really happened because usually in church history you have, for example, if Russia sends out missionaries, that becomes a jurisdictional territory

But back to the question of canon law.

For example, in the six Secondmentical Council, there's canons to talk about certain Aryan groups. Their baptism was not even considered a baptism because it was Unitarian, because they were Arians, and like that, let the saddleback guy baptizing yourself, we wouldn't recognize that as a baptism. So there has to be delineations and like case by case stuff.

Gotcha, that makes sense.

We had Gavin at my summit and or Eastern Orthodox friend of mine didn't want to attend because they couldn't get clearance from their spiritual father. But then once Father

You guys really don't like Gavin Orland. I don't personally have an issue with him. The arguments I've heard of not not pretty very convinced it.

Have you no? Okay?

Okay, So it sounds like you hold on, you hold to like Salvation does not exist outside of Eastern Orthodox Church. But it is possible that someone could have a mystical God can join people to God can join the Cross. So then if someone is looking at which church to join, there's eight churches that all claim Apostolic succession and to be the one true church. Right, I can't name them all off the top, but I know Oriental Orthodox, right, so on and so forth.

So they all claim to be the one true church.

They all have Apostolic succession, but they're not all in communion with each other. How does someone decipher what is the one and true church? If Salvation only exists in one true church.

Yeah, I mean this is a case where evidences and history are necessary. It's not going to be something a priori or self evident. You would have to get into the.

History of the church. There's just really no other way around it.

So I think one thing that Roman Catholicism tries to do is answer that question you just ask by putting forward the idea of a pope as the easy solution.

Yeah, we got it, we got a pope. We got to put the guy problem solved. Right.

But then if you're in the Romancolic world for a while, as I was from many years, you begin to realize that that wasn't as easily answered as I thought, because well, I wait a minute, don't we have to also interpret the pope's writings. And there's all these tiers of status of well, this is magisterial and this is what you know,

Do you hold to seven or eight?

Well, the reason I say seven slash eight is that the first seven are strictly theological, and they're the ones that most people the Roman Catholic and Protestant world will talk about the ecumenical councils. But no, we believe in nine if you count the Palomite Synods. And the reason the Palmite Synods are they've been received through the whole Orthodox canonical world as authoritative, even though they weren't ecumenical in the sense of like all of the bishops and

For us, it's like.

It's like your local bishop isn't infallible, but he's a normative authority right same way that probably a Protestant would consider like a minister. Right, he has a normative authority, but he's not necessarily infallible.

Yeah.

Yeah, you believe in authority outside of Scripture. We just don't believe in any infaci which you know that because you were Protestant.

Yeah, but I mean uh.

In terms of delineating between so Anglicans, Coptics, Assyrians, Roman Catholics, some Lutherans in Eastern Orthodox would all claim Apostolic succession, and we would admit that some of those groups, like Roman Catholics and Coptics are ancient, but it's a question of ecclesial authority in the history of the Church and what the ecumenical councils actually contain in their normative theology and process.

So you would give Apostolic succession to Anglicans and Lutherans, No, not you.

I was just listening to the groups that claim it. God is.

The way to suss out between those would be to go to the councils themselves and see what the canons teach and what the process of the councils was. For example, we believe in the North Shores. Really then appslite canons. That's like the first collection of canon law. So that lays down principles that were accepted throughout the East, including the Duro Canon, and the way that the bishop is elected is local, so there's nothing to do for example, in napslite canons with the.

Top top down, it's more bottom up. It sounds like yeah, yeah, and it's episcopay that's decentralized. And that was the normative church law in the East throughout.

The whole three hundreds.

Same time in the West, when we look at the Western synods in church law, whether it's Council of Rome, pop Damasists, Augustine, et cetera, Carthaginian councils, it reflects almost the exact same attitude in the West for the normative church law in terms of the Dudo canon being accepted in terms of the election of bishops, even though the West had the Patriarch of Rome the pope, like, we don't see this attitude of Vatican one infallibility, So you

To determine what is saule that question?

What about I know some True Orthodox claim to be more aligned to these councils than Eastern Orthodox. Have you engaged with the True Orthodox? What is your thoughts on the True Orthodox, because they kind of have a lot of what you're describing, but they say, but we're even more hardcore and we take these councils even more seriously.

Yeah, the problem is my good buddy David Aarhon, He's done a couple of good videos rebutting this. People could go if they want a longer treatment, you could look at David Aharhon's videos on his channel that addressed the True Orthodox claims. This is a very very tiny I mean it's almost no existent in the real world. I mean I've seen one chapel in my travels across the country, an actual uh one of these groups.

So it's almos.

I mean, even if you did want to go that route like it would, you would basically not have a church unless you were in Florida.

I think they have one in Florida.

But aside from that, it would mean essentially that all the canonical churches have failed, and there's not. It's basically a donatus type position. So I would argue, first of all, donatism would mean an end of the episcopacy, and the church is basically dead because it's because it's smaller, because it's because it's almost non existent. The minuscule groups that do exist, they're all out of commune with each other. There's probably five groups that are all not in communion.

So there's no grace.

And that is a donatus position because what it's denying is the authority of synods to make the affirmation or the declaration of a heresy or aschism, So authority in the or our churches, bishops in a synod, and you can't erase all of that and say we don't accept any synons or any bishops. We're going to create a parallel episcopat or bishopric. That's classic Dunatism, classic schism.

Okay, well, what about what if someone says, well, yeah, but you know, Jay Matthew seven says, the wide is the road that leads a destruction.

Narrow go through the narrow gate.

And you know, hey, so what, they don't have a ton of congregations, So what they're not super prevalent. Maybe that's the real remnant and maybe that you know, like, well, but.

You could never have a situation because of the rest of the teachings of the New Testament Book of Acts x fifteen and what we believe are proofs of apslock succession, you could never have a loss of the snodal reality of the Church. So that position would require essentially they're no longer being synods. They're no longer being authoritative declarations from a synod because those positions are premised on all the synods in world Orthodoxy being apostate. So there's no

That's the true remaining bishop. So in other words, can you appoint more bishops? Like what if there no That's what I'm.

Saying, Like, bishopric in the Canons is appointed by two bishops are a metropolitan.

That's the absolute canons. Kyle bishops come about, right.

I'm saying, if this true Orthodox Church, which I don't know much about them, to be to be transparent, but if they were to hypothetically have an explosion of two bishops coming together, making two more bishops, and all of a sudden it grows and there's more congregations and it explodes.

What I'm saying is that it's already negated because it's they've negated the synodal reality of the church. So once you've denied the synods, then it's you feel like they're you feel like they're dead, just like Protestantism.

Huh for us?

So you would put him in the same category as a protest well, I mean it would.

It would depends on like this.

I mean, to get really nuanced, like they wouldn't be identical to Protestant because they don't hold all the Protestant idea, ideologies and doctrines.

But it would be equivalent.

To the mindset of a Protestant that there's no synods anymore and there's just this guy over here and this guy over here.

Does that make sense? In other words, the Orthodox Church make analogy to the papacy, like a romancality would say, the papacy could never go away, right, And if you're a set of a contest, you've adopted a position where you can never have a pope again outside of some miraculous event, because all of the cardinals are also vaticant to apostates. Does that makes sense? So the whole thing is died away. Episcope is basically died.

But even though you have a set of a concious bishop, they can't elect the pope.

So you would put the true Orthodox in a similar They're in a similar situation in that, rather rather than denying a pope, there's no longer synods. Okay, all of the Orthodox synodal synods are invalidated and gone. Got it?

So the church has fundamentally lost its elements and it's constituent elements.

Okay, I mean, I guess that makes sense. I think that I'm sure they'll have a response for this. For those of them that.

They would probably say something like, will make a synod, will will collect together, but they've never done that.

Interesting, Okay. It seems that folks who come to faith

But then our position will be and we're saved two good works.

So we should obey Jesus command and get baptized, we should go to church every Sunday. We should do these things because of their commands.

But are.

We would we would separate justification and sanctification. You guys use this as the language that I understand is you're you are saved, you're justified you're being saved. We would say you're being sanctified, and you will be saved in heaven. Yeah, you're you're gonna be resurrected, You're gonna be glorified. You guys would probably call this theosis stetification. Our language is going to be a bit different there, but it's similar

Well, scripture, philosophy, and church history all three.

So give me the scriptural pitch on why justification by grace through faith alone is bad.

Well, the phrase is not bad, but what is meant by the phrase and what we think the phrase means. So, being formerly a Calvinist, you know, solo fida a proponent myself, I understand where you guys are coming from and how you would read the text. The first thing I would say is that when you look through you say the Gospel of John, and when Jesus talks about the way that God's declaration works, it seems to be efficacious when he speaks. So for example, when he speaks, he creates,

So that's the philosophical point.

But back to scripture, I would argue that again, when God speaks, it's efficacious and all those passages like in Romans when he talks about being baptism in Christ or Titus three when he talks about the washing of labor of regeneration. We see those as actually referring to the actual sacramental right, and there's no reason to divorce them. So the Protestant presupposition is that to maintain the legal invitational solofide position, we must divorce the celebration of the

Right, right, right, So when I'm looking at like, I think this glues what you just said together.

Right.

This is Philippians chapter two. I'm sure you know it. Can you can you read that? I don't want to?

Yeah?

Okay, So yeah, work hard to show the results of your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear, right, which we would all say yes and amen to that, for God is working in you and giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him. Right, So there's this death seems to be a bridging. I don't know if the bridging is the right where, but it seems like what you're saying, there is an ontological shift that happens. Our heart of stone is replaced with

By the way, and that past is that you just read, Yeah, yeah, the Greek word is inner gaya.

It's energies, which which it's the power. So that Paul uses inner gaya and dunamus and for this word power, that's uh if I re call us dunamus, but in uh it's yea, he uses innergia and he uses dunamis, and that's has to be. By the way, I'm just pointing out that it teaches the essence entergy distinction. By go ahead, okay, no, no, no, no, By the way, I don't just look up in blue letter the Paul's usage of innergeia.

Yeah, this is this is innergaya in the logos Bible software. So I don't have an issue with the distinction of energies. I don't, I don't need.

But what I'm saying is that that also by extension, I'm not trying to deflect because you can go back to the passages. But where I was going to go next was that the essence entergy distinction isn't just an abstraction. It's unique. Only Orthodox Church teaches the essence interesstinction, and that has to be an ontological reality that we're participating in. Protestantism teaches through the Covenant, if you mean classical Calvinist type.

Got you, Yeah, it imputed righteousness, I understand.

Okay, But Covenant of works, even if you don't. If you're a Lutheran, you don't affirm covenant works. It's the still the same principle that Jesus keeps the law right right, and so the righteousness that we get is a legal status. Yes, this is not a legal status. Primarily it's an ontological reality. Thus the legal status reflects the ontological reality, not the other way around.

The legal status reflects the ontological reality. View. So it's and both.

What I'm saying is that it has to be the two together. You could never have a situation where I'm filthy rags, but God sees and declares me righteous. That would make God a liar. That's our point.

Well, it's because of the blood, the blood of Jesus in a sacrifice in the atonement that happens.

Then I have to ontologically be righteous.

Well, I think you you have a heart shift and a desire that's an inside out change. So one has a ontological change of heart because of being justified before the scriptures.

Right, but the.

Change in you has nothing to do with your justification. That's an effect of justification in classical Protestantism. The change in you, say that one more.

Time, the new heart, the change that occurs in you, yes, in classical Protestants, whether Calvin or Luther, is not anything to do with your justification. It's an effect of the justification that Christ wrow. Okay, and I'm saying, no, that's not possible.

You cannot divorce the legal status of being righteous or just from the ontological reality. But the Protestant position requires that to have imputator imputational righteousness, and the ancient medieval world were not nominalists, so nobody believed in a purely imputational legal status. It doesn't exist in the ancient world.

And so what you're saying is in the ontological reality there has to be works to prove the justification.

Is that what you're kind of getting at.

For us, there's no difference between justification, scientification glorification. That's why Paul and Stay three says that in this life you can experience glorification. So it's not it's not a stage. Is like the Protestant Orto Salutas sets up, well, I.

Don't know if it's in stages, and it is in the in the well. Again, I'm not I'm not trying to be a Protestant position.

I like the Classical Reformation. Sure, sure, I'm looking.

I'm just trying to look at the scriptures, and I'm saying, man, it sure does seem like there's a consistent declaration of justification over the believer. And that let me in that they don't they don't have to walk on eggshells. They don't have to have the dread on if I'm going to heaven or not, if I'm producing enough works or not, that they are justified, and that anyone that's justified, anyone that is now a child of God, should and will act accordingly if my son is my son, he's my

What makes him the son, or what makes a person the son is baptism. We believe baptism is where we were regenerated. It doesn't mean that if you die in the way of your baptism that you're not saying Because we've always seen catechumans that die or whatever, they're considered part of the church. Some of them are martyrs and saints in the Orthodox Church. So sonship is in the

Sure, but wouldn't that be going back to like content and a desire to leave said covenant, not a hey, I messed up, I fell short, I sinned in a way I don't. I don't think you guys have the same like grave sin, mortal sin, not mortal sin, but like you can apostatize. Because Hebrew six is saying, if you leave Christianity go back to Judaism, you are also.

I don't really care to the apostasy thing. I don't. That's a that's a whole separate conversation.

No, it's not, though, because it shows that justification cannot be purely legal or imputational. There has to be an ontological reality connected to justification itself works.

And you're in and that that looks like works and well sacraments that I would categorize as works affair.

Well Jesus as for example, that faith is a work. This is the work of God that you believe in him and me has sent. So faith is a work in our view, okay, And so likewise, I think Calvinists also believe faith is a work. That's interesting because they believe regeneration precedes faith. You first have to be born again to have faith.

And they see faith, but they would say it's an effect of regeneration. Huh.

And that even the faith that you have isn't the basis for the justification, it's an effective justification Calvinist game.

Do you think this view where someone is only justified if they're ontologically justified, meaning that it's all one long process, do you think that it creates a I'm not sure. I'm trying to say this in a way that is not disparaging, A paranoia about one's eternal state, a walking on eggshells, a dread of fear and uncertainty that according I mean, you could correct me if we're wrong, but according to your own soteriology. You can be Eastern Orthodox

I mean I had the same sort of thought process when I was first moving from Calvinism to Catholicism.

I was concerned.

I'm just not trying to be disparaed, you're condescending, But I understand the thought process and where you're coming from.

And do you do you like is that a healthy way to live spiritually?

If I'm always walking on eggshows and I'm always uncertain about if I'm going to go to heaven or not, because I got to keep doing stuff, I gotta keep producing.

Work, well, one thing I would is, I don't think any of us actually escapes that question, because most I don't know about you, but most Protestants that I've met, and even Calvinists, and one most of those people still admit the possibility of self deception and psychological tricker your delution. You could fool yourself into thinking that you're regenerate or that you have assurance of salvation, and it could be

To keep doing that.

Yeah, I guess what I'm what I'm getting at. And the some of the folks that I see that are coming towards Eastern Orthodoxy, seem to have a crippling fear and anxiety around their own salvation. And I think you're probably a more seasoned person in the faith where you maybe are I don't know, more educated, more nuanced to it.

Right to Jesus.

I would say, if you look at Romans four in this I'm bringing this up because I noticed that James White recently responded to what I'd said about this passage. If you look at Romans four, when Paul talks about the justification that Abraham underwent, he cites a very specific chapter.

It's not a legal state.

The uncreated energy that you possess if you're a son of God and participating in the divine energies, the Dono mess and the Innergeia. That's what leads to the legal state, not the legal state. And then that makes you interesting.

Yeah, I guess I just I see identity in terms of who I am in Christ as neither an inside or outside in. It's a top down thing, right, So like society would tell us that your identity is what you're good for from the utilitarian standpoint, right. So, if you're in high school, you're an athlete, that's your identity you're good for. The outside in contribution you have, right. And then now with the crazy transformer stuff, identity is

Right.

So when we're looking at Romans four, right after this he cites to your point Genesis fifteen, and then right after that, verse five says, however, the one who, however, the one who does not work but trust God, who justifies on godly their faith, is credited as right to say.

This is in the context of Jews in Roman in the Church in Rome think that they can be justified by also keeping the Mosaic law, and Paul is using Abraham as the paradigm example of the first quote Jew. Jews think that Abraham was the first Jew, and Abraham doesn't have at this point even to Justice fifteen the totality of the law or the Mosaic law. Right, So Abraham is justified, he's not the it's justice fifteen. It's after he was called out of the or of Caldas

You, which we would all agree with. Well, I don't. I've never heard of a protestably he's an uncreated grace. But maybe you do. I don't know. Maybe you're well.

I'm not being bad, I'm saying like, maybe you're one of the first well on created grace. You're talking about the dogma's energies, the energy's distinction. Is that would what you're meaning.

By which is an Orthodox reason? Yeah, I'm not.

No, No, I'm not saying it's a historic Protestant season. You keep you're kind of in your arguments here, you're referencing a lot of Calvinistic teaching, which I don't really hold to Calvinism or any any I'm not a Calvinist, right, so I understand what you're saying. I'm so if you say something that sounds true, J, I'm gonna say, oh, that sounds true J. Whether it's Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.

Okay, that's that's me cheating, that's fair. I'm typically in my mind because I don't know all of your positions. I'm just arguing against what's called classical Protestantism. That would be like the confessional Lutherans, the Confessional you know Westminster Confession, fair enough, you know sne of Dort, the classic Protestant confessions. Uh huh.

And so from your paradigm, when Paul is writing in Romans and he's doubling down on this justified justified by grace, justified by faith justified by grace, when it's happening in Galatians, when it's happening in other parts of scripture. From your paradigm, you would say that's exclusive to the Judaizers and him trying to correct their back doing of the law.

I would say not necessarily exclusive, because a lot of the passages are dealing with that, but not all of them. Okay, So are there are places where, you know, like in Romans two, I think he's talking about gentiles, He's not just talking about Jews.

Sure, yeah, So then in your framework, you would reject the idea of a top down identity where one is declared righteous, made righteous because of Jesus on the cross, because of the work the fulfillment of the law of Jesus on across and then from that they then are behaving and living differently. You would say that that's a heresy or would you just say we're incorrect, Like, where would you categorically put that?

No, I do think that sola fide is a heresy. Just in case of my faith, the one is a heresy, I would say.

So, So, so all of these scriptures are.

Yeah, I guess I'm just having some understanding the presupposition is that this is all legal status first and foremost, and then anything after that is something else that's sanctification or something.

Like that, cooperating with the Holy Spirit.

Correct, And what I'm saying is that there is no such thing in ancient medieval world, as Alser McGrath admits in Ustcia day, as a purely nominal legal standing that is not directly connected to or necessitated by the act actual ontological reality. So in classical Protestanism it is called the ordo salutis the order of salvation. That's what you were talking about. We tak about justification, sangication, glorifica. That's the order of salvation, we would say. And I'm arguing

And if that's true, then these assumptions as to what Paul means are wrong.

Is it possible that there was some drift in the ancient medieval world and what Paul taught was closer to the Protestant position, and there was drifted in the reformers came back who were always reforming and trying to get back to a Paul Ta. Could you see that from our paradigm at least?

Uh? Well, no, for various reasons. I wouldn't be able to admit that.

Because I say admit that, I said see it from our paradigm. Understand you wouldn't be.

But I think you could. I understand why you might think that.

Okay, But it would mean that the church didn't understand the Gospel for fifteen hundred years, which is what Utia Day meant.

I don't know if they didn't understand the gospel. I think perhaps there were some some doctrinal developments bit drift, some things that they shift. I'm not one of those great there was a great apostacy kind of guys.

I'm not saying that.

But it would mean that nobody That's the point of Ustechia Day by McGrath is that no one taught Luther or the Protestant solo fide until Luther and Calvin.

Huh.

But I mean Luther and Calvin are also pulling from Augustine, or so they say. But Augustin believes in bachelor regeneration and the necessity works. If you read on the Gift of perseverance and on operative and cooperative grace, he doesn't believe.

I guess what I'm getting at is like the we believe in works, we just don't believe works or would save us. Like I believe we should produce good works.

Make us holy. I understand.

Yeah, So fair enough, Okay, before we wrap, you gotta told me tell me about this, uh, toll houses and and how does that work?

You're going to talk about comedy that we're going to talk about. We can talk about comedy. Tell me about toll houses. And we'll talk about comedy.

Yeah, so this is a more of a a liturgical, monastic, and uh spiritual tradition within the Orthodox world.

I wouldn't say it's quote dogma because it's not infallible. It's not dogma.

It's more of a lore, a lore.

I mean, I'm not I'm genuinely like, how we where do we category?

I mean, there's all there are many things within Orthodox theology that are not dogma but are part of the tradition. For example, I don't know, like, how would you interpret you know, Matthew twenty four. There's not a dogma on the interpretation of Matthew twenty four. You have a lot of theologians and people talking about it in church fathers and Christistom, and you know, have sermons and homilies on Matthew twenty four or whatever, or you know, how to

Life of the Soul after Death.

And it's part of our tradition that we think that there is a kind of a journey that the soul takes after death, that's it's not purgatory, but that there is a return to God that does occur. And there is substantial liturgical and mystical tradition evidence for this position.

And so you're returning to God and there is it's not purgatory. So so Protestants would hold to like to be absent from the bodies to be present with the Lord.

Yeah, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's instantaneous, because you have, for example, in the Old Testament, when when people died, they went to Hades. That's why Christ preached the Gospel to.

Those in Hades.

That's the descent into Hades, which, by the way, really the Orthodox Church is the only church that continues to teach the heroing of Hades, which is ancient tradition.

But so the soul house is your your your body is your body, or your spirit is going to God. It's the return of the soul to God prior to the resurrection, and so and then and then there's fighting happening over your soul.

Well, there's a sort of a judgment that occurs. It's say it's the judgment. Even protest and some times talk about this as the thing of the word the immediate judgment, which is like prior to the final judgment, the great White Throne. So, yeah, we think that probably most people assume that when you die, the soul is judged. It's just that in this tradition, the toll houses, it's more of a flowery sort of you can say, lore, there's more of a of an idea that it's not just

Yeah, and so they're trying to judge you based on your works and which works you did and.

Direct you and that this is partly why we've always prayed for the dead.

Uh huh.

Interesting, Jay, I'm gonna be honest man here, guys. Is like when you describe salvation in that way and then with the justification, it just sounds scary to me. Bro Like this stuff is like not knowing if someone on their deathbed, or not knowing God forbid one of our grandparents who made a profession of faith is going to be with Jesus because they weren't in the right church or because they didn't have enough works.

Scary view of the afterlife.

Well, I mean it seems like there's a lot of warnings in scripture about so.

There's a lot of warnings about apostasy and a lot of warnings about leaving the faith and that sort of stuff, which which I agree with. Yeah, that that that's that's interesting. So the toll houses and then you said lore but not lore, but I was just I used one of the words. So how do you how do you how are you able to distinguish between which traditions are infallible and which traditions are not infallible? Like how do you make that distinguishment?

I think every person at an individual existential level is in the same boat with that. So like I'm not going to give like a Roman Catholic type argument where they would say, well the pope tells us, right, I think you and me were all in the same boat. So if I were to ask you about well, how do you know what the infallible interpretation of the scriptures is?

Which which you guys believe has been passed down orally, for example, how to worship God. There's no New Testament pattern of worship. There's things that Paul warns about, but you don't get an actual liturgical service.

Well, thankfully, the Apostles actually did leave that. Many Protestants admit that there's ancient liturgical apostologics like the Decay. No, I'm talking about the actual apostolic like if you go to the one of the oldest liturgies as the Lilergy of Saint Mark. So if you go to Alexandria, that's believed to be the ancient liturgy that Mark delivered. And my point is that if you look at the Viticus eleven, like native and Abaye who like worship is very important?

Right?

God kills people for not worshiping the right way. In Corinthians, if you eat unworthily the Lord's supper, many are sick and dead among you, right, So it would seem like the pattern of worship itself is very important. The New Testament doesn't give us a liturgy.

Are you guys following Mark's liturgy. That's one example in an Apostolic see, so what do you get these.

Liturgy, these oral liturgies.

They're saying, they're not world they're written down and say by necessity they have to be extra canonical and Apostolic in their origin. That's why I can go read if Apostolic church fathers like Justin Martyr and they described the liturgy. He describes the liturgy in his day. So there was some Apostolic liturgical tradition that Protestant scholars like Hugh Weybrew admit were handed down by the Apostles. So they're not in the Bible because they're by definition liturgical texts that

Interesting, okay, And so these things that are passed down give you guidance on how to do his service, like how to do the liturgy on a Sunday morning.

You think the Apostles laid down the structure of liturgical services. And that's why whether you go to Alexandria, or whether you go to Rome the ancient Roman liturgy, or whether you go to constantin Noble Byzantium, all of these in their origin are Apostolic. It doesn't mean that I have the copy of like when Paul went to Ephesus and he said, here's how you do the liturgy on We don't. Nobody has those texts, just like we don't have AUTOGRAPHA

I'm asking, how does then one know if those are what sources I guess are infallible versus not infallible.

There is not an Protestant or a Roman Catholic list of the things, and I'm arguing that no one has the We're all in the same boat that I would have to go to an Orthodox church, live it and be imbibed in it to have a sense of what the infallible versus the non infallible traditional there's no other. There's not like just like if you ask a romancality, for example, like what is the infallible lists of the infallible dogmas?

There is one?

Right, So if you ask an Orthodox person, what is the infallible list of Orthodox dogmas?

There's not one? But fair enough, so no one has that, No, no, I know, And thus I don't make that really a key line of argumentation.

Yeah, okay, I mean I think I think that the tricky part with that then is it does seem that that can also be a bit subjective to experience, right.

It's but it's problem, But it's not, it's and I would agree, like we have, there's no way to avoid some degree.

Some degree of being subjective to our experience.

But well, something can be partly subjective and also objective. It's not sure, it doesn't have to be either.

Or let me bounce this off of you. How do you feel about the wesley In quadrilateral? What the Wesleyan quadrilateral.

I'm not familiar.

Okay, So the western quadrilateral is how does one come to conclusions of what is true?

Right?

What is reasonable? The West end quadrilateral is the idea that we're filtering. And I'm not a wrestling for the record, but I like this. I think, like when it comes to pestemology, this just makes the most amount of sense to me. Scripture, church, tradition, experience, and reasoning. So we use all four sure scripture being the only infallible one, right because in my circles charismatics, God told me this, God gave me a word, God gave me a vision.

Right.

This is my this is how my epistemology works, like I think of those four categories.

So I would argue that scripture itself, especially in Paul's epistles or even when Peter's talking. Paul says that he taught for three days and three nights or two me three years, three three years, day and night in Ephesus, and he tells Timothy and the epistles to Timothy that everything that you heard from me, in the presence of many witnesses, passed that on to men after you. He only wrote Timothy two letters that we know of at Ephysis, but he taught there early, so there's a three year

That's a historical succession. Okay, okay, I mean we believe on laying on of the hands, and I will say all is laying down a historical reality. Telling Timothy in Ephesis, you are the appointed authority, not all these other people. I lay hands on you. You lay hands on good men. Be careful who you choose, because the Holy Spirit is

Correct, that's what we're we think it's a historical reality, not a thing that died. Jesus says that in the Book of John, we was talking about the promise the Holy Spirit. He says, I'll be with you until the end of days. I will not leave you. I will the Spirit will lead you, and God you in all truth. So for us, the idea that the collective church in history could lose that, lose the Gospel, lose any of that.

I get that, But is it in your view that the Apostolic succession is it a part of the other churches that claim to be the one and true Church?

Well, you can stop. What do you mean? Catholics have apostolic succession, so if you leave the church, you don't have episoltic succession.

In the Orthodox view, it's not a mechanical thing that exists apart from having the faith. So for example, an Athenasius he writes festal letters and he says, everyone who celebrates the feast talking about pasca outside the yeah, he says, it's not a feast.

They don't have it.

I guess I guess all I'm saying what I was getting at is and this is you guys will well, you guys sort this out much better than I can. Is like, from their vantage point, they don't feel like they left the church. The other seven churches.

Don't everything to do with whether they did or didn't. Like the fact that they feel that way. That's a fallacy, right, so I could So that'd be like saying that, well, a lot of people don't believe in the arguments for God's existence are convincing, So.

That's that's not what I mean. I mean.

I'm saying, I'm sure if we sat down with the leading Catholic apologists, the leading Oriental Wealth apologists, they would have their own systematic theology and they would make their own arguments for it, and those two would.

Probably nothing to do with which positions correct or not.

It doesn't, but but it does seem like there's there seems to be a degree of subjectivity to concluding which is the one true church.

The fact that a person makes an argument that comes from them does not mean that it's purely subjective.

That's that's an epistemic mistake.

So every one of us makes an argument and they come from a subjective person, that doesn't mean that subjectivism is the case.

Right, I make that claim. I'm saying that if you have great arguments, and they have great arguments, and they're using the rules of logic, and they're using history, and they could point to their sources, they can make the same arguments, right, which I don't. I'm not trying to just don't buy that. I mean, I understand why you don't by that, because you know.

I mean, you have the same type of position that you have a take, and you don't agree with my take, and so you have sources, and so that would just be relativizing all argumentation, all positions.

So again, Jay, and my take, I think there's a capital C bigger church which you would disagree with, and I think in that capital CE all believers everywhere from all denominations are part of that capital.

I know.

I'm just pointing out that the argument that you're making violates the very thing that you.

Just said would relativize the positions. The argument that I'm making right now, Your.

Argument is no different than anyone else's argument you're citing. You're saying I have this position, they have that position, you have your position. Yeah, of course, but that has nothing to do with which ones tru or false. Okay, so what you were arguing doesn't pertain too whether or not the Catholic Church or the Orthodour Church is correct. You're just saying that, well, they have arguments.

Yeah, I'm saying I've heard compelling arguments from all sides, that's all I'm saying. And I'm saying, I've heard you make great arguments that I've heard Catholics make. I've heard the reason make good arguments. I've heard a lot of that's foul.

It's called a psychological report. That's a fallacy.

Why is it a fallacy because I've heard good arguments and I say, hey, you guys all got great arguments.

Your cycle, it's called psychological reports, felas. I'm genuinely It's still like when I debate Matt Delahuney and he says, I've heard all your arguments, I don't find them convincing. It's called psychological reporting, which is not relevant to the debate. The fact that you don't find it convincing has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Yeah, I don't think I said I don't find it convincing. I think you're very convincing.

Jay.

No, you say no, I'm saying I've heard great arguments from from all these streams, not all.

That's the equivalent.

It's just saying that they think their arguments are convincing. You think this is convinced, saying I think my position it's the same principle. It's a psychological report, and it's just it's a fallacy.

I'm not trying to be a douce. She just is a fallacy.

What I'm saying is I'm hearing truth claims made by all of these different churches that are all making very similar claims to you.

But that's not an argument. It's a fallacy. Okay.

So I'm not even trying to argue with you. I'm just giving you my paradig I'm saying for my paradigm, Jay, I'm looking around. I'm saying, man, there's a lot of these churches that are all claiming the same thing you're claiming. And it seems like I have the average person that's trying to find a church that's apostolic and is the one true Church, has a mountain of evidence to go

Heal to simplicity.

So like when I debate the Muslims, they'll say, you have all this trinitarian theologists complex, Islam is very simple, just as they'll say you just you just just believe in the four principles.

As there. Daniel made that argument that Islam's true because it's simple. Okay, that's another fallacy.

Okay, So because certain Christian groups hold to a simple, simple view of the Gospel, that then invalidates said position.

It's just a yeah. I'm not saying it makes it correct. It's just it's just an oversimplification. So it would be the fallacy of oversimplication, or just appeal to simplicity.

Sure, yeah, and appeal to simplicity. That's fair. I think I think God is simple. I think salvation is simple. I think people who come to Jesus and experience a transformed heart, new heart's new desires. I would argue an ontological change on the on the identity basis. I think that's fairly simple.

I mean I could, I would al sory. It's kind of an equivocation fallacy.

So because God is simple as a being, that has nothing to do with whether the message of the Gospel is equated to what you're saying is simplicity.

So it's another non sequitor. So repent and believe it doesn't articulate.

I mean, is that the only passage or does he also say an acts to repent and believe and be baptized for the remission of sins.

I think you should be. I think you should be.

But it's baptism for the remission of sins. And then they water baptize a few thousand people.

Huh. So the baptism that's water baptism is the remission of the sense.

Sure, I believe in baptism. I think people should know baptismal regeneration. You holds a baptismal regeneration Acts two thirty nine. So but here's the thing, Jay, you holds a baptismal regeneration, someone is not born again? Am I tracking correctly about to unless they're baptized.

Yes, uh, well again a catechumen who dies on the way to the baptism.

So there's a nuance to it, That's what I'm getting out. But no, you're not born again until you're baptized, correct, But you could still go to heaven in the case of people who are not intentionally thwarting it. That's just like the thief on the cross, right, right. I think God is merciful and he makes ways.

He's not. God is merciful, a miser. He's not there to like try to cast people out.

He wants and loves man, yes, say, and the leturgy is the lover of mankind.

Amen.

But that doesn't so he's still creating pathways for people that don't do all the right things.

Here's the problem, though, this is this is called taking the exception to be the rule. And this is what Protestants often do. Or they take these exceptions and then that becomes the theological paradigm that gets rid of the rule.

The rule. Is for example, an Act two thirty eight thirty nine, Peter says.

Peter doesn't say repent and sola fide, you'll be justified by it. He says, repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, and then they water baptize people, so we know that it's not a Calvinist you say, I'm notssing your Calvinist. I'm using example of Invisible Church. He doesn't say anything about being united. He just says he doesn't baptism.

Yeah, I'm saying, I understand your your point about exception to the rule fallacy. I get that theink's up fair critique. What I'm saying is there seems to always be the exception to the rule, and I agree with the rule. I think you should be baptized. I think you should be in a local church. I think you should wage war on your sin and become more.

I'm just specifically saying the dominant New Testament differences to baptism. From our paradigm, we would argue our baptism regeneration like Titus three, but the way the Washington Labor regeneration.

And if that doesn't happen, someone can be not born again but still go to heaven.

But that doesn't negate baptism. Regeneration is the point. That's fine, okay, but it's not the rule. A most Protestant teaching is not baptism regeneration. Unless you're listener. There's tons of Protestants that hold a baptism regeneration. I just had the guy from theos University on that helds the baptism. It is not the classical normative Protestant position except for many Lutherans believe it. Some Anglicans believe it. But it's not typical

All I'm getting at is that there are Protestants that hold to it, and there's still exceptions to the rule. You guys create nuances, Catholics great nuances. Everyone has exceptions to the rule of what a Christian ought to do versus the reality of when it doesn't happen.

But this is this is one doctrine right Baptism, sure right. We've got the Eucharists, We've got children, particular the Eucharist. We've got a host of things that were already settled. And the main problem I would say about Protestant in this regard is that each generation has to reinvent the wheel and start it all over when we have already settled these issues and in fact, in the case of the ecclesial reality, the church is already declared and define

Christ's body is divided. And okay, I got you. Tell me about comedy in your.

In your and your comedy. I want to make sure.

I want to make sure we get to we're going on four hours, which this is Why are you I'm glad you like it. Are you willing to engage like in person debates because I'd love to facility. Sure, maybe Blescot Summit too. A couple of folks that me versus MADI. I'm gonna be I'm gonna be Jim Jones, and I want the MADI to be on this. I would love to see I don't think this would happen, but I would love to see you and Gavin Ortland go over it in person. I don't think he would do it.

We didn't have the best interaction, but uh maybe, but could we not get a larger I don't mean to be a douchebag. No, no, no, a larger.

That's what I don't think. I don't think Gavin would do it. I think Gavin is the largest name. That's a Protestant apology. What about cosmic sceptic? Do you want a debate cosmic sceptic on what atheism?

Uh?

I mean I would love to see that happen. I don't know if he'd do it. I don't think he'd do it. I think he really wanted to debate. Is Jesus God who said? Again? Yeah, we got with the.

Timing of that.

Was was great with David would because they had already had that set up. It fell through the Jihati stuff and it was like, hey, let's remember that, you know what I mean? And so we got him to do that. But I mean I would I wouldn't mind asking for sure.

Uh, he was supposed to debate who who'd you say you were going to say?

David Wood was supposed to debate cosmics cosa modern debate that seven or whatever it was called.

And then there was joh and then he.

Dropped out, and then we were able to say, hey, let's just do it at our event, and it worked out because he was already come in.

Why don't we, like we can game plan and figure out like a do you do want it to be a Protestant or like.

A Muslim or just I don't want to do anything with Muslims.

I think atheists are pretty hard to come by nowadays in terms of atheists that are willing to engage. I know, uh, And there's not a lot of Protestant apologists that are like even trying to wave the flag of like we're defending because because we believe in the invisible chructure, because we believe you guys are in those Are you guys that believe Jesus died for your sins and place your

To west half.

We's how I could ask my he hees loosely confirmed for night one of our debate Blesscot summit.

So what would you want to debate him about I'm flexible, like.

What whatever he thinks or you think I'm open?

Okay, yeah, that's that's a great idea. Yeah, he'll be I think we got a soft yes from Wes on Canon scripture. Yeah, Canon scripture West half say Dire, that'll be fire. I think you're You're way more pleasant in person then you come off online, and I think I think hopefully people who see this well, keep in mind online you're also dealing with, like you know, bad faith actors.

Many. I'll mention it to Wes anyway, and if not, we'll keep it open to other people possibilities.

Okay, comedy, tell me about the comedy direction. It seems to be a disarming tool used in Bye Bye Bye Brilliant Communicators. Is that your your use of comedy is that you see it as like a, hey, this is a great tool to disarm the impressions like all the all the stuff that you incorporate in terms of the broader thing you're building that is ja Dire, which is not just a Catholic Protestant Orthodox stuff the broader community.

This is like nineteen ninety eight, so nice seven ninety eight. And then when I came back from being in New York for a while, I did like open mic in Nashville for you for a year or so. It was fun to do, but like I was very like I just I w wasn't a Christian at the time.

I was just kind of wild and being.

Silly and it's kind of raunchyr routine. But then you know, over the years, I would like, you know, jot down ideas and write down skits and stuff. And probably the big breakthrough that we had with with that was being on The Tucker Show where I did the whole skit where I was dressed up as klus Schwab and went around New York.

And going around Austin. And that was a great skit.

And so I appreciate Tucker and Scooter for you know, making that opportunity happen. And then that led to other, you know doors that we did a lot of podcasts with comedians over the last five years and networked with those guys.

And would you ever see yourself doing just straight up stand up like you're writing such jokes. Maybe you have writers with you and that's like the main thing of your life event.

I mean, I'm open to that, it's just I'm not Like. The problem is, I don't live near a place you need to practice stand up you know what I mean, to be a stand up It's not really good venues in the middle of nowhere, Tennessee. So I we'd have to move and I mean maybe in the future, but for the meantime, like doing I write for Sam Hyde and he started a show a few months ago, sam I'd show. First episode got twenty million views across like

Episodes two, three, four did pretty good. So I'm really enjoying doing that.

And it's a way to do comedy without like just pure stand up like writing for him. So but I'd like to keep doing that. I'd like to expand that kind of stuff because I really get a lot of joy out of doing that.

How often are you writing.

We've been putting out a show every couple of weeks, so we've done this is we're going on like I think it's a six episode.

I mean I just meant like, okay, So I'm asking this purely out of selfish reasons, like as someone that is interesting multiple things. I wrote my first book. Maybe you take a look at that, you know, and have me on for that. But I'm still passionate about music. I do it four tonight, four days a week. We do stream. Sometimes we do guests, like today, we probably won't do a stream because I'll be cooked after this. Your daily process in order to get your stuff done that, Like,

Yeah, I mean day to day structure is just like I'm sure you're the same way. Like I work from the time of wake up until midnight one in the morning, so we work all the time. Like the whole drive here, I read two books because we drove to. I don't like to fly, so like, I I wait, did you did you drive?

Yeah? It's a gangster bro I hate flying so much.

Like we had a really bad flight experience to coming back from Italy.

Huh how bad? Really bad? Really, like like you thought you were going to crash back. Yeah, it was extreme, extreme turbulence for for eight hours. The whole way back. That's horrifying.

Yeah, it was like some kind of weird torture. It was like being in like a autonam O Bay or something like. The whole thing was like that's for eight hours straight. Yeah, and people were screaming. It was crazy crying. So that was a traumatic experience. That'll make you repent.

Uh. We did an Orthodox Italy pilgrimage November of last year.

Yeah, that that they'll give you some some some repentance.

Repentance and justification prayers.

So when you're okay, So a lot of it is like you're driving places, you're getting to read, and then you're just kind of.

I mean I read a lot. I've always been a reader.

My mom was an editor of a library, so I was raised with books, so I love to read.

I'm always devouring a book.

And then like comedic stuff is kind of random, Like usually when you're having good conversations, you get funny ideas. My wife and I are my friends, so I have a comedy notebook. I write stuff down, so that but that I mean that's only like probably once every week or two where we hammer out a semite episode or whatever. So far, live events like I said, A lot of that's improv A lot of that's impressions. I have a roster, like fifty impressions I can do.

So your lecture.

Lectures improv or is your lecture written out word for word or's a bulletproce or is it just.

Kind of so used to riffing off hand, I don't have it written out. I just talk from the slide and so you have a slide show, there's slides of images got in a little bit of text. But like you know, we if I think you know this like too, Like when you've been talking and podcasting for over ten years, you don't really have to have everything written out.

Yeah you can, I'm with you. I would say I have to read it.

Writing a book, A does a roll index of stuff that I've organized my thoughts, put them on paper, and then I can always pull a top from different facets.

It makes it easier for sure. Yeah.

I mean sometimes, like if I do an electro, I might have a couple of notes, but most of the time I have a good recall.

Yeah, bless me a good recall.

So, yeah, I know you're super smart, dude, and your your your freaking your ability to do so many different things and retain so much information. Is super duper impressive. Before before we get out of here, you got it. You got to either give us an impression or you got to kick kick a free style one of the two.

How about I do a little Nick Cage? All right, Nicholas Cage. So I have in my my code here a piece of bone that I picked up and I felt like it really gets me into a shamanic attitude. How's that? That's great? That's an actual coat. He actually says. He's I believe in a style of acting called neo shamanic. Well, so that's what he says. Look up, that's crazy. Look up, Nicholas Cage. Neo shaman in it. Yes, that's he pulls

So in high school I did stand up at our senior graduation, Okay, and all the stand up was was me impersonating all the teachers.

No, they killed it right now. The teachers got mad. But yeah, that's awesome. So I just started, you know, like, boy.

Oh, he does im There's a there's a there's a thing to people who can do impressions, like I don't.

I don't know what it is.

I don't know if it's like attention to detail. It's a weird telling ability they have where they can catch the things that, like, I can do an impression in review because like I'm just interacting with you, I'm present in this moment, Like you could pick apart the inflections and the two catch and yeah, certain things that like I don't think some people can do.

Sometimes the impressions are super easy, but then sometimes you have to really work on it. I had to really work on Trump it took me a long time. We got to hear it's ok. I have to get into let me think, let's see so glad to be here, Thank you, thank you. Rouse Lana probably the best podcast.

I don't know. Maybe probably, I don't know. We'll have to ask Gamala is just the best podcast. Maybe we're gonna we're gonna make it the best podcast because we're here, we're at it right now. I didn't even catch that's pretty good. I didn't even Okay, nice not I don't. I don't impression.

But he does impress but you do, no, you do impressions. But Zach will do someone stream.

In the moment, Oh yeah with the voice. Yeah, do you want to get in trouble doing an RFK?

I So when we did an l A event, I thought it was gonna be funny if I rolled out, uh my ark.

Jokes, dude, I had. I had a killer r f K joke. I was like, I'm gonna kill with the stand up routine about r f K. And everybody got mad at me, dude, because I made a joke about his voice. He did a great impression, and what a thing with RFK. His voice is coming back. If someone's voice is coming back. The Lord might be healing him. Who knows, Like, I think it's okay, I know what my joke was.

So before I did the impression, right, I was like, so, uh, you know, remember the JFK assassination event and the magic bullet. I'm pretty sure I know what happened to the magic bullet. It went into r f K's throat and it was just like dead silence.

Dude. I was like, it's a joke. I don't hate RFK.

That's that's the dark jo. That's a dark joke, sweet man, which I thanks for doing this absolutely. This is one of the longest we've had.

Could I recommend if people do want to get Star Hollywood three, which covers a plethora.

Yes, please, I'm sorry. Cool well link of below. For sure every a lot of really cool movies.

One and two obviously have a lot, but three it's got a lot of like Christopher Nolan, it's got all the Marvel movies.

It's pretty dope.

But I didn't read the whole thing, but I definitely looked through it and I was like, man, you you you hit a lot of the stuff I'm personally into.

Uh, you can go to Jaysonolsons dot com in the shop and you can pre order the part three and they're all signed.

You can also get one into but j Analysis. Jay's Jays Analysis dot com. We'll link that and it'll.

Be a shop and then you can get part three and it uh will come out in two.

Months two months July, yes, mid July, mid July, so it'll be out and they could check that out and yeah, it looks dope. I mean, these these are great part one in two, but when I looked at that one, they just it just had more lot of stuff. It's just the stuff that I'm into. You know, you're going really deep in some of this stuff that like just kind of older movies. But on the third one, it was like, oh, like there's more Batman, like all this stuff, all the marvel.

Are you working on another book after this or is this kind of I think what I If I do, it'll be a it won't be Hollywood. It'll be like Intelligence and Religion, Okay, because nobody's really there's like two books on that. Okay, So dope.

All right, we're out of here, guys, Jay Dyer, thanks so much, brother, Hey, thank you so much for checking out the video. Please be sure to comment below and subscribe and all that good stuff, and check out this other video that YouTube seems to be recommending just for you. Let me know if they nailed it all right, I'll see you over there, peace,