A (10:11)

All.

B (10:12)

I just get to sit back, look pretty.

A (10:14)

Wait, can you hear me?

B (10:15)

I can hear you.

A (10:17)

Hey, what's going on? I had a question about like, related to like philosophy.

B (10:22)

Okay.

A (10:24)

I wasn't expecting to get in because, sorry, because I don't know how these spaces work.

B (10:28)

So like, I wasn't expecting you to get in either. Consider yourself blessed.

A (10:33)

So basically I've heard you use, you're talking about tag argument and you're like, oh, ultimately the laws are not a laws of logic. But like, ultimately like argumentation becomes circular. And then I'm not trying to like point out like a contradiction or anything like that, or like that you're making a fallacy, but I just want to know the difference. So you'll use that, but then you'll like call out the Muslims and the atheists and like you'll bring up your whiteboard showing how like they're making a fallacy with.

B (11:05)

Yeah, it's two, it's two different, right?

A (11:07)

So what's the difference?

B (11:08)

Two different levels or tiers of philosophy. At the paradigm level, we're arguing that you can't escape being recursive or self referencing. So in other words, at a certain level everybody's worldview will be ultimately self referencing. So in other words, at some point you'll bottom out to where you can't appeal to any other higher authority. There's nothing else you could appeal to. So for example, if you think about language, right? If I say, well, can you define language or explain how language works without using words? No, you can. It's impossible. So there's something, the way paradigms or even set theory itself works is that at a certain point they become self referencing. That's not the same thing as the fallacy of circular reasoning. So two different domains, two different paradigms. So for example, if a Muslim says that the Old Testament is false and corrupted and we know this from the Quran, and you can check the Quran against the Old Testament, that's a contradictory, you know, circular type of argument. That's not the same thing as saying at a certain level all arguments become self referencing. Another example, the logic. Can you Prove logic without assuming logic? No, because making an argument for logic assumes the thing in question. So that's why it's two different levels of argumentation. The circularity fallacy is usually at a more mundane level or when it comes to. It's like first order versus second order reasoning.

A (12:39)

Gotcha. Okay, that. That makes more sense. Like, I kind of viewed it that way, but you kind of put the words to it to make it make sense.

B (12:46)

Yeah, appreciate it. Great question. Yeah, that. That's a question that comes up quite a bit, so. Good one. Buddha. Buddha. Oh, the Buddha's calling in y' all time to practice some detachment. Why don't y' all practice some detachments with the super chats with your wallet and support the streams through super chats? Super chats are done through streamlabs, or you can do it natively through YouTube as well. What's up?

A (13:15)

Hello. Am I in?

B (13:16)

You are the butter. You are here.

A (13:19)

Yes. Let's go. Okay, so I want to challenge you on an idea. Right. So I love Jesus. I do love the teachings of Buddha too. I know that may seem contradictory to you, but I want to know, where do we see from the Gospels that Jesus is calling himself ontologically God?

B (13:40)

I don't see that you want to know.

A (13:43)

Yeah, like, I. Like, I don't understand.

B (13:44)

Like, for instance, I want to know what love is. I want you to show me what love is. I want to know what love is. I want you to show me. So have you read. Have you read John 1?

A (14:02)

Yeah, I have, but I don't think that that's saying that Jesus is solo God.

B (14:08)

Well, he's not. He's not solo God because the word God is a generic term and can be used for different things. So, for example, God the Father is also called God. The Holy Spirit is called God. And so likewise, Jesus is calling himself in John 1, the son of the Father, who is identical to him in nature, but different from him in terms of person or hypostasis.

A (14:31)

But John 1 is not written by Jesus, and that's not what he said. Like, when he's quoted. Like, for instance, in the Gospel, you.

B (14:37)

Understand that nothing is written by Jesus.

A (14:40)

No, but let me explain something.

B (14:41)

Right, but hold on, slow down, because you understand that Jesus didn't actually write anything that we know of.

A (14:47)

You understand that quotes from him in the gospel contradicted.

B (14:50)

Okay, but who wrote the quotes? So first of all, who wrote the quotes?

A (14:56)

Okay, but it doesn't matter who I'm saying Jesus.

B (14:58)

If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter that he didn't write anything. So that just destroyed your own argument?

A (15:04)

No. You're not even letting me say what Jesus said.

B (15:06)

I'm not going to let you move on until you stop making fallacious arguments. So does it matter who wrote it or not?

A (15:13)

Yes, it matters.

B (15:14)

Okay, so if Jesus didn't write down the parts that you're saying that Jesus said, then that undercuts your argument.

A (15:21)

No, it doesn't, because I believe the people who wrote it down were writing what he really said.

B (15:25)

Okay, then you have to believe John 1, because that's the same author of.

A (15:29)

The other parts that Jesus said that contradicts you.

B (15:33)

What?

A (15:34)

Okay, so he says God the Father knows everything, and I don't know everything he says.

B (15:41)

So hold on. One text at a time. One text at a time. In John 1, you just said that you do believe John's testimony. He says that the Son is. Stop interrupting me. He says the Son is the Word of the Father and is God.

A (15:57)

Yeah, Christ. But Jesus is not the only.

B (16:01)

This is too stupid to even.

A (16:02)

We. We.

B (16:03)

We're not. We're done. So this is not a rash. This is not a rational person. Again, if you come in with, like, multiple fallacies within the first 5, 20 seconds, it was. We're done. It's not a rational person. Can't get anywhere with that person. Czar, what's up? So, again, so Christ is a specific term from Hebrew theology. Christ means the anointed one, the Mashiach, the Messiah. There are not many messiahs, not many Christs. The Buddha is not a Christ because it doesn't even make sense, because it's not a Buddhist term. What's up, man? Why are you banging? What's going on?

A (16:44)

Sorry, I was busy with something. Mr. Dyer, how are you?

B (16:47)

Good.

A (16:49)

Yeah? Yeah. I just wanted. There is something I didn't. I wanted to ask about in terms of geopolitics. It has to do with Orthodoxy. Are you willing to talk about that?

B (16:57)

Okay, go ahead, get to it.

A (17:00)

So I do understand that the patriarchy in Constantinople granted autocephaly to the schismatic church in Ukraine and whatnot. But I notice an issue because I'm from South Africa. I notice an issue that the mission in South Africa is headed by the Patriarch in Alexandria. That's his jurisdiction. But we're seeing Russian jurisdiction coming into Africa without, what would be the word, approval from the Alexandrian Patriarch. So much so that they're even paying off Greek bishop, Greek priests and deacons to work as Russian priests and deacons. Rather than the Greeks. Do you. Do you know anything about that?

B (17:48)

No, but, I mean, there's always been these jurisdictional squabbles and problems, but the real person who's at fault here is the patriarchal Constantinople. And if you go to the Union of Orthodox Journalists website, they just posted a bunch of things on that today exposing Bartholomew Todd. What's up, Toad? Excuse me? Toad the Wet sprocket. What's up?

A (18:13)

Hey, what's up, man? I just wanted to kind of respond to that Buddha guy, if that's okay, and explain why we don't struggle with the whole is Jesus God thing or if that's okay with you.

B (18:26)

Okay, Just make it quick.

A (18:28)

Yeah, sure. So, you know, when you look at worship, it requires sacrifice. That doesn't mean killing an animal. And you look at worship, it's offering hospitality to a deity. The Eucharist kind of flips that on its head. Christ offers us the Eucharist with the authority of God. It's his altar, it's his table, it's his body. He doesn't have to say, I am God, because he offers himself as God to us. That's more of a definitive statement than anything else that he could have verbalized.

B (18:57)

Well, he verbalized it multiple times, saying, I am. I mean, every time he says I am in the Book of John, he's affirming his deity. John, what's up, man? Before, Abraham was, I am. And he makes himself equal to the father in John 8. And they want to stone him. What's up, John?

A (19:23)

I just wanted to point out one thing. You. You actually just created a new argument, and you said he was making a phallic argument.

B (19:36)

Yes. All bad arguments or phallic arguments because they suck. All right, we're getting to. We're getting too rated R. We're getting rated R. I gotta stop. Who's next? John? Feel free to stay on. Isaac. Isaac Hayes. What's up? We got all these weird, weird bands calling in. We had Toad the Wet Sprocket, Isaac Hayes. What's up?

A (19:56)

Yeah, can you hear me?

B (19:57)

I want to know what love is. Yes.

A (20:01)

All right, so I kind of have, like, a hermetic transcendental argument. And I could dismantle it. It'd probably be you.

B (20:13)

You're trolling. Are you trolling? Are you trolling? Are you serious?

A (20:21)

No, I'm, like, dead serious.

B (20:24)

Dead serious. Oh, okay. What's your Hermetic transcendental argument?

A (20:30)

So in the first book of the Hermetic, like, philosophy, the Discourse between.

B (20:42)

Hermes, Hermetica, There is.

A (20:45)

Yeah.

B (20:46)

Okay.

A (20:48)

There is this, or I guess it describes a trinity within there. And since this is written in antiquity, it is at the very least contemporary with Christian writings.

B (21:01)

So they. Yeah, but, you know, the under, you know, the Trinity comes from the Torah, not from the Christian writings.

A (21:10)

I mean, sure, I guess.

B (21:12)

Okay, so it doesn't matter temporally then. This would be after the Trinity doctrine, because that's a Judeo doctrine.

A (21:18)

I guess the influence wouldn't really make a difference. Yeah, I do know that there is the Trinity in the Old Testament as well. But anyway, my point with that is that the Trinity in Poimandres is. It allows for multiplicity, so it doesn't devolve into total monism or, you know, standard.

B (21:48)

Yeah, but the way that we make the transcendental argument is not that there's a minimal amount of necessary attributes. It's all of the attributes that are necessary for a specific deity. So you can't ground it in Neoplatonism, which is what I think you're. You're going for here with. While here's a couple attributes that are shared between two different triads. It's a vastly different triad. So all the critiques of Neoplatonism would apply to what you're talking about?

A (22:14)

I. I would just. I don't think all of them do because my stance is not purely Neoplatonic.

B (22:20)

Okay, is the world created or is it an eternal emanation?

A (22:25)

What's that?

B (22:26)

Okay, is the world created or is it an eternal emanation?

A (22:29)

I know the world is.

B (22:30)

Is created ex Milo.

A (22:33)

What's ex Niho? Yeah.

B (22:36)

And you're saying the Corpus hermeticum teaches Hermetica, teaches ex creation, ex nilo. I've never heard that.

A (22:45)

I'm saying that one could interpret it that way. Yeah.

B (22:49)

Has anyone ever interpreted that way or this your novel interpretation?

A (22:53)

I mean. Yeah, no, it is a novel interpretation, but I don't see why that would matter, like, philosophically.

B (22:57)

Well, because in order to derive the Christian theological teachings, it's not divorced from history. So the fact that you're 2,000 years later having a novel interpretation of the Hermetica to try to find what are specifically Judaic and Christian teachings about creation ex nilo would be a defeater for what you're coming up with. I mean, you're just copying and pasting.

A (23:22)

I mean, again, I, I don't think so. I could argue that you're you. Well, not you personally, but, you know, Christianity or I guess Judaism had copied Plato and then expanded upon that.

B (23:36)

How Did Judaism copy Plato? When. When Moses is far earlier than Plato? Where's your. Where's the proof that Judaism copied Moses.

A (23:46)

Existed in the first place?

B (23:48)

All right, here we go. Sure. No, this is too stupid. Yeah. Good job, dude. All right, who's next? Tyndall, what's up?

A (24:00)

You know, on that. On that note, is that in the Pelican. Book? He's.

B (24:10)

Hush, he's talking. Go ahead, John.

A (24:14)

Oh, I was saying in the Pelican Book on the Catholic tradition. Huh? He actually says that there. Pete, there's people who speculate that the Greeks might have borrowed from the Old Testament.

B (24:29)

Yeah, I know. The early church. The early church fathers argue this, Irenaeus argues it, Justin Martyr argues it. So, yeah, it's just a very arbitrary to just assume that everything that the Greeks had, you know, the. The Christians ripped off. Well, there's actually a symbiotic relationship with, like, Christian philosophy in the patristic area era and, you know, Greek philosophy. But you could argue that, yeah, Philo was Hellenized. But to then hinge your argument on maybe Moses never existed. Well, okay, maybe, you know, it's far less likely that Hermes Trismegistus existed than Moses, so. That's a bad line of argument. Tyndall, what's up?

A (25:15)

Yeah, I was wondering if you could do Terence McKenna talking about how Plato could have came before Moses.

B (25:24)

Yes, well, we are relying on a lot of Judaic interpretations, and if you're familiar with Jewish rabbinical thought, it's misogynistic, especially in the writings of Solomon. And Solomon had many wives, which produced his misogyny. And that's what led them to come to the conclusion that they were suppressing women and suppressing polyamorous relationships. Ecumenical goy. What's up? That is probably that. That literally sounds like some kind of Terence McKenna would actually argue. What's up, man?

A (26:11)

Hey, fool. I'm just saying, as a Mexican, like, what do you think of all this ice stuff? Like, I don't know how to feel.

B (26:19)

Fool you to my vanilla eyes. By the way, I was the first person to make that joke. And then everybody ripped off my meme.

A (26:25)

I think.

B (26:25)

Look, I. I look. I've been a long time member of the VIP posse. I joined the VIP posse in sixth grade. I went as no Ice for Halloween in sixth grade. I've always been a fan of Robert Van Winkle. He was the OG Wigger. So when it comes to ice, I'm on board, dude. Ice. Ice, baby. Darius, what's up? This better be a brother this better be a fellow bipoc person. If I see a. A profile named Darius and it comes up and it ain't a Persian or a brother, I'm out.

A (27:00)

Aj, can you hear me?

B (27:01)

You don't sound black.

A (27:05)

Can you hear me? Jay?

B (27:06)

Yes.

A (27:09)

So basically I had some question regarding to Orthodoxy.

B (27:12)

Okay, one question. Go.

A (27:15)

Yeah, but I need to kind of give you a brief history.

B (27:19)

No, we don't have time for a brief history. Ask your question. Come on. I'm in a hurry today.

A (27:24)

Yeah, I'm getting serious about Orthodoxy, so I need some advice or what steps to get. Okay. Because I was Orthodox, but I. When I moved to Germany, I basically became Protestant or evangelical and I left the church like two years ago. And now I'm getting interested in Orthodox again.

B (27:45)

Okay, what's your question?

A (27:50)

Like how I heard the arguments from your YouTube channel. Also from Kyle, the guy is called. Yeah, and now I'm also attending a Romanian Orthodox church because I'm from Moldova.

B (28:03)

Okay.

A (28:05)

And yeah, I just wanted to ask, like, are there some books or some things I need to get into?

B (28:15)

Well, yeah, with a Protestant background, I would say get a hold of Dr. Clark Carlton's book. There's a three volume trilogy, the Way the Truth and the Life. I want to say that the. I forget the name of the. Whichever volume. I read this like 15 years ago, but one of the volumes is directed towards Protestant evangelical mindsets. So I'd say get a hold of Clark Carlton's book. I would say get a hold of Vladimir Lasky's book, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. And pretty much anything for the most part that Lasky writes is good. So I would start there and then, you know, check out Athanasius on the Incarnation and the five Theological Orations of the Cappadocians. What's up, man? I want to know what love is. I want you to show me. I'm you, dude. Cruising for a bruising. I'm mute. Crusader of truth. I'm mute. I want to know what love is.

A (29:20)

I want you to show me.

B (29:23)

Nobody knows these boomer songs. Crusader. Do you want to talk or not, man? All right, moving on. Dimitri. Dimitri. Unmute, guys. When you come up, just unmute yourselves, man. We've been doing this forever.

A (29:40)

Hello? You hear me?

B (29:42)

Yep.

A (29:43)

Oh, man. Can I just ask you. Oh, my gosh, no. Sorry about that. But hey, man, you're the first one who I heard about, one of the first about Young earth creationist with Kyle. I was wondering, have you heard about Ken Hoven? That was the first one who really showed me about Young Earth.

B (30:04)

Yeah, I've known about him for a long time. What about it?

A (30:08)

Oh, just curious on your opinion. And what about Andrew Wilson on the not liking a Young Earth creationist or ridiculous?

B (30:17)

Well, I haven't talked to Andrew about his position on Young Earth, but I actually agree that most of the Young Earth creationists are a bunch of goobertards. So Ken Ham, Ken Hovind, I mean they're terrible representatives. They're absolute goofballs. So I wish that we had better, better presenters of those kinds of positions. Connor, what's up?

A (30:45)

Hey, what's up? Jay?

B (30:46)

Yes, sir.

A (30:48)

I really had one question and it would be what is your thought? What is your opinion about idealism and can it cohere with 4th Luxy?

B (30:56)

No, the world is not an ideal construct. Construct. It's not. We're not Platonists, we're not Hegelians. There is an external world, there is matter. For example, in many places in the patristic writings and in the ecumenical councils, we know that Jesus took on matter. I'm aware that you could say, oh well, maybe the matter is also an idea. No. So there's never been in the history of the Orthodox Church anybody teaching idealism. And in fact it's really just Platonism ultimately. And Platonism is condemned multiple places in the church fathers and in the councils, particularly the Synodicon condemns it many times over. You want to try again? Let's see. No, no. If you already came up. No, I'm going. Not going to you. Jt, what's up?

A (31:45)

I want to know what love is. I want you to show me.

B (31:53)

Not really. I'm not sexting with you guys in the chat. Did not want any of you to show me what love is. What's up, man? Jt?

A (32:00)

Hey you. And I'm from Wilson of posted that debates are more for like convincing the audience rather than the person you're debating. Yeah, like am I just too dumb to know?

B (32:12)

Why?

A (32:12)

Because it seems like if you can convince your opponent, that would be the most convincing thing.

B (32:16)

It's just because most of the time people that go into debates 99 of the time are not there to be corrected or to learn the truth. So it's just a practical observation. It's not saying that we never want to convert the opponent. Of course we want to convert the opponent. In fact, the opponent is part of the audience when you're speaking in the debate, the opponent is also part of the audience. So yeah, we would want to convert them. But 99 of the time. You're not going to convert your opponent. The debate is for the audience. Solid snake. What's up? I want to know what love isn't.

A (32:58)

Jay, I love your videos. Thank you for everything.

B (33:01)

Okay, here comes. Now, when it. When it begins with a compliment, it usually means I'm in for hellacious nonsense. So give me all of. Why I'm a massive, you know, piece of crap.

A (33:13)

Oh, Jay, I like you, okay?

B (33:16)

That's all I care about, is people liking me. I just want to be liked.

A (33:20)

No, I'm. I'm orthodox. I like your videos.

B (33:22)

I just want to know what love is. Go ahead.

A (33:25)

I love you.

B (33:27)

Is that it? Okay.

A (33:31)

All right.

B (33:31)

Kick me off.

A (33:32)

Kick me off, please.

B (33:34)

I don't get what people think is, like. What. What's. Where's the joke? I don't get it. I want to know what David is. What's up, David, I'm. Hello? Are you calling me from the shower? You about to show me what love is right now. I'm in a factory. A shower factory.

A (34:02)

Thanks for everything. I've been going to liturgy for about a month now, but I have a dude's in the.

B (34:07)

Dude? You calling me from the dance? You calling me from the noise factory? Is that where they make noise?

A (34:14)

Yeah, well, we make plans here, too. I'm not bowing.

B (34:17)

Oh, okay. David Bowie, Okay. He's working in the David Bowie factory. He's making cool avant garde music. What's up? Actual question. And then he drops off, bro.

A (34:35)

The.

B (34:35)

The Dick. Dick Cheney's. He's effing up the signal dog. He's over there working in the. The Boeing factory, and Dick Cheney's up there in the control room, shutting down the signal. Josie, what's up? I want to work in the David Bowie factory. I don't know. It sounds. That might be a little. A little weird. What would you get paid if you worked in the David Bowie factory where you get paid in glitter or some weird. What's up, man?

A (35:07)

Hey, what's up, Jay? I just had a quick question real quick.

B (35:10)

Yeah, well, why don't you ask me?

A (35:12)

I'm orthodox, but I just made that clear. I was introduced to. Or. Well, I ran into, like, a Instagram post, essentially just talking nonsense about how Judaism, and therefore Christianity, just evolves from this canine religion, Yahwism. I was wondering what your thoughts on that. If you ever heard that argument before.

B (35:32)

Yeah, that's been going around. That's been going around for 30 years. First of all, the way that the Canaanite storm God is Presented bears no similarities at all to the way that the God of the Scriptures is presented. And I do not like William Lane Craig, but he does have one good book on this very topic and it's called Creation Ex Nilo. And in that book he goes through the Torah and basically presents all the ways in which the essential attributes and characteristics of the God of the Bible are contrasted to the sort of zeitgeist, lowest common denominator approach that you hear from that kind of level of argumentation. So it's called Creation X elo by William Lane Craig. What's up brave heart? We got William Wallace in the chat. What's up?

A (36:22)

Do you.

B (36:26)

There are similarities between BAAL and Allah? Well, look, similarities is not the same thing as identity. You can find similarity between any object. And again, this goes back to the word concept fallacy. It goes back to the way that idiotic conspiracy people misinterpret things. The way evangelicals interpret, you know, Alexander Hislop. Look, the Pope has a fish hat. That's the Babylonian hat. That because it's a similar shape. Similar shapes does not mean the same referent. Similar symbols doesn't mean the same reference. Again, the lion of the tribe of Judah and Satan walking around like a lion seeking human man devour. Well, I guess that means that Jesus is Satan. That's literally the Charles Manson schizo level interpretation. And this is the same approach that evangelicals and conspiracy tards use. It's the same reference because it's the same thing. And it's the same way that Schizos operates. Schizos think that the same thing is a metaphysical referent. The apple in the garden. Apple computers, therefore Apple Computers was in the garden. No, that's a non. That's a fallacy. And, and Candace is only like one week away from that. What's up, Brave new world? Braveheart? Whatever. I'm you.

A (37:49)

Hi, first time here for me. I have a kind of a going back question regarding Erica Kirk and what your discernment said to you when you saw her kneel next to the coffin of Kirk, Charlie Kirk. I mean, did. Did anything.

B (38:11)

Are you talking about Captain Kirk? Are you talking about. Hold on, you saying. Are you saying she kneeled next to the great. The coffin of Captain Kirk?

A (38:18)

Sorry, I misspoke. Charlie Kirk, her husband. So when she kneeled down and was doing that video, what did your senses discernment, holy spirit experience, etc.

B (38:33)

Etc.

A (38:34)

What went off in you? Because that is when I knew.

B (38:38)

Right.

A (38:39)

There was no question there's something wrong. And and it just doesn't seem like you guys. The big. The big, you know, Alex, you, Nick. Nobody seems to care about that, really. And I just don't understand. And I'm confused because I respect you. I'm learning a lot by you. I'm a long time Christian. I'm not orthodox. However, I. I believe I have good discernment. I've been in the Bible for 25 years. Self study. I love God. And there's something wrong with that woman. So why don't you care? Why don't you be a voice and stand up? It's Charlie Kirk.

B (39:24)

Okay.

A (39:25)

Like.

B (39:25)

Yeah. Well, I'll say this. When I saw that, I was about two boxes deep into Franzia. And it was specifically the, you know, the cherry flavor. Franz.

A (39:39)

Yeah.

B (39:40)

And I probably wasn't able to function rationally when I saw it because I was so deep into Franzia. And then when I woke up from my Franzi.

A (39:50)

I don't know what you mean. What does that mean? Franz. Yeah.

B (39:54)

You're not familiar with boxed wine?

A (39:56)

No, I. I'm not. I'm 64 years old. I'm a grandmother. Help me out here.

B (40:03)

There's no way that a grandmother is not familiar with Franzia.

A (40:06)

Is it a flavor of ice cream? What is it?

B (40:10)

I suppose you could technically freeze it. I have been to places where they freeze box wine, so that's technically possible.

A (40:16)

I'm trying to. I'm. I don't know what that means. What are you talking about?

B (40:19)

I'm talking about box wine. Probably the premier brand of Box one, actually.

A (40:25)

What is Box one? I don't know what that means.

B (40:30)

Box.

A (40:30)

I'm not being difficult. I really don't know.

B (40:33)

W I N E. Wine.

A (40:35)

Oh, wine. Box one. Sorry, I. I didn't hear you. Okay. Wine. Thank you. Thank you.

B (40:42)

All right, so tell me your favorite flavor of Franzia before we continue.

A (40:46)

I don't drink Franzia. If I have a glass of wine, it's at a restaurant and I spend way too much for one glass, so. All right, let's just leave it at that. So can we. Can we just continue?

B (40:57)

What if. Okay, but what if. What if the.

A (41:00)

Or sober.

B (41:01)

What if the restaurant.

A (41:03)

Anybody could have seen it. My 4 year old grandson could have figured it out.

B (41:07)

But what if the restaurant serves Franzia that you go to? What would you do then?

A (41:12)

Okay, whatever. Listen, I don't want. I. I really. I'm really serious. When I wanted. I respect you, Jay. I want to know heart to heart.

B (41:22)

I want to know what life is, man to grandmother.

A (41:25)

What the hell were you thinking when she was doing that?

B (41:30)

I. I want to know.

A (41:31)

Come on.

B (41:32)

I want to know what love is. I want you to show me, okay?

A (41:39)

Love for me. Come on. I don't want. This is not therapy, man. I want to know what a man.

B (41:48)

I mean, it kind of is an.

A (41:49)

Orthodox Christian who's been through Catholicism, Protestantism.

B (41:53)

Oh, here we go.

A (41:54)

The Bible back and forth and 20,000 books. What were you thinking when she was kneeling there? What was your. Your spirit telling you?

B (42:04)

I was thinking, I want to know what love is. I want you to show me. Oh, man. Look, okay, I'm going to be serious now. So where did you get the idea that I'm somehow a TPUSA apologist or Erica Kirk apologist? This is what I don't understand. Why people who are so attuned to their discernment that they can't understand that I've been critiquing evangelical black ops churches for 10 years publicly in podcasts. In fact, the guy next to you on the space right now, I did podcasts with him 10 years ago on the very topic of evangelical black ops churches. So where did you come up with the ridiculous idea that, number one, I believe all of the mainstream stories and number two, that I don't question TPUSA or something like that? Are you there? Okay, so again, perfect example of the Qandas audience right there.

A (43:20)

Well, the problem is, once again, and let me just say that I probably am a little bit more sympathetic towards Candace than Jay is, but even that you have to use discernment when listening to something like that. And once again, he's pointing out that we were talking about this way, way before anybody else was. And just because the unfortunate murder of Charlie Kirk, now this has been brought into the spotlight. But I mean, we were talking about it when nobody cared about it.

B (44:05)

Exactly. And now I have to hear all of these wine moms and soccer moms know it all spouting out and pontificating to me about this topic. It drives me crazy. Two months ago, Candace Owens and the evangelical black ops business churches technocracy. Courtney Turner returns with me. This is two months ago, an entire almost three hour podcast on this very subject. So again, I don't understand why people can't figure out that I don't like either one of them. And if you can't see that everything Candace is saying about all this nonsense the last three months is absolute ridiculous, I can't help you go back to the Franz yet. What's up? Theology something?

A (44:58)

Yo, what's up, bro?

B (45:00)

What's up?

A (45:02)

So last time I was on here, right, I was talking about under determination. So I just wanted to know a few things. So I wanted to know how creationism can predict the data just as well.

B (45:15)

As doesn't predict data, it predicts the, the, the thesis. In other words, for example, why would we see similar DNA between a monkey and a human being? Well, the evolutionary model says it's because of a common ancestor. The creation model says it's a common creator. So both models can accurately explain the data. Right?

A (45:42)

So then if that's the case, why would you posit yours over the other?

B (45:47)

Dude, I don't, I think you don't understand what the under determination of data means. All it means is that data itself doesn't tell you the paradigm. So you have to go to the paradigm level. So I would critique the evolutionist paradigm depending upon what paradigm that specific evolutionist has, whether they're a theistic one or an atheistic one. The whole point of under determination of data is that scientism proponents, for example, when they point to more peer review studies or whatever, none of the peer reviewed studies are ever going to tell you which paradigm is true because it's a paradigm level argument. That's the point.

A (46:21)

And do you think that that also could play into the idea of how brute facts don't exist?

B (46:29)

It is related to that, but again that's a kind of a separate epistemic issue. I mean the reason that brute facts don't exist is that we all interpret reality through our paradigm. So we call this in philosophy, theory laden. That everything that exists, all facts or objects or whatever are theory laden. That's the point of that term. So it's a both and there it's, it's, it's related. I have one more question. Huh.

A (46:59)

So do you know anything about hermeneutical foundationalism?

B (47:04)

I mean, I know what hermeneutics is and I know what foundationalism is. So I don't, I don't know specifically what that is.

A (47:11)

I just wanted to know because like, how would you, like, how do you think hermeneutics plays into attack when it comes to like how understanding is transcendent to knowledge and meaning.

B (47:22)

Understanding is transcendent to knowledge. I don't even know what that means. I mean hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. So for example, when you interpret the Bible, there's different theories on hermeneutic approaches, right? Like typological approach, grammatical historical approach, etc. That's what hermeneutics is hermeneutics of hermeneutical foundationalism. Sounds like the idea that there would be basic self evident principles about how I would go about interpreting this or that text. So again it's related but again, I think you're kind of mixing up terms there. Pneumaticos what's up? Are we buying bitcoin at this level? Yes. So a lot of people are freaking out. We had a pullback. Ivan had a good talk on it. He says he thinks it'll it may go back to the 200 week moving average which would be around 60 and I'm not worried. No, I mean I expected the next time we went into a bull market we would go down and Ivan's usually right. So it probably will hit the 200 week moving average, worst case scenario, which would be in the 60s. But hey, that's. That makes it much more easier to get a hold of one BTC, you know, when it's in the 60s, if you're new to Bitcoin, you're one. Oh, I want to get into it. I want to start. Okay, well be thankful that, I mean look, if bitcoin was at 200 and unless all the gold boomers are like, like doing their victory dances, bitcoin usually pops off after gold has a run. That's the historical precedent. And of course historical precedent isn't a infallible guide for markets, but usually when bitcoin or usually gold has a run before bitcoin. So no, I'm not worried and no, I'm not selling any bitcoin for gold. Not at all. Pneumaticos what's up? That's who's next up?

A (49:13)

Hey, what's up, Jay?

B (49:14)

Hey.

A (49:15)

Hey. I just wanted, you know, first time call. I just wanted to express gratitude to you, you know, for guys like you, Burmas, Richard Grove, Alex Jones. Like if I didn't find you guys when I found you, I would be like, I just want to address that Braveheart lady. I think the problem is a lot of people, you know, they hear Candace and they get mixed up and they don't realize they're like fresh to red pill and then their whole brain gets melted by everything's a conspiracy. And they don't have the ability to like sift through and understand how intelligence operations work and psyops and everything. It's so deep.

B (49:53)

Yeah.

A (49:54)

And I'm so grateful for guys like you and Richard and Burmas who were able to help me through that period where you could fall off a cliff with this or you could start reading books and learn about what's really going on. And I have empathy for ladies like that because their minds are just getting blown these days and they have no idea how to parse through it. So I just want to say thanks for what you do and for helping me. And that's about it. Thanks.

B (50:21)

Yeah. Thank you, man. Again. Again. We do have to remember, and I was just joking. Gotta remember when you call into this thing here, I joke around a lot. It's, it's good natured ribbing. We're having fun. Don't take it seriously. We all have that, that bell curve phase of awakening. You know, when you first get into this kind of material, it's very jarring. And it's kind of like the phases of grief or whatever, you know, where you're like, you're upset, you're shocked, then you question everything, everything's a conspiracy, and then you kind of are susceptible to believing everything. Oh, maybe it's the aliens, maybe it's the Tartarians, it's the Pleiadians. So you go through these phases and then you kind of immediately assume everything is part of the grand narrative. And the reality is that it's, it's, it's both and. Right, it's, it's more nuanced than that. There are intelligence operations, but the CIA doesn't run everything. Israeli operations are influential. They don't run everything. The Masons have had a very powerful historical influence. They're not running everything. MK Ultra is real. Not everybody is an MK Ultra Delta assassin sex program. Okay. I mean, there's just a learning curve that we go through. Go ahead, John.

A (51:47)

And, and all of those things are not necessarily all tied to together in one big bow also.

B (51:53)

Yeah, that's the, the grand narrative idea is that. Ah, yes. So I studied. Here's a question right here on Super Chat. What do you think of P I Z Z A gate? Well, in my opinion, there were probably some underhanded, nasty activities, perhaps a CP going on. Allegedly. Perhaps. I don't know. I'm not accusing anyone of that because I can't have proof of that. But, but it does seem very suspicious. However, I don't think there was a K I L l room, you know, 8 millimeter style. But you notice that a lot of people latched on to that event and it became everything and then every. And that came out of Q crap, if you remember that. And I said day one, that Q was a psyop. To me, it bore all the marks of limited hangout. Disinformation that kind of stuff. But I think. Go ahead.

A (52:47)

I was going to point out, in light of the, you know, in light of the Charlie Kirk stuff, you know, it's an interesting little tidbit of info. What is, you know Paul Valle there who wrote the book with Michael Kino.

B (53:02)

Yeah.

A (53:03)

And he's on the board of TP usa.

B (53:05)

Right.

A (53:06)

He was also a promoter of Q.

B (53:11)

I didn't even know that. Good insight there, John. Now, people have been sending me viral Instagram reels of the Paul Valley stuff about mine, war side war. And I'm not trying to be rude or dick, but, guys, I knew this 15 years ago. Now it's new information. In fact, John was on with me a few weeks ago that Paul Valli was involved in the tpusa stuff, and we covered that weeks ago. So, first of all, I know about mine, Word of Cywar. In fact, I've read Michael Aquino's other books. I read his book on black magic. I've read mine, Word of Cywar. So I'm aware of those things. And I knew who Paul Valli was. And we covered Paul Valley being connected to tpusa maybe a month ago. And then now the why Moms are sending me the Instagram reels, alerting me of things that I knew 15 years ago and things that we talked about a month ago. And again, it's not their fault. I'm not bitching at the people who send me that stuff because it's new information to them, but it's just kind of frustrating when you see, you know, information getting out there. And then people get so arrogant and douchey with you, and then they think, oh, you're the drill, douchebag. No, no, I have to deal with this stuff, like every day. Right. People who are. And it's not just. It's also family members, right? So I deal with family members who have for decades not listen to me. And then 20 years later, when they hear Queen Candy say it, suddenly it's now true. And it's. It's this. It's the new version of what used to be the case with Fox News. Right. I had family members, I talked to them about all kinds of stuff, thought I was crazy. But then when they heard Tucker talk about it, then they listened to it because it was on the screen, the great God screen of Fox News. I'm not dissing Tucker. I'm just saying this was the process, you know, in the. In say, 2018, 2019, 2020. And I'm like, I was telling you This a long time ago. Okay. Geoengineering, I've been talking about that since 20. I learned about that in 2007 or 8. Talked about it a lot. I don't know everything about it. I don't know, you know, but I, I've known about it, I've talked about it. It's in my book. There's a whole two chapters on geoengineering in my 2018 book. And that was based on articles I'd written years earlier. And then you get people.

A (55:27)

What about geoengineering?

B (55:28)

Yeah, I'm well aware of it. I played John Brennan at the CFR talking about it. I got my whole original tick tock deleted because I played John Brennan clips talking about geoengineering at the CFR a long time ago. So like, I'm not trying to be a know it all douchebag. It's just, it's very frustrating, I think, for people who have been in this sphere and talked about it so often and for so long to little to no fanfare or attention or people weren't listening. No one would listen to you. Back when we had, you know, I mean, I'm not sure the exact size of the. I'm not dissing the hoaxbusters or afternoon commute, but I mean, it wasn't a massive audience. I mean, we probably had a few thousand Downloads back in 2015, 16. And then to hammer at this for all of these years to be, you know, six years into hosting the fourth hour of Lord Voldemort now. And it's like now you're getting these people copying and saying all the stuff that you talked about. Even Candace talking about all the Laurel Canyon stuff when she had Tom o' Neill on, like, that was that we've been covering since Dave McGowan before he was dead. Right. So, and I'm not trying to go.

A (56:39)

Ahead, I interviewed David McGowan.

B (56:42)

Yeah, good point.

A (56:43)

I mean, even before anybody knew who he was. I'm not saying that to brag, I'm just saying like that's how long we've been talking about.

B (56:51)

And you guys would have on quite regularly, professors, all kinds of, you know, prominent. But Chris would call professors and you know, interview them and ask them questions and critique them and debate them and, you know, it was just way ahead of its time. Hoax Busters was covering stuff. Remember, for example, we covered CIA music, pop music, punk music. And then years later, the Guardian basically did the same podcast that we had done years earlier with no credit to John and Chris or myself, of course. Doing this whole podcast on. You know, they talked about how the winds of change. Yep.

A (57:31)

Had a song written by the CIA, which we talked about that years earlier.

B (57:35)

Take me to the magic of the moment. And then the Guardian does a podcast and all. Oh, the CIA is involved in culture. Yeah, we were talking about that 10 years earlier. Come on now, give it the program. Horn archives. I hope it's Trent Horn's archives. What's up, man? Give me some pimp juicy Jake. What's up? I'm you. Trent Horn archives. What's up? Penny's the pippin, man. Guys, I got my masters in CIA. Remember that crazy reform guy that called in? He's like, oh, oh, I know you got your masters in CIA. Yes. That's a, that's an actual graduate program. Right. I went to meet with my advisors and I was like, I would like to study the CIA program and get my master's in CIA. What's up? I'm you. Where you at, man? Last chance. Okay, we're moving on modern day what's up. Next? I'm gonna get my ph. My triple ph.d. thd in CIA. What's up? I'm you. Just on mute when you come up, man. Just do it.

A (59:11)

Yeah, I wanna. Have you ever encountered like a dynamic Monarchian or Unitarian?

B (59:18)

Sure, yeah, we've. We've had plenty of Unitarians on all the way back to 2019.

A (59:23)

Sure, sure. So what, you, what, do you not agree with it in terms of the Christology? Because the Christology of it makes sense to me. Because if Jesus was be. If the foundation of Jesus being the Son of God is being begotten by God, then the clearest event in Jesus existence that he was begotten isn't the virgin conception. Luke 135. So therefore there would be no need for a pre existent Jesus.

B (59:55)

There's two begettings. There's a begetting in time and a begetting out of time. So John 1, verses 1 through 16 describes the eternal begetting. Right.

A (60:08)

But this is the thing. If you look at John 1, 1:14, the prologue, that could easily. Especially if you compare. I think it's Isaiah 11, I'm not sure. Isaiah 11. Yeah, or nine, I forget. But that could easily be about the ministry of Jesus, not necessarily going back to Genesis.

B (60:28)

How could that not be? Look, John 1:1:3 is paralleling Genesis 1:1:3, the creation, with the light that's created this created light. John 1 is talking about the uncreated light paralleling Genesis 1. So of course it's going back to Genesis. Every commentator knows this.

A (60:46)

There's the. Also the view that the word of John 1:1 isn't necessarily Jesus 1 for 1, but it's God's word that becomes.

B (60:56)

Flesh that is Jesus.

A (60:58)

John 1:14. That word becoming flesh as of the.

B (61:01)

Begotten Father, 14 through 18. 14:18 identifies the word from verses 1 and 2 as the same word that became flesh. Who is Jesus Christ? Verses 16, 17 and 18. Verse 18 says no one has seen God talking to the Father at any time. The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father has declared him. So you Understand that verse 18 specifically identifies that even when Christ is on earth, he is still in the bosom of the Father. Meaning that he is eternally generated.

A (61:34)

Well, the bosom of the Father, I just. It's close relationship, right? He's in the holy of holies, at the right hand of the Father on the throne of David. But like the Word becomes flesh. Well, what other event? Where does Jesus become flesh? Well, when he's spiritually begotten by the Father into the womb of Mary. Luke 135. The Conception.

B (61:51)

Where does 1. Where does verses so hold on. You said a minute ago that the Word is not Jesus. But verses 14 through 18 identify Jesus as the Word. So what are you talking about?

A (62:03)

Right? The Word becomes Jesus. The Word becomes manifest in the flesh in Jesus Christ.

B (62:08)

Jesus is the Word. They are. They are identified as the same. They are the same subject or reference. That's why Jesus says I am before Abraham was. I am.

A (62:19)

Well, he is. What though? What was? Abraham saw his day.

B (62:22)

I am is a reference to Exodus 3, the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, the existing one.

A (62:29)

Well, that I am is said in the New Testament elsewhere. It's not identifying necessarily someone as Jehovah God.

B (62:36)

Of course it is. It's. It's a quote from Exodus 3, the phrase I am.

A (62:40)

Right? What the bl. Isn't there a situation where the blind man until by Jesus uses that phra I phrase I am?

B (62:46)

No. What are you talking about? No one can. When Jesus says that later on in John, the Pharisees want to stone him because he makes himself equal with God. You can't nobody call themselves the Tetragrammaton.

A (62:57)

Well, I. I don't have a problem with him. Inequality of some sense because he is directly begotten by Jehovah God, his literal only begotten Son. But for that. That you don't need pre existence. You don't need the Eternal Generation.

B (63:11)

The text in John 1 already, the text already says it's a pre existence. Because if you read Hebrews one, the whole purpose of that chapter is to prove that he's the one that created the angels, and so therefore any creature is subordinate to him because he is the creator. You can't be the creator unless you're also God and you're also eternal.

A (63:31)

Yeah, he designed the ages. That's what it says in Hebrews 1.

B (63:35)

Yeah, it doesn't say he designed the angels. It doesn't say that. It doesn't say he designed the angels. It says he's the creator of the angels. What are you talking about?

A (63:43)

Designed the ages. The ages. Right.

B (63:46)

He's the creator.

A (63:49)

The Messianic age. Right. And so.

B (63:51)

No, you're just, you're just reinterpreting my.

A (63:54)

Son, this day I've begotten thee, which was a Davidic Kingship Coronation Psalm 27.

B (63:59)

It's, you're misunderstanding that. It's both and, and not either or. That's why you can keep flipping between it being something that's eternal. Which is why you said in John 1, it's just the word. John 1, 14, 18 identifies the word as the person, Jesus Christ. So the same subject.

A (64:15)

Right.

B (64:15)

Well then, then that refutes your position then. It's not. They're not different.

A (64:20)

Well, the Word, if you go to the Old Testament, what is the Word? It's always God's utterances, prophecy, the covenants. The Davidic covenant is called the word of God, 2nd Samuel 7, and Jesus is the Davidic king. If you look at Luke 1, I think it's 26:36, the announcement to Mary. It's all Davidic kingship and covenant language. So that word is the Davidic covenant. It becomes flesh when Jesus has begotten of the father, John 1:14, and that's told to Mary that he's going to reign over the house of Jacob forever. He's going to have the throne of his father David. He's going to be, he's the begotten son.

B (64:52)

But none of that proves what you're trying to argue, that there's, there's, there's a difference between the Word and Jesus. They're the same subject.

A (64:59)

My point isn't necessarily like a hard difference. It's just the Word.

B (65:03)

You just argued earlier that there is a difference because you said Jesus isn't the eternally begotten Son of God. So there is a difference. Now you're switching Jesus though.

A (65:12)

That word, God's promise, his prophecy, Is. Covenant becomes.

B (65:17)

It's not. It's. It's an actual. It's a person. And that's why in the Old Testament Testament, that angel, Lord is the word. In fact, in Exodus 23, God says, My word. My name is in the angel messenger. That's why the angel messenger is.

A (65:30)

Of course, the angel is going to have the name of Jehovah. And it doesn't mean that was Jesus. Jesus.

B (65:35)

Jesus identifies himself as the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. What are you talking about?

A (65:40)

No, he doesn't.

B (65:41)

Yes, he does. Who ate with. Who ate with Abraham? Jesus even said, who ate with Abraham?

A (65:47)

The angel. Who.

B (65:48)

Who ate with Abraham? Who ate with Abraham? Who ate with Abraham? All right, you're lying. Who ate with Abraham? Who ate with Abraham? Okay, this is so stupid. Jesus is the one eating with Abraham.

A (66:16)

So before Abraham, he was. He was what, though? He was the one that was going to fulfill the Abrahamic Blessings of Genesis 12.

B (66:25)

All right, this is too stupid.

A (66:27)

The Messiah, the Davidic King. And we see that in Galatians 3.

B (66:32)

He ate with Abraham and he was on the mountain with Moses. As 2nd Corinthians 3 says, When Moses went up on the mountain, he saw the face of Christ. Paul says in sacrifice Corinthians 3. So this is what you get with these ridiculous Unitarians. What's up? So you notice what he did was he constantly kept shifting the definitions, right? So first there's a difference between the eternal Word and the person Jesus. But then the eternal Word is what became Jesus. And so Jesus is a created being. Well, Jesus is a creative being in terms of his human nature, but the subject is the second person of the Godhead, the eternal word, whom John1 says is the creator of the worlds, not the designer of the worlds. What's up, Dylan? I'm you.

A (67:15)

Hey, Jay. I promise I'll be quick. I got a comment, an impression request, and an actual question for you.

B (67:22)

Okay. Hurry up.

A (67:25)

So I noticed the other day a new channel popped up that I saw you comment on in real time. It was a new J. Dire radio channel. And I just thought that was really funny because you were talking about the boomers in Albrecht and how they had radio shows.

B (67:40)

Yeah, they just did that as a joke, though. So it's intentional.

A (67:43)

Yeah. And then.

B (67:48)

All right, well, we can't hear you. So for those that are curious, I have a whole talk on the Trinity and the Torah, which absolutely destroys Unitarianism. So you can watch this talk right here if you want a fuller refutation of that nonsense. A BLASPHEMER. Alejandro. Ale. Alejandro.

A (68:13)

Ale.

B (68:13)

Alejandro. What's up, lady gaga? Unmute.

A (68:28)

Oh, hey. Okay. Hey, Jay.

B (68:31)

Yup.

A (68:33)

I had a question.

B (68:34)

I'm.

A (68:37)

Orthodox leaning. I was an atheist at first and I was a Lutheran, but I just can't do the whole Protestant thing. But there's one question that has been.

B (68:47)

Bugging me for a while.

A (68:48)

It's the Somebody. Some of some atheists brought it up. And it's really the only point that stuck to me was if the Jews only consider the patriarch the father side of the family. The genealogy as like the. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this as the official jeans for your dad. Like, if. If your dad is Jew, then you're Jew. If your mom is not you, then it doesn't matter as long as your dad is you. Whatever. But so then how does that tie in with or how do I fix that with. Right, because he only came in through Mary, obviously. So.

B (69:30)

So his Mary is from the tribe of David. What are you talking about?

A (69:36)

So I don't know how to say this right, but it's like, so his dad, his.

B (69:45)

His human nature comes from Mary.

A (69:48)

His father is obviously the father. Right?

B (69:51)

His human nature comes from. His human nature is from Mary, and Mary is from the Davidic tribe. His dad is God the father. Blake, what's up? If you want a longer three hour talk on the Trinity and the deed of Christ in the Old Testament, it's right here. What's up, man? Plus, we have a whole lecture through the Gospel of John proving the deed of Christ. So I'm not going to rehearse the entire course of proving the deed of Christ. This is like 101. What's up, man? Blake, I'm.

A (70:22)

You. Hey, I, you know, I got real.

B (70:28)

Wrapped up in the, you know, the.

A (70:31)

Whole J question and everything else over the past couple months, but I feel like the past couple weeks have really exposed, like, how insane the left and liberal mind is, and it's kind of unified me a little bit more, I guess. Just back with Crowder and Temples for those guys. But do you. You. Your thoughts? Do you see, like, actual persecution against conservatives and Christians in the future of, like, the Liberals win in 2028 and so forth?

B (71:07)

It's very possible. I don't know how far they could really go with it, but I think that they are absolutely crazy enough and radicalized enough that they will try it. I mean, they. They seem to be on board with that. So I would not be surprised. I don't know exactly what will happen, obviously, but it's very possible. Nick, what's up?

A (71:34)

Yo, Jay, what's going on, man?

B (71:36)

What's on your mind, dude?

A (71:38)

So I. I've been going through Plato's Republic, and I made my way through the first book and then listen to your lecture on it. Like the half lecture that you have on YouTube. And there was something I noticed, but I didn't see you talk about it, by the way.

B (71:56)

I have a lecture. Hold on. I have a lecture throughout the entire Republic. Yeah, so yeah, there's like five of them. No, I'm saying there's like. Okay, but there's like five. To be clear. It goes through the whole book, but go ahead.

A (72:07)

Yeah, yeah, I was listening to the one that you had on book one on. On YouTube.

B (72:11)

Okay.

A (72:12)

And there was something I caught. And I don't know if it's just me thinking about something and it's not there. And I wanted to hear your thoughts on it. In the first book, when Socrates is speaking to. I think the old guy's name is Cephalus, and then he has his son, he just is kind of asking him these basic questions about like, hey, you know, you have money now. Is that why, you know, you have of peace in your life, etc? And eventually it feels like the conversation doesn't even really begin or like have any depth and there's not really any level of debate or back and forth until this old dude leaves. And it's just then Socrates and the guy's son. I think it's polemicus or polemic. I'm gonna mess the names up. But he's going back and forth with the young guys and then it's only the young dudes at that point. It's only when this old guy leaves. And I was wondering if you thought that had any significance, because I know that Plato is like very intentional with everything that he writes. It's not like he's. It's just what happened. It's like he designed this scenario. Do you think what he's saying there is that, like, wisdom can only be passed on when, like the older generation goes away, and then it's only like the young person discussing with someone who actually has wisdom. Because I'm like, like I'm thinking about in general, boomers, Gen X kind of this just like, you know, the type of people that believe in Qanon, and it's just this like stupid mentality across the board from them.

B (73:45)

Can you remind me of the. The old guy that you're talking about? What was the what was his philosophy? Because I don't. It's been 12 years since I read the Republic. So what was the old guy's philosophy?

A (74:00)

Well, basically, like, what it was was that they. They stopped Socrates. He's trying to leave the city and go back up the mountain. And then they're saying, no, no, you need to stay. You need to come with us. We're gonna have it where we bring.

B (74:14)

You back to this house.

A (74:15)

He wants to see you.

B (74:16)

They then bring him to the house.

A (74:17)

And it's a really wealthy guy. And he asks him essentially like, hey, you know what? What have you found is good for money? And from what I could understand is he said that, well, it allows me to be able to pay back the debts that I once had and allows me to be able to pay people that I maybe had wrong during my time and now I can pay them back. And then he's saying that the only reason why people don't have peace in their life is because they, you know, because of their actions and because of their virtues. And then as Socrates starts to ask about justice and start to go into that discussion, that's when the old guy leaves. And basically he says, so your son Polemarchus or whatever, he inherited this discussion. He goes, I assume so, or something like that, and then walks away. And he just completely exits that situation. And I. I don't know if that was intentional, but it made me think about. Yeah, it's like, only when the boomer leaves the conversation can there ever be any actual progress. Because there's no, like, like, just dumb conversation of like, oh, you know what I mean? That's at least what I was thinking. I don't know if that's accurate.

B (75:29)

No, I think probably a lot of professors and scholars, I remember something on this from my school days. And Plato has a few apologetic agendas. For example, in the apology, he's castigating the Athenian society for rejecting Socrates. And so he probably does have a degree of. Of animosity towards the older generation of that time. He also felt like they were dull and, you know, sort of insignificant. So I would say probably, yeah.

A (76:06)

Alrighty. Well, cool, man.

B (76:07)

I appreciate it.

A (76:08)

Thanks, dude.

B (76:08)

Yeah, no, that's actually a perceptive question. It's just I haven't. I haven't even thought about the Republic in, like, 12 years. So. Right wing, what's up, Right wing? And then emerald, what's up right wing? On mute.

A (76:24)

Hey, buddy, I. I have a quick.

B (76:26)

Question about predeterminism and the theological determinism from an orthodox Perspective.

A (76:32)

If the question is posed from an atheist and debate, how can there be free will if God is all knowing, all knowing from beginning to end, what.

B (76:39)

Would your response be? Yeah, we've addressed it many, many times. The fact that God is all knowing has nothing to do with whether or not he can create a world where there's secondary causes. So God can be the first cause of the world and create a world where there are secondary causes. So the argument or the assumption is that if God's all knowing, he must be all determining and there just simply is a non sequitur. Emerald, what's up?

A (77:08)

Hi. I had a few questions about how to debate some, or not even debate, but just talk to them when they believe in more of the New Age stuff. Because I feel like I've heard a lot of arguments when it comes to talking to atheists, but not people who believe in like, like the book Journey of the Souls or like the egg theory, things like that.

B (77:28)

Well, the thing with most of the New Agey stuff is that it tends to be anti rational and anti logical. So it will, it will focus on the subjective and the. And experiences, but it never really provides any. Any framework to judge whether an experience is good or bad or true or false or a delusion or deception. So most of the time, New Age stuff just boils into relativism that, well, that's your truth man, and this is my truth man. So I would go to the route of, you know, pointing out how destructive to the possibility of knowledge relativism and subjectivism are.

A (78:03)

Okay, awesome. Thank you, Jay.

B (78:05)

Yeah, yeah, no, good question. And, and I think, I don't think I've ever heard a New Ager argue for objective truth. I mean, maybe there is one out there somewhere. Sapphire, what's up? Y' all like these fancy camera angles? Got two cameras. I might have 15 camera angles in here by the end of the year. What's up?

A (78:32)

What's going on, Jay, can you hear me all right? Huh? Awesome. So we've seen a little bit of it tonight with some of these callers, and I was having a conversation with one of my buddies recently about interpretation and about, you know, which church is. Is correct and proper in this sort of thing. And the issue of reading the scripture came up and I brought up to him about how, I can't remember the name off the top of my head, which council it was, but there's a council that says something to the effect of people other than orthodox Christians who've been properly catechized shouldn't even be reading the text. And I tried to explain to them the pragmatism of that, where it's not an exclusivity in the sense of, like a superiority thing or anything like that, but it's. It's dangerous for people to just pick up this book with no prior context or connection to the tradition and then read it at face value with their own biases. Right?

B (79:34)

Yeah. So I'm aware of two. I'm aware of two statements. There's one of the cannons, I want to say, in Trello, and then there's a later statement in, you know, like Jassy or Door or Dositheus or something, where it says something like, you know, laity should not be interpreting the Scriptures. So the context of the first one is that in. In terms of officially representing and teaching the church. Right. You. You're not. It's not the job of laity without specific permission to do so, to do things publicly. So that's the context of the first statement. It's always. By the way, the cannons are always under the purview of the bishop and the bishop's interpretation. So it's not like these are laws that are not interpreted by the bishop. The bishop interprets the law. Secondly, in the. And there have been many laity, by the way, who have been theologians and apologists. And, I mean, a lot of monastics, for example, are still laity and have done all kinds of debates and apologetics and so forth. So there's nothing inherently wrong about that when it's done in the right way. And then secondly, the later Counter Reformation statements are in the context of responding to the Protestant ideas of private interpretation and the right to private interpretation. Ozzy. Thank you guys for tuning in. I. I don't think I'm gonna have time to get to the old boys. I shouldn't put. I thought I'd have more time than I did, but Jamie's got to come in here and do a podcast in a bit, so I don't think I'll have time to do Old Boys, but we'll get to it. Next. What's up, man? I'm you, Aussie.

A (81:15)

Hello.

B (81:15)

Ozzy Osborne. What's up?

A (81:18)

Hey, can you hear me?

B (81:19)

Yep. Cool.

A (81:22)

I just want to mention something interesting. I don't know if you know about this channel. It's called the ROM510, like Romans 510. He recently started making. He's like a Protestant dude, and he's been making, like, response videos to your refutations of atheism. It's not A huge channel, so I wouldn't be surprised.

B (81:38)

But what about us?

A (81:40)

It's very funny. Well, sometimes he makes shorts that are very funny and weird.

B (81:44)

Like, at one point, he made a.

A (81:45)

Video that suggested that Catholics hate God because these long robes. Like, for example, like when Jesus. Like, woe to those who wear long robes in public or whatever. But I don't know. I thought it was a very funny anecdote that things like Catholics and Orthodox hate because they were.

B (82:04)

Okay, I'll check it out. Thank you for that. P E G N PGAN. Johnny Boy. $5. I know that you joke around, but Voice of Reason is very smart. You cannot deny that. I don't think he's an absolute midwit. I don't think he's intelligent at all. Just that that tells me what you think is intelligent. Is that. What's up, man?

A (82:34)

How's it going? Jay, can you hear me? Huh? I just wanted to kind of. That guy. That was the Unitarian guy earlier. I always thought it was kind of interesting how the. When Jesus says, I am before Abraham was I am. That wouldn't make any sense grammatically unless he was saying, I am equal with the God that is outside of the bounds of time.

B (82:56)

Well, yeah. I mean, it's. It's pretty obvious. But of course, if you're going to cope and reinterpret everything, then nothing is a proof of anything. Except for your position. Kevin. What up?

A (83:07)

What's up, yo?

B (83:09)

Yep. I just had a quick question about Epstein, if that's okay. Okay.

A (83:17)

Do you think that it was totally.

B (83:20)

All Mossad and not more MI6 driven or. Because I kind of lean towards it was MI6 driven and just kind of.

A (83:29)

With all the other intelligent stuff, everybody kind of plays a part, if that makes sense.

B (83:35)

I think it was all of those. It was useful to all of those agencies and. But probably mainly Middle Eastern nectarios. Hero born entertainment. $5. Thank you so much, Evan. $10. If Unitarians insist that Jesus is merely a creature, they have no choice but to condemn Jesus as a blasphemer. Yeah, exactly. That's what the Pharisees are doing. But of course they won't because they are cowards. Good God the Father. $5. Jesus was full of grace and truth, which came through Jesus Christ. Correct. What's up, man?

A (84:12)

AJ first off, thank you for the movie recommendation on your last stream, the red writing. It was actually a good movie. I just finished it today, so thank you for that.

B (84:20)

Yeah. Did you watch. Watch the whole trilogy or one of them?

A (84:23)

No, I literally just Got done with the first one. I'm gonna start heading on to the. The second part of the trilogy.

B (84:28)

Yeah, somebody said Andrew Garfield was based. I thought that was pretty cool. I hope so.

A (84:34)

Yeah. And then I have a buddy, Kelly, he's coming from Protestantism. He's right next to me. He wanted to ask you a quick question that he's been struggling with.

B (84:42)

Okay.

A (84:43)

On his search to orthodoxy.

B (84:58)

Thank you. So we just learned what love is. I hope you guys appreciate that. We've been waiting this whole time. And we finally did learn what love is. And that was it. Taylor, what's up, man?

A (85:11)

I want to know what love is.

B (85:23)

What's up, Taylor? Taylor Swift, what's up? Every pop star is calling tonight.

A (85:29)

Hey, man, you kind of got me in the. The direction of orthodoxy, so I thank you for that. And I have two quick questions. One is, I've noticed that in orthodoxy there's lots of people who still believe in evolution. And I kind of got convinced on.

B (85:48)

On going against evolution by some of your videos.

A (85:52)

I was wondering if you'd ever consider debating an orthodox person who's pro evolution. That's first question.

B (86:00)

I got. I have to go because we got a bunch of people and I'm trying to hurry. I gotta do the super chats too, before Jamie gets in here. I don't actually know of an orthodox person who does debates defending evolution. Most of the people who have that just kind of have that as their view, but most of them are not debaters of that view. So if there was a guy that used to write for Soul of the east who was an orthodox guy who was a big. He was like an evolution fanatic. His name was Martin something and I remember trying to get him to come to debate and he was told, douchebag, he wouldn't do it. So I don't know where is one of the debates? Aqua note, $10. Jay, have you seen the movie Zero, directed by Jean Luc Ebullo? It is the same type of feeling that I got watching Annihilation. No, I don't think I've heard of this. Let's see. By the way, I wanted to give a shout out to all of these young bros and even one Asian chick who made all these videos that have just popped up within the last two weeks. There's like multiple videos popping up within the last couple weeks of young bros and gals converting to orthodoxy. They just started popping up in my feed and so shout out to planks and pieces. I watched his video that was really well made video. Here we Got this bro over here, Luke. Luke Chaney, granddaughter of Dick Cheney, right here. He said, why he's converting orthodoxy. Blessed wretch over here. This bro over here doing full on fridge streams. Doing a straight up fridge stream. He's converted orthodoxy. We got Bartholomew over here. He's in Australia. He's committed to orthodoxy as well, so. And then I forgot where the. Where's the Chinese girls? I think she was Chinese. Where's she at? She popped up, too. This is her right here. Asians gonna be mad if I get it wrong. Is she Japanese? She's Japanese. Saki to Nihongo. And there's more, by the way. There's, like, other ones popping up, by the way. So we. We got an army, all right? We're building a army. Not a literal army, you idiots. A theological army. So check out all the. The bay converts. Props to all these people right here. Check that out.

A (88:43)

I want to know what love is.

B (88:48)

I got to look up this movie. Zero by Jean Luc Erbulo. Zero. Thank you. Pick at heart, $2. Do you dip? It's Alps, bro. Not on dip. Do yacht. Monsoon, $10. Who you got in a fight? Yakub versus Tyson Fury. Duh. Yakub created Tyson Fury, so obviously he would win. Jordan Lofgren, $2. What up, Queen? What's up, girl? Emilian. What's up, Emil? Shout out to our bayes to serve, man. Emilian, 20 bucks. Thank you so much, man. Zanidi, $10. Jesus claimed to be God, but it's deeper. It's through prophecy. Then it's just a simple word, God. I do not understand how anyone could argue that he was claiming to be part of the triad. Well, go watch my video on the Trinity in the Old Testament and the deed of Christ. Comic books in cahoots. $5. Jay, I've been getting by on my intuition since the world was crazy. Went crazy in 2020. You helped me understand this discernment all along. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that, man. Guys, you want to support the stream, you can do super chats. Oh, Zane says, let me correct my super chat. It wasn't worded correctly. I can't understand how people believe that Jesus wasn't claiming to be God. Correct. Sink, 21, $5. Is it worth reading City of God as orthodox? Yeah, it's a great book. I mean, we don't agree with every theological statement, but I did do a talk throughout the totality of City of God. You can go check that out on my archives on this channel on plank and pieces. $5. Jay, thank you for some love on the video. Appreciate you. Hey, shout out to you, man. I thought there's a really, really tight fancy made video. You went full on fancy, bro. Like you put some time into this thing. Oh, speaking of videos. So I tried to tap into making a accessible, you know, little bit of philosophy. Philosophy knowledge video on tag. So it seems to be resonating well with people that got got within three hours, 10,000 views, which I don't usually get that much within a few hours. So the argument for God you never heard is intended to be a introductory level, level one introduction to tag. Obviously I can't cover everything in that one, but check it out. By the way, guys, I will try to stream. I might stream later. We'll see. But Jamie's got to come in here and do an interview, so I'm not gonna have time, I don't think, to get to everybody in the calls. But guys, don't worry. I open it up for calls almost every other day. Let's see. Birds aren't even real. $5. Holy crap. That woman that called in sounds like Lorraine Bracco. Who's Lorraine Bracco? That's probably somebody from a TV show. J.B. peltier, $2. Jay, you better be nice. Okay, I would say I'm not. Me being nice is having fun and joking around. Alter void, $5. Tell him, Mrs. Pope. Tell him the rules. Next. Oh, he's saying to her. You tell him, Ms. Pope. Joshua Tree, $2. What do you think on Polite Leader? I don't. Don't know what that is. Sounds like some French thing. Joshua Tree again, $10. Yeah, I saw a video by a guy called Polite Leader on orthodoxy. They're the least convincing arguments I've heard against orthodoxy ever. I'm not. I have to see what that is. I'm thinking about it. Never heard of it. Jordan Lofgren, $5. Yoda, smooth cam Swap is proof that your boy has made it out of the hood. Yeah, this is the proof right here.

A (92:43)

Look.

B (92:43)

Did I make it out of the hood? Well, how can I do three multiple angles, boom, boom, boom. If I didn't make it out the hood? I gotta read the super chats, babe. Jamie's in a hurry. The movie is 0, 2024 Aquanote. I'll definitely check it out for sure. Austin, $5. Where is H. Brazy? The chat needs some more melanin. He said he was going to take a break from the Internet, so I'm assuming that's still happening. User ji $85. What are the best three books to understand and read where society is at. What do you think about predatorism? Well, partial predatorism is true. That's the orthodox view. Three books to read about society and where we're at. Go through my Global Elite book series. So I've got a whole playlist where I go through the Global Elite blocks. And I think most of those, they're all pretty essential and substantial. So you could pick from that list. Flavius, $10. What do you think about Marmari? Unfortunately, Marmari is heterodox and so I would say go watch Father Mikhail's video critiquing Marmari. It also went viral. Grace became a member. What's up? Almost done, babe. Don't worry. Jamie's getting all nervous. Last couple super chats. Auditing Ireland, $5. Do you believe in an overarching NWO that that can. That it paralyzes people into helplessness? I think some of the. The propaganda the psyops is intended to. Yeah. Make you feel like, you know, to make you black pilled.

A (94:34)

Sure.

B (94:36)

I see multiple competing theories encouraging people to action and skepticism. This sounds like Robert Anton Wilson, Operation Mind Freak. Well, I mean Robert Anton Wilson was a crow and so I wouldn't trust his analysis. But I mean he's right that there's controlled opposition and dialectics. But I mean the real conspiracy is, you know, fallen angels and Satan. Right. And the order that he's erected to try to create a one world Babel against God and then, you know, the kingdom of heaven, that's the real battle and that relates to this next question. Augustus 20. What are aliens? Do you think they're grays? Anunnaki? Fallen angels or demons or evil human beings trying to fool the masses? I have many podcasts on aliens. You can go watch my podcast on Father Seraphim Rose's book Orthodox and the Religion of the Future. There's a demonic component, but there's also a black ops scop component to it as well. And we've done many interviews on that angle. Watch the documentary Mirage Men. Okay, let's see. I think we're at the last of the super chats here. Ocean Whiskers. Jay, thank you. What is why exactly the transcendal argument works in orthodox paragraph paradigm? You have to watch the video from Trinity. From tag to Trinity. That video is designed to do to explain that. I can't explain that right now, Mr. Simpin. Sympanage Simpos, $5. Jay, I followed you for a while. I'm a Catechumen. Partly nose, partly thanks to you. I'm blocked on your channel. Could have. I mean, we. I have mods. So the mods might have blocked you. I'm not sure. But I'll try to look you up and unblock you, Mr. Simpos.

A (96:22)

Ho.

B (96:22)

Unblock you, hick at heart. No, we did that. Excuse me, bird brain. $10. What do you. What are your opinions on preserv, Professor Xiang and predictive history? I mean, I see everybody talking about this guy. All of a sudden I heard he's agnostic, so I would disagree with that. But I know Kotel, I think just interviewed him. I'll have to. I'll have to look and see exactly what his positions are. Last supertar is Ja Tuan. No, that was the Truman Show. Yeah, we're going to do Truman Show. I think Jim Bob and I are going to do Dark City and Truman Show. All right, guys, thank you. I will try to live stream again very soon. I don't know if either tonight or tomorrow for sure. We got big interviews, big surprise interviews coming up tomorrow, so look for that. Otherwise be sure and head over to Chalk.com use prom code J60Life J60LIV and get 60 off all those great products. And then here come the super chats as I'm trying to wrap it up. Appreciate you guys being so generous. So trithemia is $10. I believe orthodoxy is true. The orthodox, I imagine monks. Orthodox monks on Arrakis, like the Desert Fathers post stellar orthodoxy would be traditional. That sounds cool. Gabe. $10. How would you rent the Diviner hiddenness rate? The divine hiddenness argument. Because it seems like it's a better argument for the problem of evil. Look up my video on the problem of evil and I would say that would answer that question. I have one 20 minute video on that. Slow boy. $10. Bitcoin is dipping. I've been saving since 1:30. But to buy on the way. Yeah, I mean it. In my view. I'm about to make another stack up purchase. So, you know, if you want to check that out, there's a swan bitcoin link in the show description. Otherwise, thank you guys.