D (4:11)

It's about the one on Inspiring Philosophy's channel.

C (4:14)

Yeah. What was that guy's name?

D (4:15)

The Orthodox Muslim.

C (4:16)

That's it. Yeah. Tell us about that Bay debate. Give us kind of rundown of how it went from your perspective and where you thought his weakest points were and what, what the crux of it was.

D (4:27)

Yeah, man. So we had, we had two different debates. The, the last one was we were speaking about whether or not you can, you know, worship when the worship that was given to Christ is going to be considered true worship, actual worship. And he was trying to say, no, in Matthew, it's the hypostatic union is never taught. The worship there isn't given. And I tried to explain to him, like, hey, you know, even if you look at the New Testament, right, the word prosecute in the Greek, it's never used besides worship, even when it's used with, with Cornelius, when he worships prosecute with Paul, I believe it's Paul or Peter, one of the two, he says, hey, why, why are you doing this to me? Don't do this to me, right? Do not do this. And so that, that was how that one went. That one was really bad. And then the, the first one, which was a few months ago, we were talking about the Trinity and he was trying to run, it seemed like some sort of argument to make us fall into like three gods, so to say polytheism. And we're arguing about what, what the monarchy is. He was saying that us as Trinitarians, we don't believe in the monarchy of the Trinity. Only certain people believe in the monarchy of the Father. And he just has no clue what he's talking about. Unfortunately, and we kind of see this with a lot of the Muslims nowadays, is that they, they don't study like Eastern Orthodoxy what we actually believe they have, they study the basic watered down version of Christianity. And then when they talk to Eastern Orthodox apologists and I tell them things like, hey, they're one God, not just because they're nature, but because they have the same operation of action, right? They have the same energies. They get real confused. I was talking to a Muslim today and I told him, yes, God has, has. You know, that one shared energy between the person, the trinity. Hey dude, thought I was talking about like energies of a light bulb. I was like, bro, this is crazy.

C (6:19)

We'll be going back and forth between the chat in between.

B (6:23)

This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news, There's a better option. I'm Will and I created IQ Bar plant protein bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low sugar, brain and body fuel. IQ bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and Lion's Mane and Zero Weird Stuff. And right now you can get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ Bar Sampler Pack with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes and four enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ Bar. Go to eatiqbar.com and enter code BAR20. To get 20% off all IQ Bar products plus free shipping. Again, go to eatiqbar.com and Enter code BAR20.

C (7:23)

If you're the purchasing manager at a manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering.

B (7:33)

With on time restocks, your team will.

C (7:35)

Have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift.

B (7:39)

And you can end your day knowing.

C (7:40)

They'Ve got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. The call ends. Chasity, you're the first caller. What's on your mind? Gotta unmute. I'm your dude.

A (8:03)

Hey, can you, can you hear me right now?

C (8:05)

Yes sir, what's up?

A (8:07)

Perfect. So first of all I want to say like it's an absolute pleasure to speak with you. I just like had a couple of questions. I'm recently coming from the like atheist side but prior to that I was Pentecostal unfortunately. But like I was looking into returning back to like orthodoxy, but I'm from like an Ethiopian background and I was looking to go into to the oriental churches but I've been reading and I've been looking into what you've even said and I've seen a lot of Sam Shamoon's Stuff. And he's kind of saying the apostolic churches are kind of equally. Okay, I just want to get your thoughts on that.

C (8:45)

Yeah, we did a whole video, me and Kai and David Erhan, rebuking this idea, refuting this idea that there's a sort of a generic apostolic Christianity. If you go to the Christians of the first thousand years, none of them believed in a generic apostolic Christianity. They, they all believe that even though all the sides thought the other sides are wrong, whether you're Orthodox, Oriental or Roman Catholic, they all believe that the other sides were not part of the church. So there's no such thing as a generic, lowest common denominator Oriental or, excuse me, Apostolic Christianity. So that's just fundamentally a flawed, nonsensical ecclesiology. Paul says there's one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one body. You know, if you look at the nice constant politician creed, it's one, one holy, one holy Catholic Apostolic Church. So that church isn't the one that's divided amongst three branches or any of that kind of nonsense. So it's just fundamentally contrary to ecclesiology and to Christology. Nick, did you have anything. Hold on, let me, let me get Nick, see if he has any comments on that.

D (9:46)

Yeah, I mean, I was just gonna say to that point, I mean, this is kind of the whole reason why as Orthodox Christians, we don't take any other Eucharist that's valid. Right. Because we don't think that. I mean, these other sects, they're not even like the other sects that might call themselves Orthodox Christianity. Right. Like Oriental Orthodox. I mean, we're very particular about how we administer the sacraments. And so I think even just seeing that, you can look at the first 1000 years and see that they were the same way and how they administered the sacraments, they, they didn't see them as just some sort of open phlegm that anyone could have, but it's rather something those inside the church could partake in.

C (10:19)

Yeah, it's a great point. Like, nobody in the first thousand years of Christianity practiced this sort of open communion where everybody could commune.

A (10:28)

Right, Right.

D (10:29)

Yeah.

A (10:29)

And like, like, so, like, I've done quite a bit of research. I watched a couple, a majority of the first part of what you did with David Iran. And like, I, I think you're completely right. I was kind of looking to, I'll be honest, kind of cope because I wanted to go to that church. But it's pretty clear that, like, it makes sense on every level with, uh, with regards to the continuity and the idea of like the one true church. So yeah, like that's honestly kind of what I just wanted to ask and just like uh, just wanted to clarify if there was any sort of like way to see any other perspective. But yeah, it kind of answered what I need through that.

C (11:01)

Yeah, no, I mean there's just, there's just not really because you know, it's, it's what's orthodox ecclesiology or what's not, so. And also, I mean when eventually it's a little difficult, but if you get into the Christology, you know, it's not. You don't have to go too far into the questions to figure out who has the right Christology. And that's why we've been doing that ongoing series with me and Kai and David, which we're about four or five parts into, but. Josh, what's up man? How you doing? And then we'll go to Rick. Josh, you want to unmute?

A (11:35)

Hey brother, how you doing? Thank you for having me.

C (11:37)

What's up dog?

A (11:38)

Oh man, chilling, chilling. Hey, first of all, thank you for recommending on whatever episode it was, the book from Father Sarah from Rose, Orthodox and the Religion of the Future. Great book. Just finished it. So I wanted to ask them, kind of keeping with that track of literature, you know, orthodoxy and conspiracies, kind of meet any other reading recommendations along those lines?

C (12:04)

Well, Father Spirit on Bailey has a book that's kind of a follow up to that Orthodoxy in the Kingdom of Satan. And it deals a lot with, you know, spiritual warfare, Zionism, NGOs, CIA. All that kind of stuff plays into to some of the chapters of his, his follow up book. But yeah, I mean orthodoxy and conspiracy theories, I'm not really, I can't think.

D (12:29)

Of any other type that's such a niche topic. It's kind of hard. I was thinking about books like, I don't know.

A (12:35)

I mean that's what you just recommended. It's perfect. That's definitely wanting something along those lines.

C (12:39)

Yeah, you would like that.

A (12:42)

Similarly, just obviously you deal a lot of this when you, you suggest books that the elites educate themselves with, you know, like their master's program whatnot, but more like an entry level, you know, third person perspective. What about just, you know, CIA pampering with, you know, like a progressive Christianity and such?

C (13:00)

Well, yeah, I mean there's a book that John Adams who's in the chat, he's been reading and he's been doing a book report on, which is actually about the relationship between American, the American state and evangelical liberalism. So I'm going to ask him in a moment to come up and recommend that book because I can't. I can't remember the name of it, but more specifically, David Wim Hof's book on Henry Luce and Time, Life magazine and John Courtney Murray, it's called the American Proposition. That's a very absolutely essential text. It's right here.

A (13:37)

Awesome, awesome. Thanks so much, man.

C (13:39)

Yeah, it's called the John Courtney Maritime Life in the American Proposition. And it's a Catholic lawyer named David Wim Hof who wrote giant 700 page book on the history of. And I mean, it mainly focuses on Catholic liberalism, but it also does touch on and explain like the doctrinal warfare program using liberal Protestantism as well. So that's a crucial text. But let me ask John what that other text was. And then, I mean, Nick, you're. Feel free to hop in if you have any.

D (14:07)

I don't got nothing on conspiracies. Oh, my God. That's all you.

C (14:10)

Well, this is. Yeah, this is like religious engineering and, you know, the. The state wanted to control the church. John, what's that book that I've been listening to your podcast or your audios of?

A (14:22)

It's called From Bible Belt to Sunbelt.

C (14:26)

Okay.

A (14:26)

By Professor Darren Deutschuk.

C (14:30)

Bible Belt to Sunbelt. Professor Darren Deutschuk. Yeah.

A (14:35)

And then there another one is the Evangelist by Francis Fitzgerald.

C (14:41)

Okay, cool.

A (14:42)

Those. Those two together, if you read them together, they kind of complement each other.

C (14:51)

Awesome. All right. Perfect. John. Yeah. Feel free to stay up and chat if you want. Maddie, what's up? What's on your mind? I'm mute. What's up, dog?

A (15:02)

I've got a quick thing to ask you about yesterday. I see the Mr. Or manifestation dude streaming himself, so I jumped on his live and clipped it and asked him about how he squared divine fall into modal collapse. Right? Expecting to get some sort of, you know, at least some sort of defense. And his whole thing was he didn't know anything. I'm not God and I'm. I'm infallible.

C (15:24)

He doesn't know anything about any of that.

A (15:26)

Who? He called me a. He just talking, man. I said to him, listen, look like you're. The premise in which you're arguing from.

C (15:31)

Is that I'm your mother. Your mother was doing muta with the Shia. And you son of the devil, go back to hell, you son of the devil, while your mom does muta with the Shia. That's all he knows he's talking about.

A (15:45)

And I was saying to him, listen, if we buy this lane of argumentation, right? And. And if you follow Aquinas, for instance, isn't he an infallible being as well who is not God, right? So he was just basically preloading his assumptions about demonstrating.

D (15:58)

He was.

A (15:58)

I don't need to demonstrate. You're not God. You're infallible. I was like, bro, this.

C (16:03)

Yeah, well, have you seen his clip where he calls the energies, like, he makes fun of the divine energies.

A (16:09)

He makes fun of the divine energies. But what's so interesting is that last time when I spoke to him, he actually admits that we have to make distinctions as human beings in determining the actions of God. However, that doesn't pertain to the idea that God is compartmental. He's made it apart. So I was like, dude, like, distinction doesn't entail composition one. And you just affirm the idea that there are distinctions in what he can and can't do. And he was just like, you're not God.

C (16:31)

You.

A (16:31)

You're infallible. I don't have to take what you say because I have to take what the entire church says.

C (16:35)

Well, I mean, it has nothing to do with the question of infallibility. So he's just deflecting because he doesn't know. Of course. Daniel, what's up, man? Thank you, Maddie. I mean, Nick, do you have any comments on Catholic apologists like Sam Shimoun?

D (16:52)

Me? I don't got any comments on. I mean, if anyone's taking Thomas Aquinas to be dang near infallible, though, that's. That's the first issue. Yeah, it's gonna be a big issue.

C (17:02)

Daniel, what's up, man?

A (17:04)

Hey, Jay, just a quick question here. I come from a Baptist background, but now I'm inquiring orthodoxy after learning that PSA is most likely false. Only question I have is on Hebrews 6. I feel like it makes sense under PSA because how can a debt be paid twice? But curious how under a non PSA, how you look at Hebrews 6, where.

C (17:22)

It'S, like, impossible to renew, those have.

A (17:24)

Been at light times six.

C (17:27)

Well, I think Hebrews 6 is talking about apostatizing to Judaism. And if you. You know, if you apostatize and kind of like the passage that the only sin that can't be forgiven is rejecting the call of the Holy Spirit, I don't think it's actually physically stating something against the Holy Spirit because many people who've done that have been saved. So I think Hebrews 6 and blasphem. The Holy Spirit are just talking about, you know, persevering in apostasy. So. But how. What's that relationship that you're making between that and paying the debt? Explain that to me.

A (18:00)

Well, I was just thinking because in like obviously verse four, it says, for it is impossible for those who are once enlightened, etc, and then that they would recrucify Christ essentially. Now, if it, if a debt's been paid, it makes sense because you can't pay a debt twice. Christ would have to be recrucified to pay your debt again.

C (18:16)

Right, I see what you're saying. Yeah, Well, I think it's because. It's because he's talking about specifically going back to Judaism. And all of the rituals of Judaism, Paul is saying, are fulfilled in the ritual of Christ's death, burial and resurrection. So there's one ritual that, quote, pays the debt that we owe. But the thing that, with the debt that we owe, it's. If you read Palmer Zansky's book, there's a section in it about the controversies in Byzantium where this comes up with the deacons of Tirikos who tried to argue that the payment was between the Father and the Son. And one of the things that comes up is, well, you know, if you read the Psalms, God can't be paid by created things. He says in the Psalms, I own all the cattle. There is no animal sacrifice that you can give that will pacify me because I already own all the animals. So God isn't placated by creatures, whether it's the physical human nature of Christ or whether it's, you know, the blood of goats and bulls. So the debt is a way of speaking of what we owe to God and our lack in terms of our sinfulness and missing the mark. It's not a literal payment model that could ever even be exchanged. And you can't, you also can't have a payment model from PSA between one person in the Trinity and the other. It can't be a payment from the Father, from the Son to the Father, because that excludes the Holy Spirit and that's anti trinitarian because everything in the Trinity is triadic. So where is the Holy Spirit in this payment model that, you know, you have Anselm pioneering with, you know, his satisfaction theory of atonement and so forth. So the, the debt payment model is there in the Scriptures. It's just that it's, it's taken by the Protestants and by PSA to be this nominalistic legal Status and this sort of, you know, literal and infinite payment method, exchange method, which is just not even triadically possible. It's not. It's not ontologically possible, given that God owns everything anyway. So none of it really makes any sense when you actually get into the totality of the theology. And I mean, what. What could you pay God with? How has God paid off? In other words, if God is literally paid off, then God is imperfect because he lacks, but God has no lack, he has no need. So why would he need to be PA?

A (20:40)

Right, yeah, totally. And in regards to Hebrews 6, then is it fair to say that if a Christian apostatizes and goes to Judaism, it would be impossible to renew him? Or is that like hyperbolic language?

C (20:53)

I think it's a little bit of hyperbolic language, but what I'm saying is it's like the, you know, the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It's not that if you literally went from orthodox Christianity to Judaism, you could never be saved again. I think it's saying that if you think that's the route that you want to persevere in and you die in that, that's. That's. You're done. So, because there have been. There have been plenty of people who have apostatized and come back, and we wouldn't say that, well, sorry, you only get one, you know, apostasy. You can never come back. Because if you think about it, that gets very difficult to actually make sense of. Like, I mean, every sin is kind of an apostasy. And so what exactly? Why would it be only the sin of apostatizing? Would it be just to Judaism or to any religion? I mean, plenty of people have been raised, you know, Orthodox, cradle Orthodox. They had years where they went and partied, or atheists, and they came back to Orthodoxy. Right. So we wouldn't say that all those people, oh, no, you can't be saved. And there's actually already a debate in the early church with, I think, the Novationists and, you know, some of the Holy rollers of the first, second and third century. They were actually arguing this position that nobody could. If they were traitors, which in the early church, a traitator was a person who handed over the manuscripts of the Gospels if they had them. So that was seen as a version of apostasy if you gave up to the Roman officials the copies of the Gospels because they were rare. And the debate was then, well, what about other sins? And some of the novationists and others said, well, if you are married and you commit adultery, you can never be saved again because it's not just the sin of apostasy. They argue. They argue that basically any sin. And this would eventually play into, like, the Donatist controversy too. So what ends up happening is that the church in the early, you know, third, fourth, fifth century basically says, no, we're not, you know, perfecti. We're not holy rollers. We live in a world where people are gonna sin. And so when they come back, there will be, you know, penances that people have, especially if it's something like adultery. And the penance for adultery in the early church was pretty severe. You'd have to, like, you know, sit on your knees outside the church for like a year during the services, that kind of stuff. So in other words, the attitude of the church was that, no, this is not a literal statement that any, you know, leaving of the faith at any point in your life means that you can never be saved again. Which is. Which is how you'd have to interpret it. So. And that is literally how, like, the novationists and other groups interpreted this passage.

A (23:26)

Totally. Okay, thanks for that. I'll look over it with that mindset and. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it.

C (23:30)

Yeah, thank you. Yeah. I mean, a lot of the just sort of surface level. I'm not saying that you're doing this, but, like, a lot of the very, like, surface level readings of the text that Protestants have, like, it leads you to really preposterous conclusions. And many of those conclusions are already conclusions of heterodox groups in the first, second, third, fourth century. Like, they did the same mistakes already.

D (23:56)

Yeah, it's interesting because, like, things like. Like that debt repayment, they think because PSA and processism takes it out so bad that suddenly that we don't believe that there's any sort of debt repayment.

C (24:06)

But we do.

D (24:07)

But then there's guys like R.C. sproul, right, that go on and say that how the Father turned his back on the sun and how this Trinity was split for a moment in history, they take it to a whole new level. So it's not that we don't believe, it's just that they take things out of proportion a lot.

C (24:23)

Yeah, it's like all these terms, atonement, debt, legality, like, all that terminology is true. It's in the Bible. But the problem is that a lot of these people import into that the Protestant post Reformation, post Enlightenment meanings, which none of the early church fathers or medieval theologians thought that way because, like, they weren't nominalists. Nominalism had, hadn't come about yet, so how could you have. If you read like Justicia day by Alistair McGrath, there's no way you could have this or Gabriel Biles, or excuse me, Heike Oberman's book on medieval nominalism and Luther. If you read those books, you realize that there's no way they could have even had the Protestant PSA model in their mind because they didn't think in terms of the divorcing of the thing and the, the symbol in the reality or the word and the reality. Go ahead.

A (25:17)

By the way, can you hear me?

C (25:18)

Yeah.

A (25:20)

So this is the exact argument I was making. This is why quote mining is not going to work. You can pull all the quotes from the Fathers, like we're fine with words. Words aren't the problem, it's their meaning. And so when you have Augustinian and Latin kind of reformed views like you just pointed out.

C (25:47)

It'S hard to hear you. Can, can you speak up a little bit? Sorry. It's okay.

A (25:51)

I'm skiing.

C (25:54)

Dude's debating while he's skiing.

A (25:57)

Yeah, I was actually just thinking about.

C (25:58)

That on the lift.

A (25:59)

I'm like, has it ever been done? Debateski?

C (26:02)

No, you're the first.

A (26:05)

Anyways, this is something these people never get. And in part it's because they're not philosophically trained. They don't understand that there's these kind of presuppositions that are read into these kind of words. So what good is it is if you just keep cherry picking and quote mining the Fathers? It's like the words aren't the problem. I have no problem. We none of us have any problems with penal language, atonement, guilt, these different things. What does it mean? Does it, is it Augustinian kind of presuppositions? Is it nominalism from the Reformers? They never answer these questions.

C (26:45)

Yeah, and Nick, I'll let you say something if you want to just say it. Last thing I want to point out here is if you go back to Hebrews six, it says in, in chapter six. Now remember, this is people who want to go back to, to Judaism. I think that's important for this context. He says it's impossible for those who are once enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift. So that's baptism is enlightenment, illumination. And then the taste in the heavenly gift is the Eucharist. And have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of the powers of the age to come. If they fall away, to renew them, to repentance since they crucify again the son of God and put him to open shame. That is I think, a specific reference to Judaism and Judaism's involvement in the crucifixion. So I don't think that this is just Paul saying that, you know, anybody who ever falls away or doubts or, you know, became a 17 year old atheist and then, you know, like they can never be saved again again. That's just, it's just really an impossible interpretation and it conflicts with what we see, you know, in the, in the life of the church anyway. So I think what makes more sense is that Paul's saying specifically if you guys want to go back to Judaism, you're basically re crucifying Christ because all the symbols of the ceremonies of Judaism are about the crucifixion of Christ. It would make no sense. But we got, let's see, people are attacking some of the Protestant dudes to come and debate here. We got some, we get some pride.

D (28:07)

Some Muslims, something, man.

C (28:08)

Yeah. Does anybody disagree? You come to the headline, we're gonna go to all you guys. But top coon. What's up, dude?

D (28:16)

A crazy name.

C (28:22)

You want to unmute, dude?

A (28:24)

Hey, Jay, can you hear me?

C (28:25)

Yes, sir.

A (28:26)

Hey, I just have two questions for you. So what is your assessment on the fourth Crusade? Who do you think was truly responsible there? And do you know if all of the orthodox jurisdictions have forgiven the papacy?

C (28:40)

Oh, I think the papacy was in the wrong, but I don't know anything about jurisdictional forgivenesses. I really don't.

D (28:49)

I don't know. I don't know what he means by forgiving the papacy.

A (28:53)

Yeah, like, like in the early 2000s, like the Papacy apologized for it. But I don't know, like what's the assessment from the orthodox jurisdictions?

C (29:02)

I, I have no idea. I mean, it's a tough question. I mean that's more of a, you know, historical. A historian would be better at that. And I don't really honestly keep up with like a lot of like the church politics type stuff. So I really don't know. It's a great question. Laptop. What's up man?

A (29:25)

If you're an H VAC technician and a call comes in, Grainger knows that you need a partner that helps you find the right product fast and hassle free. And you know that when the first problem of the day is a clanking blower motor, there's no need to break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product details, you're confident you'll soon have everything Humming right along. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Why choose a sleep number Smart bed. Can I make my sight softer?

B (29:57)

Can I make my site firmer?

C (29:59)

Can we sleep cooler?

A (30:01)

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose.

B (30:04)

Your ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting J.D.

A (30:07)

Power ranks sleep number number one in.

B (30:09)

Customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store and online.

A (30:12)

And now the more you buy, the.

B (30:13)

More you save on beds, bases and more.

A (30:15)

Plus get free premium delivery on any bed with bass limited time. For J.D. power 2025 ward information. Visit JD Power.com awards check it out.

B (30:23)

At the sleep member store today.

C (30:25)

A lot of those things that are like gestures like that, they don't really mean much anyway. It's all just kind of done for like public consumption anyway. Like the papacy saying. Oh, sorry about. Because the papacy, if you remember, they actually did a. An apology to the Templars. Believe it or not, they. They issued an apology some years back to the Templars, which I thought was kind of weird, but maybe the papacy agrees with the Gnostic Templars now, so that's why they apologize. I don't know. But guys, we want to call in. You can call in right there with the Twitter link. We got a nice. So we got almost a thousand over here on YouTube. You can call in right there on the X link. And then if you want to support the stream through super chats, feel free to send a super chat through Streamlabs. Pin in the chat and also in the show description. But you can also send a super chat natively through YouTube if you'd like to. Laptop. What's up, man? I'm you.

D (31:15)

Hey, J.

A (31:16)

Can you hear me?

C (31:17)

Yeah, what's up?

A (31:18)

Hey, I just have a question.

C (31:19)

Or.

A (31:19)

I was listening to Molyneux live stream the other day and he said at the end that he's going to be debating you coming in March. Is that right?

C (31:26)

That's. What's the plan? Yeah, we're having a round two atheism debate with Molyneux.

A (31:31)

Very, very interesting. Okay, I the last person on earth to ever tell you how to debate, but I've been listening to him for almost like 15 years. And if there's any interest, I have lots of notes of various videos he's made and timestamps and his. His arguments and all. If you're interested in anything, I just want to wish you good luck.

C (31:48)

Did you hear our first debate?

A (31:50)

Yes, yes, I downloaded that and to be honest, it seemed like you. You guys were having more like a friendly convo and he was trying to figure out seven from coconuts, so it didn't seem like a debate.

C (32:01)

Yeah, I mean, I'm looking forward to. It's going to be fun. I mean, he was, you know, civil and cool and we had a good conversation. So hopefully it works out. You know, you never know. A lot. A lot of times stuff gets planned and then it falls through. But, guys, if you want to support the stream, you can do so again through super chats. Everybody's being stingy today, but thank you, guys for the.

D (32:21)

That's crazy.

C (32:22)

For the meager super chats, we got a. We got a. A n hype apologist on the stream with us. He's over here. He's not mean. He's. He's a nice guy. I mean, come on now, See, he's smiling. Where's the super chat set?

D (32:36)

That's what I'm saying. Come on.

C (32:37)

I got my unmute, dude. And by the way, if he even.

D (32:39)

Got his nice shirt on today. What are y' all doing?

C (32:41)

If you guys get nice and magnanimous, I will also perhaps share the super chats with Nick. Let's see. Justinian. What's up, man? Gotta unmute, man.

A (32:58)

Other Jay, how are you?

C (32:59)

Good. What's on your mind?

A (33:01)

So, nothing really on my mind right.

C (33:03)

Now, but just to answer the question of Guy about, you know, the orthodox.

A (33:07)

Modern reaction to the PAPC's apology to the Fourth Crusade, I think Patriarch Bartholomew back in 2004 actually accepted the apology.

C (33:16)

Oh, interesting. Okay, I didn't know that.

A (33:18)

Yeah, yeah, just a minor thing.

C (33:22)

No, that's cool. Appreciate that. Thank you. Like, the collective wisdom of the audience and our audience is like super high iq, so we always get like, really nice, solid answers and intel from the audience. Go ahead.

A (33:34)

John gestures, by the way.

C (33:36)

Yeah, I think that's a good point too, is like, when they do this kind of stuff, I mean, it's really just for optics and like. Like you said humanist motives, I think. Is that what you're saying?

A (33:50)

Yeah, it's a humanism. I mean, I think.

C (33:52)

Oh, a humanist. I think you said humanist. You're saying a humanist motives. Yeah, pretty much.

A (33:56)

Pretty much, yeah, it's. I mean, I know I've heard, so I can't remember when it was. You remember, like years back, Father Trenum had given a list of stuff that needed to be corrected before the union could ever happen. He gave, like, his own list of things.

C (34:17)

Oh, no, I didn't know he did that, but. But yeah, there's a lot of those kind of lists. Like that going back to.

A (34:23)

On one of the lists is that particular thing would be the Fourth Crusade.

C (34:28)

Interesting.

A (34:30)

You know, that. That would have to be apologized for, so.

B (34:34)

Or.

A (34:34)

Or that would have to be corrected in some way. I'm going from memory here, but basically, I'm guessing in the academic world of whether it would be. I. I don't know anything about orthodox academics, but in Roman Catholicism, academic, that's still like, a debated thing with the Fourth Crusade, so.

C (34:55)

Yeah, I appreciate that. Yeah. I need to. We should probably do, like, a deep dive eventually on, you know, the Crusades in Byzantium, because we've never really done that on this. On the channel. And it'd be fun to do Pulse. Yeah, now. Yeah, exactly. We had to do a little bit of bagging, a little bit of a panhandle, a little bit of panhandling and grifting on the channel, and then we got some super chats rolling. We'll read those in just a second. Pulse. What's up, man?

A (35:20)

AJ I remember a couple debates ago, I forget who it was that you're debating, but you kept going back to observable sets. Try to get some common sense into the guy that you're debating, but I would encourage you to not forget the.

C (35:33)

Unobservable power of unobservable nonsense. Okay, I'm not sure which debate was that? The debate with Jake where we were debating empiricism and he was trying to argue that Ibn Tamiya was an empiricist and God's an empirical being with a body and all this nonsense. Or was it a different debate?

A (35:50)

Exactly. Nonsense.

C (35:51)

Yeah. You nailed it. Well, thank you. Yeah, I mean, Jake is kind of a nonsensical person, and when it comes to a lot of this stuff. And I think, Nick, you've had some interactions with Jake. I think the chat is pointing out that you got Jake to attend. Admit that there's 99 ontologies in God. So what was that debate?

B (36:09)

And what.

C (36:09)

How. Where'd that go down?

D (36:11)

So basically, what was good? He heard, I guess, that I was, like, the top Trinity apologist. I never said that. I don't know where he got that from, but he was like, oh, this God logic teacher. So and so he's like, let's set up a debate. I was like, of course he wanted to debate lpt. Because the only thing he knows. I said, you know what? Fine, we can do lpt. Just, you know, I emailed him asked.

A (36:29)

For some times why Choose a Sleep number Smart bed Can I make my site softer?

B (36:33)

Can I make my site firmer?

C (36:35)

Can we sleep cooler?

A (36:37)

Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose.

B (36:40)

Your ideal comfort on either side. Your sleep number setting J.D.

A (36:43)

Power ranks sleep number number one in.

B (36:44)

Customer satisfaction with mattresses purchased in store and online.

A (36:48)

And now the more you buy, the.

B (36:49)

More you save on beds, bases and more.

A (36:51)

Plus get free premium delivery on any bed with base limited time. For J.D. power 2025 award information, visit J.D. power.com awards check it out at a sleep member store today.

B (37:00)

If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication, listen up at Joy and Blokes when you start TRT or Enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan and right now all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use a promo code. Podcast new customers get 50% off their labs and for a limited time you can take advantage of our $1 ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or Enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved.

D (37:58)

Learn more@joannblokes.com he's being a prima donna about it. Wouldn't like email me back. I was like, we don't need to email about this. Whatever. And then eventually one day I went live and he said, you know what, I'm just gonna pop up on his live and try to catch him by surprise. He came up on my live, tried to press me on the lpt. I refuted it and then I ran a consistency argument because he said, well, don't you believe that the the attributes in God and the energies are ontologically distinct? I said, no.

A (38:24)

Do you believe that?

D (38:25)

He said, yeah. I was like, so your God has 99 ontologies? He's like, yeah, he has multiple real ontologies. I'm like, wow, isn't that something? And then I pressed him on I was shocked. I really thought he was better than this. I pressed him on some random stuff because he was like, yeah, there's a real distinction. I was like, how are you using real distinction here? Are you using, like, a sort of Eastern sense of real distinction? Are using, like, a scholastic, like, major, minor real distinction? And he didn't know what the difference was. He didn't know what the difference between a formal real distinction was either. And so it just kind of exposed him of, like, not knowing what he's talking about at all.

C (38:59)

Yeah. I remember when we did our debate and he stacked up the books that he had read, and he was trying to brag that he had done way more research on orthodoxy than I did on Islam. And I was like, all those books look absolutely brand new. They don't look like they've even been touched. Dude, I don't know. I think you bought the book.

D (39:14)

There's no way they were. He literally said. When I was sitting there in the debate, I was like, what's the difference in a real informal distinction? He was like, I have a. You could hear him, like, get up from the desk. He's like, I actually have a Scholastic dictionary right in front of me. You don't think I know what that is? I'm like, no. Yeah. I don't think you do. Can you tell me? And he just started throwing ad homs at me, and I don't think he reads.

C (39:33)

Yeah, I was. I don't. I don't. I mean, he'll read a little bit. He'll read a paper here and there. Really what he does. I've noticed Jake's strategy is to basically, anytime there's a debate between, say, a Catholic and orthodox or an Orthodox a Protestant, he'll just go and, like, write down the best arguments that say, a Protestant made against an orthodox or a Catholic made against orthodox. And if he's debating in Orthodox, he'll just use those arguments the Protestants and the Catholics use against orthodox.

D (39:57)

So you'll notice, too, if he's debating orthodox, anytime he debated Orthodox, I'll give you a hundred dollars if he doesn't do it. If he doesn't appeal to Bo Branch. Oh, your buddy Bo Branson said this. I'm like, dude, Bo Branson is not your homie.

C (40:10)

Right?

D (40:11)

Keep bringing him up.

C (40:12)

Well, speaking of homies, like, it's funny, he was raiding Christian apologists, and he went to me, and I thought for sure he was going to put me in the garbage tier. And he was like, I'm going to put Jay up at the top. Because you know what? You know what? He goes at the top. He's elite tier. Even though I think I won the debate.

D (40:34)

I couldn't believe it. I thought she was going below me.

C (40:37)

I know, right? I thought I was in the trash can, dude.

D (40:39)

But yeah.

C (40:40)

All right, so we got a couple of super chats. I'll read those, then we'll go to the next call. Let's see. Maddie says, Nick, Muslim Lantern is live calling out Christians. So yeah, if guys, if you guys are in the chat, the way to do this is to get hit up Muslim Lantern in his audience and tell them, give them this chat, this link to the space home to call in. Maddie says again, do the Crusades. That would be a great lecture series. Yeah, we'll see. It's. It'll take me a lot of time to do it, but. Gamer, go ahead. Did you want to say something, Nick? Nick, did you join me?

D (41:14)

No, I wasn't saying that.

C (41:17)

Okay.

D (41:17)

I was confused.

C (41:18)

Gamer, $10. Jay, I have a question unrelated to the stream. I recently discovered you and I find orthodoxy has a consistent worldview and it's coherent and it's very inviting. What is the orthodox position on stabs and what are the good resources for that? I mean, I don't think the Orthodox church is going to give you a position on private moral, you know, like medical choices, but I would say that, I mean, unfortunately we saw a lot of bad advice in the last coup period years. So, I mean, I would say the church was half and half on specifically the experimental K stabby. But I think many solid orthodox people would have a disagreement with stabbies that come from a cell line related to, you know, aborted fetal tissue type stuff. But I'm gonna leave it at that because we are on YouTube. But Japanese script says for $2, I'm broke. We gave all of our money to Alex. Do you mean Alex Jones? Alex o', Connor, Alex Sanders. I don't know which alex, but suko, $20. Nick is the homie. He got that wig of Jake to Admit Allah has 99 ontologies. Exactly. That's a good admission, by the way.

D (42:41)

And they're also admitting, when I was debating the orthodox Muslim of the day, they admitted their God is spatially extended. They've been admitting that rather, rather often lately that you could literally take a rocket ship up to their God if you had a powerful enough one.

C (42:52)

Yeah, he's. He's a. He's a dude, like the Mormon God, the father. Like, he's like, he's Like a buff, you know, dude, like my song says he's got. What confuses me is they got a toned body, baby. He's got a very toned body.

D (43:07)

I think he's like elastic man, though. Because they always say. I say, where is he? They just say, you point up. But I'm like, if I'm on this side of earth and you on that side of the earth, is he like rap? Yeah, like, what.

C (43:19)

Is it? Who is it in Fantastic Four? Is it the chick? The one that's stretchy? I forget. So they worship Allah, is the deity of Fantastic Four. For Landon, $50. Thank you so much, Landon. God bless you, Jay. Yeah, that's a fat super chat. Appreciate that, Zayn. $20. Here you go, boy. Got that wig of laugh. $20. Nice. Raven says for $5. Can you actually heal my gout? If you can, that's cool, yes. Put your hand on the screen and say a prayer to St. Pat Robertson and it will heal your gout.

D (43:56)

Is it Mr. Fantastic? Is that who it is? I think it is.

C (43:59)

Is that who stretchy?

D (44:00)

Yeah, I think it is. Yeah, it is.

B (44:03)

If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication, listen up at Joy and Blokes, when you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan. And right now, all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use the promo code. Podcast new customers, get 50 off their labs. And for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ED or HA loss add ons when you start TRT or enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more at joyandblooks.com with the American.

A (45:04)

Express Platinum card, I can unlock experiences like no other. Since I'm always booking my next trip.

C (45:10)

I love that I can earn points on travel.

A (45:12)

Plus I get a resi benefit.

C (45:13)

So, you know, I'm hitting the restaurants.

A (45:15)

Everyone'S talking about and you can Find out your welcome offer after you apply. High which could be as high as.

B (45:20)

175, 000 points for experiences like no other. There's nothing like platinum.

A (45:26)

Learn more@americanexpress.com Explore-Platinum terms apply.

C (45:34)

Okay, let's see. Griff, $2. Thank you so much, Griff. Our favorite super chatter here, banana of the butt says for $10. Jay, you should read Edwin Hunt's book about the Peru. He has always give me me book recommendations. I got to write that down. About the Peruzzi family. They're one of the founders and they're one of the funders of the crusades and all the conflicts need funders as you discussed for years. Yeah, I didn't actually know about that, so I should check that out. The 29 system. $20. Ecumenism? More like C. Cumanism. Pretty much. Taint nothing. $20. Is it problematic for Roman Catholics when they call Saint Photius a heretic despite his communion with Rome until his death? Meaning that you could be a practicing Catholic and unknowingly a heretic? Well, they would. I mean, if you're a trad. They were going to argue that. But the problem is that since Father Dvornick's work and since John Paul ii, they have rehabilitated the three great or the great hierarchs, right? So Photius, Mark of Ephesus and Gregory Palomas are now considered saints within the the Roman Catholic communion. So that's the key sort of contradiction to grab the the Roman Catholic and say, look, you guys are totally inconsistent. Griff, $2. When you gonna do that resident Orville gameplay stream? Well, you know, I tried cyberpunk and it was a little weird because I didn't remember the controls. But I did play a bunch of cyberpunk yesterday. So now I've got the controls mastered, so I might do another cyberpunk stream. But when the new Resident Evil comes out, I will game stream that. Anthony, $5. It's a swole dude with turban floating in space.

D (47:22)

Oh, have you played arc Raiders yet?

C (47:25)

I'm going to. No, I just. I haven't got around to it.

D (47:28)

That's fine.

C (47:28)

Yeah, I heard us. Everybody's been saying I need to play that one. Wink. $3. How would you respond to the idea that Jesus's sacrifice was purely for guilt over creation because the Father saw the creation as evil? No, that would be totally gnostic. And again, like, creation is declared good in Genesis, right? So why would God need to be placated or reconciled to the created order, because the create order is evil. That sounds like a more gnostic version of psa. All right, let's go to Baby. What's up, dude? Baby Moon, you're on the air with Jay and Nick.

A (48:13)

Hey, Jay Y. So I just started listening to you a few months ago, and oftentimes I'll hear you talking with Protestants, or let's call them debates, which they don't turn into much debates, but you'll often refer to where did Protestants get their canon of the Bible? And you just never really get pressed past that. So I'm not here to press you on it. I'm not a position to bait you, but I've always wanted to hear the answer to the question. So if we go back to, say, Martin Luther, as if we consider him kind of preeminent reformer, right? So I would, I would lay it out as, hey, he wasn't trying to disregard everything about the church, right? It was about Reformation, not a, not a scrapping of total church doctrine to where the canon of the Bible would have just followed over with him. So I mainly want to hear what would be your answer to that objection.

C (49:03)

Well, the problem is that Luther didn't agree with the canon. So the canon that was already normative in the west and the east included the Deuterocanon. And Luther specifically didn't want the Deuterocanonical text because he thought they, quote, taught against the word of God and against the gospel. So, for example, if you have, you know, prayers for the dead, if you have, you know, texts that talk about the necessity of works, those. Luther saw all of those texts within the Deuterocanon as problematic. And so he had a specific, specific theological motivation. And I read like six Luther books, so I'm not, I'm not pulling this out of my butt. Like, this is literally what he argues. Like in his commentary in Galatians, he says that anything in the Old Testament, even that doesn't quote, preach gospel of free grace, he has a problem with. He says things like he wants to punch Moses's teeth out. So ultimately, Luther's problem isn't even with, like, the, the issue of, you know, this or that verse in, you know, the deuterocan. And Luther's problem is, is more so the. Any of the text in the Torah or anything that he thinks teaches, quote, law and works. So there's a pretty radical dichotomy position in Luther between grace versus works, law versus grace, etc, free will versus, you know, grace. Those are all radical dialectics in Luther. So, so the answer is that Luther specifically didn't carry the canon over. He rejected the canon. That was normative.

A (50:38)

Okay. I think that's a very fair answer. I thought you might go that direction since he rejected some of the books. So let me go back and say, what if I remove Martin Luther from that, we take his, like, finite objections out of the way and just look at the reformers as a body who did ultimately carry, I mean, most of the canon over.

C (50:56)

Right.

A (50:56)

I mean, I know there's a section of it.

C (50:57)

Well, no, I mean, most of all, the reformers are pretty united in rejecting the Duro canon. I mean, except for High Church Anglicans. Like, High Church Anglicans didn't really think the Deuterocanum was a big deal. They didn't make a huge deal about it, but. And that's part of the reason why the Deuterocanon, the Apocrypha is in the 1611 King James Version, so. But the rest of them, Calvin rejected it. You know, Zwingli rejected the doodle. So, like, the other, quote, reformers. And that's the problem with saying that there is this body of reformers. They disagreed with each other and killed each other over things like infant baptism. So there isn't really, in my view.

A (51:39)

It'S a hard thing to get your arms around.

C (51:41)

Well, there's not really a body of. There's not a body of reformers. There's a bunch of people who, you know, reform. But then they. They go to the point of really, I mean, again. And like Father Josiah says in his books, like, some of the. What the reformers are saying is correct. It's just that their answers of, like, you know, low church stuff and rejecting, quote, rituals, all the stuff that. That they go towards, goes way further than what Orthodoxy would have considered a real reformation.

A (52:13)

And what would you say that would have been? What would Orthodoxy have considered, quote, a real reformation?

C (52:20)

Well, all the main issues that we would have with the papacy and with, you know, Roman Catholic ecclesiology and Roman Catholic, you know, they had a lot of these excesses that, you know, Luther talked about when he was critiquing Tetzel the monk, and, you know, they have indulgences and the merits of the saints, all those things Orthodoxy would disagree with.

A (52:43)

Okay. Well, Jaylah said. I knew it was gonna be a softball question, so I appreciate you taking the time.

C (52:48)

Great questions. Appreciate it. Always happy to answer those. I appreciate you having a good attitude, not being a jerk. You were cool about it. Colin, what's up, man?

B (52:58)

If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication. Listen up at Joy and Blokes when you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan and right now all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use a promo code podcast. New customers get 50% off their labs. And for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more@joyandbloaks.com get that MX Gold card ready. I'm too tired to cook.

C (54:00)

We feeling Five Guys or the Cheesecake Factory?

A (54:02)

Both earn up to 120 each year in statement credits of participating partners. Up to $10 each month when you pay with the MX Gold card. Learn more at American Express.com Explore Gold enrollment required terms apply.

C (54:13)

Nick, if you want to say anything on Protestant church history or Luther, feel free.

D (54:18)

Hopefully we get some opposition in here, man. I think that we must have ran through them all.

C (54:23)

I think I've run through all the ops. That's what I was trying to tell you. Like, don't expect many. I remember the last time a Muslim came in here, man. It's probably eight months since a Muslim came in here. Colin, what's up? You want to unmute?

A (54:34)

Hi there. I was looking to clarify some of your views on the flood and possibly debate you.

D (54:39)

There you go.

C (54:40)

Okay.

A (54:43)

So do you think that. So you say that's a global flood. Do you think that it killed everybody?

C (54:50)

I mean, I think we're. We're intended to think that. I mean, unless there was some. Something that we're just simply not told. I think the. The text gives us the impression that, yeah, everybody but Noah's family.

B (55:03)

Yeah.

A (55:04)

So, I mean, I get your point that every myth has the story, but if you think of even, like Native American myths, in order for that to be a myth, it would have to have survivors, you know, in the culture.

C (55:17)

But the. The point of our view of how that happens is that when Noah's sons repopulate the Earth, we find out very early in Genesis that Noah's sons already, you know, engage in quite a bit of wickedness. So what happens is as the Earth begins to repopulate, you get this idea that the nations fall back into all the same problems that they were already involved in with idolatry. So in other words, that seed story immediately gets tainted with false revelation. And that's why we would say that pretty much. I did give you an example. I did a talk specifically on this topic of what's true in ancient religions from Genesis forward. So in other words, we have divine revelation. We would say in scripture that kind of looks back at the, you know, ancient world and the pre flood, pre diluvian world. But there were civilizations and cultures after the flood that would have maintained this sort of basic body of knowledge that they had of, okay, yeah, my descendant, you know, Noah, my great, great granddad Noah, you know, he was with the. The family in the. In the boat, and they made it through the great deluge, and then the gods came down and helped. Right? So in other words, it's the post Noahic descendants that would have tainted the mythology, tainted the story with mythology. And it's not just the flood that shows us that. Or he left. Okay. It's not just. It's not just a flood that shows us that. If you look at this interview that I did with Seraphim Hamilton some years ago, we actually got into how even pagan religions or world religions, like even some of them maintain. And I don't mean this in a zeitgeist type of sense, but I'm saying, like, they have seeds of truth, right? They have the seeds of the original, you know, two Adam, man and woman. They have the seeds of, you know, some of these Genesis stories in a very corrupted, paganized way. And the answer to that is that, yes, the descendants of Noah that had that, that then fell back into idolatry and sort of mixed up the stories with superstition. That's. That's. I don't know why you left, but anyway. David, what's. Hey, what's up, man?

A (57:42)

Oh, can you hear me?

C (57:43)

Huh?

A (57:44)

Hey, Jay, I just wanted to say I've been listening to you for a long time now, and I'm. I'm an orthodox catechumen, and I saw you wrong. I just wanted to say thank you for a lot that you have been able to share and produce with YouTube channel.

C (57:58)

Thank you.

A (58:00)

But other than that, I, being a catechumen, I have, I have some conversations with some of my friends who are Protestant and I had to admit that I don't actually know the Orthodox Church's view of like tribulation and like post tribulation and pre tribulation. So I was wondering if you could comment on that for me real quick.

C (58:19)

I mean there's not like a set view of like how we know everything's going to go down. We don't have this like seven year, you know, pre millennial rapture type eschatology or whatever. So. So I mean partial preterism is the norm amongst most of the Eastern church fathers. You can look up an audio book that's from Jordanville Monastery. It's called Apostasy and Antichrist. And that will kind of lay out the basic structure of what most of the elders and saints and church fathers say about the end times. But I've found that video that the way that I think this is. Wow. It's almost 50,000 views. Me and Seraphim Hamilton talked years ago about the seeds of the, of Christ in the, in the pagan religions. And this would apply obviously to the Noah story too. So there is that link right there in the chat. Nick, did you want to say anything on any of that?

D (59:13)

Not on that. I was going to say though about the previous conversation you had about the, the flood. Whether or not it's global or local doesn't really, doesn't really change anything in orthodoxy. Right. Like, I mean it doesn't say it was local and it wasn't global. Like that's what science came out with. It wouldn't really change anything in orthodoxy. There's a good book on how they line up with that. It's called Navigating Genesis by Hugh Ross. He's a astrophysicist who goes into how it can be either local or global and it wouldn't matter either way.

C (59:41)

Yeah, I remember reading that book years ago. I've read other Hugh Ross books. My one criticism of Hugh rocks. Hugh Ross is. Yeah, he's a theistic evolutionist, which I would be critical of that perspective. But, but yeah, yeah, I think, I mean even. Yeah, if, if conceivably it was local, would that necessarily be a problem? I'd have, I don't think so, but I'd have to, I'd have to think on it more. But let's see. Eden, $3 apart from the Orthodox Church granting autocephaly to. Excuse me. Apart from the EP intending To grant autocephaly to the church of Montenegro. That's done for the state of department has nothing to do with. Because of church stuff. There are talks in Bosnia about forming a new Orthodox church of Bosnia. Well, that's what they do when they. When they divide up these countries in terms of, like, the color revolution style stuff. The religion is part of it. So that's what this is about. Second actuality, $3. Jay, are you familiar with King Gillette? He. He wrote books, and he's the founder of Gillette Razors. He was a famous internationalist. No, I didn't actually know that. I was re watching the Anthony Sutton lectures, and he mentioned that these are some of the first texts that would mention, oh, corporate Fabian socialism. No, I actually should read that because I didn't know that he was. I didn't even know that. Mind hack sends a dollar. It says, yes, thank you, mind tech. TR says $2. Orb. So orbs are 20 bucks. Alex says for 50. Do a Matthew McConaughey voice and tell me why space is fake and gay. I tell you right now. I took my Lincoln up into space one day when I was up there, and, man, I just found out. I felt like I was just gay as hell when I was up there. They was trying to touch my butt. It's all just about big black holes. And I thought, this black hole is a bunch of gay stuff. Conquistador, it says, bro, Is that so good?

D (61:37)

That's crazy.

C (61:38)

Conquistador, $5. If orthodoxy is the fullness of the church, why did God allow Spain to evangelize the new world to Catholicism? What about these other peoples and cultures before Orthodoxy? Does Orthodoxy accept or reject the black legend about Spain? Well, I mean, you could ask that same question about. I mean, if you were Roman Catholic, you could say, why did God allow Orthodoxy to, you know, permeate all these other countries that Rome didn't? Why did God allow Protestantism to become the norm in, you know, the Protestant Reformation countries? I mean, we don't know the. The divine providence and why God allowed or didn't allow. But really none of that has anything to do with proving which one's true or false. It's a. It's a very terrible line of argumentation. I'm not trying to be mean to you. I'm just saying I wouldn't. I wouldn't. This doesn't prove anything. It's kind of that, you know, the Roman Catholics love to go on this line of, you know, like, oh, we conquered this and that, and we beat The Muslims here and there, therefore we're the true church. Well, that's a double edged sword. That's a stupid argument because you realize like Muslims are now conquering the Roman Catholic Church. So I mean, the Rome is saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God and they're going to have a, you know, Abu Dhabi faith center. So wait, does that now mean that Rome isn't true? If you use that line of argumentation, it's just a bad line of argument. I don't know what the blood. I don't even know about the black legend, so I couldn't say what that is. Suko, $5. You gotta have Soren Cleaves Antiquity J on an AI edit where you all go to Agartha with Yakub. That sounds fun. Make it. Go ahead and make it in Christos. $5. This a Orthodox patristics question. What's the understanding of the Melchizedek typology versus theophany? Yeah, I've never understood. I mean Melchizedek, as far as I know, in the Orthodox Church is a specific person. It's not a theophany of Christ. The only reason people think this is because it says that his generation and his lineage is unknown. Well, that just means that Genesis didn't tell us that on purpose so that he would be a type of Christ. It doesn't mean that he is Christ. He's not a theophany of Christ. Dinko, $5. I was agnostic. I was baptized Roman Catholic. I'd like to go back to Christianity. I visit Orthodox Church. Should I stay Roman Catholic or go Orthodox?

D (63:57)

Bro, what you think we gonna say?

C (64:00)

What does he think? What do you think we're gonna say? You got to be Orthodox, man. No you don't. Don't become a Papist. Wink, $3. How would you respond to the idea that. No, we did that one. Okay, so I'm just trying to catch up on some of these.

B (64:11)

If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication, listen up. At Joy and Blokes, when you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan and right now all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your Biomarkers, you'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance, and confidence. If you're considering TRT or enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use a promo code. Podcast new customers get 50% off their labs. And for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more at joyandbloaks.com Are you really.

D (65:12)

Buying a car online on Autotrader right now?

C (65:14)

Really? At a playground?

A (65:16)

Yeah, really. Look at these listings from dealers. Wow, your search can really get that specific.

B (65:21)

Really?

C (65:22)

And you just put in your info and boom, car's in your budget.

A (65:25)

Mom needs a second. Honey, you can really have it delivered.

C (65:28)

Really? Or I can pick it up at the dealership.

A (65:31)

One sec, sweetie. Mommy's buying a car.

C (65:33)

Mommy, look.

A (65:34)

I think your kid is walking up the slide. Kyle again?

C (65:37)

Really?

A (65:38)

Auto trader.

C (65:39)

Buy your car online. Really? Rachel Wilson. Shout out to Rachel, says $50. Slow Boy says it's your birthday. Happy birthday. It's your birthday, right? So everybody sing the two chain song to me about big booties and whatever. I forget what he sings about in that song.

D (65:56)

There we go.

C (65:57)

I think. I think Kanye's in that song too, but. Or he references Kanye. I don't know. It's not technically my birthday, but it is coming up very soon, so. But basically. Wait, why are you trying to dox me?

A (66:10)

Dude, trying to birthday docs is crazy.

C (66:13)

It's tomorrow. Tomorrow's actually my birthday. Xenophon. What's up, man?

D (66:17)

Go.

C (66:19)

Xenophon. What's up? By the way, we got a nice crowd of almost 1200. If you would hit like and share it. What's up? What's up? Hey, Jamie. I'm a fan of both of you guys.

A (66:29)

Can you hear me?

C (66:30)

Yeah. Hey, Jamie. Go ahead. So I need espresso.

A (66:34)

My question is about when Jesus doesn't know the hour. You'll hear some responses to that.

C (66:39)

Like that he knows it in his human nature.

A (66:42)

He knows it in his divine nature.

C (66:43)

But not his human nature.

A (66:44)

And I think some fathers have explained.

C (66:47)

It that that way. But I've heard some of these Muslims.

A (66:49)

Recently talk about like, they're saying that's the Agnote heresy.

D (66:54)

Yeah.

C (66:57)

Yeah. I mean, this has been answered a million times over. I don't know what. Yeah. So I'm gonna put in the chat a really Good article. Over at orthodox apologetics website right here, it's called was Jesus ignorant of his second coming? There is the link right there. And basically, if you look at, at other places in the Gospels, this is the way St. Basil answers it in his letter 236. You know, he says things like, yeah, Jesus says there's no one good but the Father. You know, there's no one. No one knows the Son but the Father. Okay, well, does that mean that no human beings know him or that the Holy Spirit doesn't know him? It's just rhetorical language that's intended. And Jesus does this all the time where he says, you know, if your hand caused you to sin, cut it off. He's not literally telling you to cut your hand off. It's a, it's a turn of phrase. So. Right. I think Basil's explanation is the most. Because there's other passages that say explicitly he, that the Son knew all things.

D (67:56)

So yeah, the disciples directly come to Jesus.

C (68:01)

Hold on one second. Hold on one second.

A (68:03)

In the human nature.

C (68:05)

Hold on one second. Let, let Nick go ahead ahead and reply. Go ahead, Nick.

D (68:07)

Sorry, I don't know if you can hear me, but can you hear me? Guess. Yeah, okay. Yeah. What I was gonna say was. You even see in other parts, chapters where the disciples literally say we, we now see, you know, all things, I think not say heresy isn't even just saying that Christ doesn't have some sort of knowledge. He's just saying that he doesn't know things in virtue. If you say, oh, well, you know, he doesn't know anything in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature doesn't transmit knowledge to the human nature because we say he knows things not in virtue of his human nature, but in virtue of his divine nature. And so the Muslims will try to conflate that and say that there's, you know, some sort of symmetry with saying that he doesn't know something with the ignote heresy. But they're just misunderstanding in the first place because the issue was more about the fact that they were collapsing the two natures into one and then saying that one nature didn't have this knowledge itself.

C (69:00)

Right, that's what I kind of thought.

A (69:01)

I kind of thought they were like, it's saying that his knowledge of it isn't natural to his human nature.

C (69:07)

But I think they're confusing what the Eggnote heresy is. Yeah, appreciate that. Good question, Xenophon. Let's see. Anybody disagree? We're looking for some of the ops. If you disagree, raise Your hand. I know. It's all these blank ass profiles with no pictures. That's always the people who disagree because it's people that were, that were, that were blocked. They had to make it.

D (69:29)

Yeah.

C (69:30)

So, jt, what's up? I see you got no. No profile, so you got to be a hater. What's up?

D (69:39)

Hey, Jay.

C (69:40)

Hey, Nick.

A (69:42)

I just had a question about you. You've talked a lot about paradigms and.

D (69:49)

Paradigm level arguments, and I wanted to.

A (69:51)

Ask you if you think when people have a hard time understanding the arguments, is the problem like an inability to step outside of their own paradigm, you think, or like just assuming that it's not straight up dishonesty?

C (70:07)

I think it's a combination of things. I think people don't, you know, they're trained to think in little, you know, stack the box on the other box. That's sort of the foundationalist model of how everybody, most people think since, since the Enlightenment or even, even maybe earlier than that. So they don't really think about holistic systems level thinking. I also think that we had a guy who called in a few months ago and he was making a good argument that even psychology, you could take it with a grain of salt, but he was arguing. Even psychology's kind of studied and figured out that a lot of people literally can't even think at a systemic level. It's just kind of a. There's like an IQ tier that people that are sort of under. That are unable to get to. And, and that lines up with a lot of my experience. I mean, I know ultimately some of the problems are obviously spiritual, but. But, you know, when you ask, for example, we did that six hour stream where we asked all the Muslims to just simply restate the example or the, you know, the canon conundrum argument, and they literally couldn't even restate it. You know, that's the whole point of that meme. How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning? Right. So there's something there too with, I think, a barrier to whether people can do sort of abstracted thinking and then abstracting from abstraction is another level above that. So all of those things, I think, contribute to why it's very hard for people to understand, you know, paradigm thinking or paradigm level arguments.

D (71:29)

Nice.

A (71:29)

I mean, do you like, would you say, I mean, this is just the plainest way. Like, would you say there's a level of it where people are, some people are literally too dumb? I mean, you said that. I don't know if you're just.

C (71:39)

No, that's essentially what I'm saying. I mean, that's saying it in very simple terms. And I mean, I'm not. That doesn't mean those people can't be saved. But it's like, like, you know, certain types of arguments. I mean, even the classical arguments, like a very, you know, complex version of the Kalam cosmological argument, which I don't think is a very good argument. But I mean, there's an obvious. An IQ barrier for some people to. You're not going to go down to Somalia with the 80 IQ people and like, convince them of God's existence or Christianity through some, you know, wild Kalam cosmological argument. They don't know what you're talking about. That's why the elders, when they go and convert some of the tribes, like, they, they realize that a lot of these people have very low IQs and they will actually say, I just basically give them catechesis of three points. There's one God, it's Jesus God, and you can't have 10 wives. Pick one. That's the. Literally, that's like the catechesis of like, some of the tribes, they don't sit there trying to convince them of, you know, the, you know, eternal manifestation versus, you know, the, the Filio Quay. John, do you want to say something?

A (72:42)

Well, even if you think of it on a simpler level, think about how there's people on the political level that can't even see with outside of a paradigm, much less the philosophical or the theological.

C (72:54)

Yeah.

A (72:55)

And like, it's, it's very hard for even just an average American, if you were to like, like, the thing you and I joke about is that why do you have books that you disagree with on your bookshelf? Because nobody goes and reads opinions that are opposing and they don't go read other people's books to understand the opposite end of the spectrum. It doesn't even enter into their mind to do that in any sort of subject. It really doesn't even matter what the subject is.

C (73:30)

Yeah, One thing about college that was good was being forced to read all these people that I never would have read otherwise. I probably would have never read David Hume or, I don't know, you know, Hans Gadamer or any of these, you know, existentialists like Sartre. Like, being forced to read and understand those positions was actually, it was laborious and a lot of times it was boring, but it was actually good in the long run to be exposed to and to understand the, the ops positions. And that's ultimately what makes you, I think, a good, you know, it's what Aristotle said. An educated man can state a position without necessarily agreeing with it and you know, uneducated people unfortunately can't do that. So.

A (74:11)

Well, another thing too, sometimes like something you're opposed to will have elements of truth in it and then somebody might say to you like oh well, so and so talks about that, that makes it good. And then but you're able to formulate an opinion that says like well no, just because someone might say a good thing here doesn't make the entire philosophy exactly.

C (74:37)

Right. Exactly. Christos, what's up man?

A (74:43)

RJ I'm just wondering what your like.

C (74:46)

Kind of view is on like the.

A (74:47)

Fallibus, fallibilist position of like, I don't.

C (74:50)

Know, them saying that they don't need to give a justification because it's not necessary and it's too much explanation. Do you know what I mean? I think the problem with that is that it kind of begs the question. It's like well, why ought we believe fallibilism? Right? Wow. I mean if, and if positions don't require justification I think we're in a worse, a worse state, we're in even worse hot water because then we don't really have any way to adjudicate between good positions, bad positions, good paradigms, bad paradigm. So I think it's more of a cop out kind of like pragmatism. We had somebody call in a couple days ago but what's wrong with pragmatism? Like well, I mean it doesn't tell you. It's basically just copping out. So I see it, same type of thing going on with any position that would say, well you know, justification is not, I mean I don't think we have to expect like Descartes level of you know, perfect, omniscient, absolutely indubitable, you know, certitude. Because I don't, I'm not sure that any position can actually to provide that level of certitude. But I would say whatever the highest level of certitude is something like a transcendental category, I mean which is necessary to have any knowledge. Like I would say that's the highest type of perfection and if we're not going to go in that route, we're going to go in the, in the route of saying, you know, there's just not really justification, it just isn't possible. I think it's just even a worse position. So. And if that's the case, if that's the case, then why are you even debating? Right? Like, how are you gonna. How are you gonna argue that position and debate that position?

D (76:16)

It's axiomatic, bro.

A (76:17)

I spoke with one of them and.

C (76:18)

It got down to the point of okay, both our worldviews could be illusions.

A (76:22)

Now what?

C (76:23)

Well, yeah, and if they're. If at that point, then you've done your job as an apologist because that's reducing the positions to absurdity. If the worldviews are illusions and then we're not debating at all. Josh, what's up, man? By the way, guys, we're joined today by Nick from Fearless Truth. His channel is linked in the chat in the show description. If you want to go follow Nick for his many debates and apologetic works over there. What's up, Josh?

B (76:51)

If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication, listen up at Joy and Blokes, when you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan. And right now all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use the promo code podcast. New customers get 50 off their labs and for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ED or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or enclomophine, not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more at joy and blokes.com.

C (77:56)

Are people joking that Joe Ro.

D (77:58)

I'm looking it up.

C (77:59)

Are they trolling me?

D (78:01)

I'm not seeing anything on.

C (78:03)

Okay, they're just trolling. What's up man? Josh, what's up, dude?

A (78:09)

Hey, I'm just actually new to being Catholic. I left being a Presbyterian.

C (78:17)

I'm sorry here.

D (78:19)

And.

A (78:22)

Anyway, I was wanting to. I've been listening to some of your stuff and just trying to wrap my mind around some of the ideas. Okay, so what do you. Or does Eastern Orthodoxy like on nature and grace? Is it pretty close to Catholics like or.

C (78:43)

I mean we do believe in a distinction between nature and grace, because you would have, you know, grace is uncreated and nature is created. But, you know, the Roman Catholic Church, grace is a supernatural creature. It's not uncreated. So that's a huge fundamental difference between us and, and the Roman Catholics. But we do believe there's a distinction between nature and grace for sure.

A (79:04)

Okay, and what about something like the. The Council of Orange? Is there. Is that somewhat close to Yalls position or not really?

C (79:15)

Well, the east never had to deal with the issue of operant grace from Augustine because the east never accepted the Augustinian presupposition. So there was never this idea of, you know, operative and cooperative grace. It's really just grace was always seen as operative. And one of the reasons for that was because of Christology. Christology mandates that, I mean, from the councils, that Christ's human nature has the same identical nature that we have. So if he has the same nature as us and he has two wills and two energies, there can never be a point when human nature loses its own will and energy. If it has its own will and energy proper to it, then synergy is always the case. And the problem with the Augustinian position of operant grace is that that kind of. It's hard to understand how that doesn't negate synergy, because operant grace means that grace becomes the overriding cause that moves you to believe, that moves you to repent, et cetera. So I know it's not Calvinism, but it's still hard to. It's still a form of monergism because it doesn't recognize synergy at every stage.

A (80:21)

Okay. I haven't thought about that before.

D (80:26)

Okay.

A (80:29)

Resource to get into, you know, looking at the trinitarian and Christological.

D (80:37)

Like.

A (80:37)

Like being able to look at those, you know, dogmas, and then abstracting from that to anthropology.

C (80:44)

Yeah, there's two. There's two books, right? There's two books. I would say read. Read St. Cyril of Alexander and the Christological Controversy by McGuckin. And that will kind of iron out a lot of the problems in Western Christology. And then I would read Free Choice and Saint Maximus because he contrasts the anthropology and the. The mode of willing between the Augustinian view of Christ and man and the orthodox view of Christ and man. Both of those books are absolutely essential, I think, to show the difference between the two in terms of Christology and anthropology. Sword. What's up, man? And Nick, did you want to say anything on.

D (81:21)

I was actually going to recommend the Crystal Controversy too.

C (81:23)

So. Yeah, that Book's really good.

D (81:25)

It's a good one.

C (81:26)

Sword. What's up? Sword? You gotta unmute. Dude, you unmuted, but you didn't turn your mic on. So if you turn your mic on and come back, I'll go to you, see what's up. Everybody's being so generous because it's my birthday.

D (81:47)

Yeah.

C (81:48)

Hey, yo. $5. Jamie, give me an espresso. Destroy Bonu Klein something. I don't know. $20. Sorry about my name. With Norse Norse pagans, the religion is based on race. I'd actually argue it's based on try because it's not even. They don't really have a conception of race the way that we think of race nowadays. But I think, yeah, it's definitely tribal. For example, there are no Indians in Valhalla. Well, yeah, you're not going to put the, you know, rival tribes in Valhalla according to their worldview. Wouldn't it imply that every religion has its own, like each, Each tribe or race has its own religion. Yeah, but I think what you realize is that when you debate with pagans and you get into it, they don't really believe it to be real. It's more of like a. A social factor that binds them and it's just kind of a. A bunch of myths and stories that kind of supposed to inspire you to be heroic or whatever. They don't really typically believe in, ontologically speaking, all these gods and Odin and whatnot. Many of them. I mean, there's some that do, but. Anything you want to say on neo pagan type stuff? Nick?

D (83:03)

I could care less about Norse paganism, bro.

C (83:07)

Neil Perry. $10. Happy birthday. Thank you for what you do. Thanks, man. Stasis, $3. The Nestorian Church evangelized China. This is hundreds of years after Nestorius. The gospel was shared, but it fused much with Buddhism and Taoism. Well, I would say that Neoranism isn't the gospel, but I get what you're saying. Do you have any thoughts on how heresy caused that religion or Christianity to disappear in that. In that region? Well, again, I think if you break off from the, the church, from the source, even if you have the Bible and, you know, they have these things that are true, you know, what is. Jesus says that, you know, if you're not. If you're not grafted into the branch, you're going to wither and die. And so that's what we see with a lot of these, you know, churches and sects in history that, that die out, is that, you know, the gates of hell ended up prevailing over that domain or that religion. See what's up. You want to mute.

B (84:07)

If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication. Listen up at Joy and Blokes when you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan. And right now all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandbloaks.com and use a promo code. Podcast new customers get 50 off their labs and for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more at joyandbloaks.com.

A (85:08)

Hey, I got a question, man. I'm sure you've heard this multiple times, but I'm having a hard time wrapping.

C (85:14)

My head around it.

A (85:15)

And I'm an orthodox Christian myself, but I'm just struggling with the question of if, if, if God is all knowing and all powerful, then then what would be the point in creating beings he would knew are going to hell anyways in the end? Like, just seems kind of cruel to me. I, I myself would rather have just never been born if I knew that.

C (85:38)

I was gonna go to hell in the end.

A (85:41)

Yes, I guess my question.

C (85:43)

Well, I mean, I think you the difference between Western Christianity and its emphasis on predestinarianism, whether it's Augustine, Aquinas or Calvin, like they all stress predestination and the direct causation of the divine decree. With Calvin, for example, the difference is that I think in the orthodox conception, God created out of his own goodness, not because of any need or any lack or any vengeance or vindictiveness. And in the orthodox view, the only thing that sends you to hell, quote, unquote, is your own actions and your own free will. So the difference is that we stress the, you know, responsibility of our own volition versus, you know, worldviews that stress the causation of God. So the direct causation of God. So I would say that it's still better to exist than to not exist, because God created those beings with the potential to be with Him. And he didn't do that because he lacked, you know, anything or needed anything. He did that for the creatures themselves.

D (86:49)

So I think a good point too is that when we see like the story of Lazarus and the rich man, like we see that the rich man, he isn't sitting there begging, saying, I wish I would have changed my life. I wish I would have done this. We see him still, still doing like the same sins that he was doing on earth. He was still treating Lazarus like a servant even when he was in Hades at that point. Right. So he's non repentant even when you die. So I think that we have to understand that people in hell, like a lot of people have this notion that the people in hell are going to be like, oh my gosh, like, exactly, now I want Christ. No, that's not the case. They're still continuing sinning. That's the, that's why hell is eternal. Because they're put in such a, in such a unrepentant infant state that they'll never return. There's no, there's no chance they'll never return to Christ.

C (87:32)

Yeah. This is the point of that C S Lewis book, Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If you never read it, I recommend it. Because the point of the book is that in, in, in this fantasy fiction, like there's a bus that takes people from hell to heaven and the people from hell that go to heaven absolutely hate it. Everything about heaven just makes them miserable. It's a torturous thing and they would rather be away from God than in God's presence because they've already decided that they don't love God. So it's, it's a very different conception of hell than the sort of, you know, Latin, you know, Dante's thing where you're thrown into lakes of fire or you're frozen in a giant pool of ice or whatever. Like, it's a very different conception because it's basically saying you really. Excuse me. It's a, it's a great divorce, not marriage. Marriage of Heaven and Hell is, is the Universalist book that C.S. lewis is writing against. Thank you. Thank you. Chat Anastasia. $5. Jay, I was watching the debate with Tim Gordon. At one point, he said, at one point he asked you if in the orthodox framework, you could worship an energy of God without worshiping his, his essence. I didn't Catch your answer. So it's. It's a silly question because it's assuming that these things are distinct parts. God doesn't have parts. God is fully present in every one of his attributes. So if I'm worshiping God, I am worshiping all of his attributes. By necessity. There is no conception of. I worship the mercy of God. And that's ironic because that's exactly what happens in the Roman Catholic position. They have mercy, divine mercy Sunday, where you're focusing on what's her face's, you know, mystical visions of Jesus's heart or with the Sacred Heart type stuff. So they actually worship. They worship the parts. It's the Orthodox Church that worships the entire whole Godhead. And the whole thing about the essence energy sanction is that the essence energy distinction itself presupposes divine simplicity. This is what people don't understand. The energies all come from and proceed from a single divine essence because there is one energy. The energies are also many, but they're also one. And so there's a perfect unity and multiplicity within God. Basil says the energies of God are infinite. Infinite is many. But he says there's also one energy. Right? John Masca says the same thing in Book one. So God is one and many. And that undermines. And that gets rid of the dialectical thinking of Roman Catholicism that you're either worshiping the divine essence or. Or you're worshiping these many supposed parts or energies. No, it's just like, think about me. This is the Cappadocian analogy that they make. I am fully present in every action that I'm doing. If I'm riding a bike, I am fully present in that. If I build a house, I am fully present in the action or the energy of building a house. I am not the identical. I'm not isomorphically identical to the action of building a house. I am more than that, that I am a person. Jay. I engage in the action of the operation of building a house. But I, as the person or subject, J am more than building a house. But I am fully present in the action of building a house. So that'd be like saying, do you acknowledge Jay, or do you acknowledge Jay as the building of a house? It's a false dilemma based on the dialectical thinking of Rome. John, were you gonna say something? Nick? Nick, did you want to go John? Go ahead. We'll go John. And then Nick, say it again.

A (91:08)

I was saying it was Faustina Kowalska.

C (91:10)

Yeah, yeah. Excuse me. I always get the histrionic women mixed Up. Nick, did you want to say anything about Roman Catholic energy? Go ahead.

D (91:19)

I mean, I think that the thing is you can't worship something without worshiping the thing. It also subsists. Then that would just be to separate the two. I mean, to say that, that, that, that would be to say that there's like some sort of different existences within God. Like the point you made about there being one energy and many at the same time.

C (91:36)

Right.

D (91:36)

Because they're going to be united, but they're going to be distinct in terms of multiple things like the effect they give even. And so I don't think there's any issue with saying that, you know, you worship the energies, you're worshiping God and we don't. We wouldn't even have to use the term whole. Right. Because whole is going to entail there's some sort of parts. Right. So we can just say that we worship Him. We and him entirely worship him in, in his trueness. Right. I mean there's no, there's no part, whole relation there to actually distinguish them anyways.

C (92:03)

Also, you could turn this argument on the Roman Catholic because if focusing on say worshiping one aspect or one trait or property, whatever term you want to use, if that necessitates parts in God or that you don't worship the whole God, you could ask that same question of the Roman Roman Catholic when it comes to the Trinity. So when you are honoring the Son, are you therefore not honoring the Spirit or the Father? I mean, it's just a silly question, but Eugene says I was not familiar. For $10, I was not familiar with Nick. Glad to see him. Cheers. Thank you. Let's see. Sylvonus, $5. When you look at early church, Father Ken enlists of the Bible before Hippo in 393, they're essentially adhered to the Protestant list. No, they don't. It's totally not true. I mean, if you're talking about the New Testament, yeah, there's a lot of unanimity. There's. Or I should rephrase this. There's a good degree of unanimity on the New Testament lists. If you look in 393of. By the way, this is. I cover this question all the time. And this is. There's several things we need to, to fix here. First of all, in the orthodox or even perhaps in the Roman Catholic mindset, we're going to take conciliar lists over individual church fathers list. Okay. So if I look at the apostolic canons and I see, I think it's Canon 85. When it lists what the canon of Scripture is. It is not the Protestant list. The absolute canons are the normative church law in the east in the 4th century. If I look at the Council of Rome under Damasus, right. That is the normative list in the west for the Church. That's. Those are two conciliar lists. Both of those conciliar lists in the 4th century include the Deuterocanon. Notice, I'm not saying that those lists tell us definitively the Old and New Testament canon. I'm just giving them as examples of how we would see the. The synodal list above a particular church father's decision. Or listen, it's only Athanasius, really, that lists in his festival letter the New Testament that pretty much everybody has as the New Testament. So you're unaware of the fact apparently that the books of the Catholic epistles, Hebrews, the books, a book of Revelation, those were all very much doubted for many centuries in the first, second and third century church. So you're absolutely, totally wrong. You could read F.F. bruce's book on the canon. You could read. Read Lee McDonald's book on the canon. You could read Jarus Pelican's book on whose Bible, which tradition. All of those will actually refute your assertion. Cleaves Antiquity. $2. Thank you so much, bro. He says happy birthday. Shout out to Cleave everybody. Check out his channel and his apologetics as well. Blue Pyramids, $5. Hey, man, I got a question. How come you know, like, why and stuff? He's joking. Happy birthday. Foreign. Why do you Catholics and Orthodox always fight? Well, we don't believe that Catholics have the gospel or correct theology. So just because we agree with a lot of people and a lot of things doesn't mean that we're on the same page. And the Orthodox conception, if you disagree with one dogma, you're no longer Orthodox. So it's a. It's not a question of like, well, Protestants are 30 orthodox, so we're on the same page. OR Roman Catholics are 60 Orthodox, so we're on the same page. It just doesn't work like that. It's a holistic conception. You have to hold to all the dogmas. And Rome unfortunately, has departed on many, many dogmas. So we got a lot of people in the chat talking smack. You want to argue with me and Nick, feel free to call in. We got Protestants in the chat who disagree. There is the. The list right there, or excuse me, the. The link right there to call in.

D (95:56)

Maybe we'll finally get some now. Hopefully not just comment warriors.

C (96:00)

Yeah, right, we got. Welcome to the new members. I want to make sure I didn't miss a chat over here in YouTube in the fifths and dollars. Where do you draw the line in your acceptance of quote, science? I mean there is no line. I'm just very skeptical about most normie science. I'm not anti science. I, you know, studied quite a bit of philosophy science in my college undergrad and grad, you know, classes. So I'm, I'm aware of science. But I also know that, you know, it's admitted that many peer reviewed studies, some Even up to 50% of peer reviewed studies, are fraudulent or are deceptive. So I put scientific claims very low in my, you know, hierarchy of authorities. It's not that I'm against science, I just, I'm more of a skeptic. I'm more of a human when it comes to that. I mean I have it reversed, right. Most people are skeptics when it comes to like religious claims. I'm more of a skeptic when it comes to so called science claims because in the modern world science is what we, we think of as science is actually more of a weird kind of pop religion. I assume you that you accept some scientific discovery. Of course. Like you mean you have to be a complete to not accept some scientific. I'm just gonna bite the bullet, say no. I don't believe in any scientific. Nobody, no one has ever done any science and there's never been any scientific discovery. How about I just bite the bullet? Don't you believe that God made the universe to be intelligible? Absolutely. In fact, that's why I argue that you gotta have transcendental categories to do science. So there you go. True. $20. Nick, can you set up a Monarchia and energies talk between Jay and God logic?

B (97:43)

$20 if you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication. Listen up at Joy and Blokes when you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan. And right now all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and Confidence. If you're considering TRT or enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use a promo code podcast new customers get 50 off their labs and for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more@joannblokes.com I mean, I don't even.

D (98:47)

Know if Avery holds like essence energy distinction or anything like that.

C (98:53)

Does Avery have any interest in. In orthodoxy? I know you guys are buddies. Is he. Is they were mentioned or question you about that?

A (98:59)

We.

D (98:59)

We've talked about a little bit. I'll tell you more off stream, but yeah, we've spoken about it. Okay. I don't know how much he wants public that.

C (99:06)

Okay. J.T. jay. Thank you, Nick. Thank you, Jay. You're very funny. Well, thank you. I'm glad that there's finally a dude that does admit and think that I. I have a sense of humor. There's one guy, finally that. There you go. Funny one. I am a full on science denier. I do not believe in science. I deny all 6 million scientific discoveries.

D (99:28)

This is great.

C (99:30)

Leon. What's up, man? That was a joke, by the way, because people won't get it. Leon. Leon. Any stranger got some new ways. Leon.

D (99:44)

Something wrong with this one.

C (99:44)

Those are Resident Evil jokes. What's up, Leon? Where you at, man? I'm. I'm setting you up with all kinds of Resident Evil jokes.

A (99:50)

Joked.

C (99:51)

Okay, Sword. Sword wants to try again because Leon can't connect. Leon, you want to come back? Okay, we'll go to Leon first because he connected. What's up, man?

A (100:01)

Hey, brother. Happy birthday.

C (100:03)

Thank you. I just turned sweet 16. I got me a nice cool grand dam out there.

A (100:11)

Let's go, man. I love it. So my wife and I have been inquiring into orthodoxy. A lot of it, thanks to your content. I had a conversation with a guy who's a Church of God member. I don't know if you know much about them.

C (100:23)

I know some kind of weird. I know some.

A (100:25)

Yeah, yeah. They believe in like God, the mother and she's like a crazy lady.

C (100:29)

Anyway, I thought you meant like Church of God of Prophecy, like the Pentecostals. You're talking about the. The woman that started a cult.

D (100:35)

Are you talking about the one that's like the Japanese woman?

C (100:38)

No, no. Or hold on, which one? Yeah, there's different ones. So there's a woman that went on do Dr. Phil. Now do you think you're the mother of God? There's that woman, and then there's another one that Nick's talking about. Which one are you talking about?

A (100:51)

I think it's the. The lady on Dr. Phil, the cult leader is.

C (100:55)

So you actually. So they actually have people that still believe that?

A (101:00)

Yeah, I mean, I've ran into, like, multiple guys just going to shop, and they'll kind of stop you and ask you sit down and talk about the Bible, and then they'll. They launch a little attack on you. It's kind of. It's kind of freaky. But.

C (101:15)

She'S crazy. She passed away and they still. They believe in her.

D (101:19)

Do you know what the name of the church is?

A (101:21)

That's what they were saying. I. I really didn't look into it much. I'm not.

D (101:25)

Wow.

A (101:25)

I'm not too sure, but it's.

C (101:28)

Hold on one second. Hold on one second, Leon. So he's talking about. She was this hippie woman, this hippie chick who claimed to, like, channel or get revelations from God and God. Turns out God's a mother. I don't remember her name, but if you just look up Dr. Phil, mother, God, cult, you'll get the interviews with Dr. Phil and her. But go ahead.

A (101:51)

Yeah, I guess my bigger question is just what's the, I guess, orthodox perspective on eschatology? Not that they were making me question. I was just curious to hear your. In simple terms, I guess.

C (102:04)

Yeah, just look up the. There's an audiobook that's a short audiobook. It's called Apostasy and Antichrist. And somebody some years back read the entire thing on YouTube. So I think the book's out of print, but it's a little book from Jordanville Monastery. I recommend that. And you can find Apostoly and antichrist on. On YouTube. Sword. What's up? You want to try again? Hey, gal.

A (102:25)

Sorry for technical difficulties.

C (102:27)

Can you hear me now? Yeah, yeah. What's up?

A (102:30)

So I have a question.

C (102:32)

I'm a member of the Churches of.

A (102:34)

Christ, and I have a lot of.

C (102:36)

Respect for the Orthodox faith.

A (102:38)

I have a number of friends who are Orthodox. So I'm not trying to come at you guys from a. A position of.

C (102:43)

Of.

A (102:46)

But I wanted to talk a little bit about the idea of apostles and bishops and elders and all of that, particularly with Eastern idea of succession. And what I'd like to do is to just give you a premise and.

C (103:01)

Then just have you Comment on it.

A (103:02)

And then I'll be quiet and just listen. So the premise I would like to kind of posit here is.

C (103:11)

Would it.

A (103:11)

Be acceptable or correct understanding biblically to say that the office of the bishop is a successor to the office of the apostle? Or, or is it specifically that the bishops elders, you know, those guys are.

C (103:29)

Individually successors to the individuals that were apostles.

A (103:34)

Such that bishop is just another name for apostle?

C (103:38)

No, I mean the apostles were a specific unique role. So there's no more apostles in the church. But I mean there were many, you know, apostles and that Jesus sent out the 70. There were many apostles, you know, in the book of Acts and so forth. But that was a first century reality that apostolic succession does not mean necessarily that the successors do everything and have everything that the apostles had. For example, when you know, Ignatius is teaching in Antioch, he's the successor to the apostles, but he's not an apostle. So he has some of those powers, but he's not, for example, going to give new public divine revelation. And that's why the early church heresy of the Montanist, the Montanists thought that there would be an apostolic succession that included all the prophetic powers of new divine revelations. And the early church determined that the Montanists were heretics because once the apostles died and once, for example, Jude says in Jude 3 that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints, there's not going to be any new divine revelation. So apostolic succession means the, the powers that Jesus gave to his disciples that are passed on include the preaching of the gospel, Gospel, the administration of the sacraments and the forgiving of sins. And so Jesus, for example, breathes on the apostles and he says, whoever sins you remit, they're remitted. Whoever sins you retain, they're retained. He says in Matthew 16 and in Matthew 18 to Peter and to the apostles, the whole college, that you have the office of the keys you can bind on heaven and bind on earth. This we know this has to do with authority and the forgiving of sins. So that notion includes also, I think, jurisdiction when it comes to bishops ruling over certain areas. And we get this not just from implication, but from Paul's epistles. He says to Timothy, he says to Titus, I put you in charge in Ephesus, Timothy. You don't lay hands on anybody too quickly unless you find them to be good and approved men. Because the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of hands. Paul says to Timothy, so that's what we would say apostolic succession means. It means the authority to preach, teach the gospel, administer the sacraments and have the eucharistic altar, etc. It's not new public divine revelations.

A (106:00)

So just to clarify, I want to.

C (106:02)

Make sure I understand your answer correctly.

A (106:04)

You would accept then that the office of bishop is more like a successor to the office of apostle because they're not the same thing.

C (106:14)

Well, that's what apostolic succession means. Correct.

A (106:17)

Okay, well, I appreciate you clarifying. Thank you for your time.

C (106:20)

Yeah. And it also, you see it, it's not new to the New Testament. It's what you see in the Old Testament. Right. So for example, Jesus says in Matthew 23 that Moses sits, or that the Pharisees sit in the, the seat, the cathedra, the cathedral seat of Moses. So in the Old Testament you have Moses stolic succession, which Jesus acknowledges. In Matthew 23 he says that that's a real thing. So apostolic succession. And then you look at numbers 11 and you see the laying on of hands and you see the 70 elders. And Moses lays hands and passes on his spirit to the 70 elders to help judge Israel. That is typology that the New Testament is utilizing for apostolic succession.

D (107:02)

Yeah, yeah, I was going to say too. I mean even like sort of a lot of people get apostles and bishops like mixed up because even when you see in the New Testament Christ is talking about you can go and handle snakes and do all these things. And he's speaking directly the apostles and we see, I think it's Paul later on who does end up doing that and he's completely fine. And that's where we get these Pentecostal churches today, I think. Oh well that's, you know, that carries down the line today to our past and bishops and now we can handle snakes. And it's like, no, that's not for everybody. It's for a specific set of people that were bishops, not just anyone.

C (107:31)

Right, yeah, exactly. There was, there were things that were unique to the transition period between the Old and New Testament, which is what's going on in the Book of Acts, you know, like the, the, the, the miraculous example of Pentecost. And we've covered this ad nauseam on my channel, refuting charismatics and Pentecostals. That's a unique miracle that fulfills the Old Testament ritual ceremonies of the feast of Tabernacles, the Feast of Weeks. Pentecost is the fulfillment of that. And it's a unique miracle that reverses Babel. It's also referenced in the several chapters in Isaiah that the apostles under the Messiah would speak in a miraculous Single tongue. And so it's a known. It's everybody hearing the Gospel in their own language. That's the miracle. Miracles. So there's nothing in the New Testament that has anything to do with gibberish or Babel. And also Pentecost isn't necessarily something that continues on for, you know, the church 2000 years later. However, there are people who have the gift of tongues, which is known languages. For example, in my parish, we have people that know two, three, four languages and they're able to translate the liturgical texts into various vernaculars. That is the gift of tongues. Tongues. It's not gibberish. Tipper says for $10. What is the best book on monarchical trinitarianism? Well, really, you just read the Cappadocian so you could read Gregory about the first. Best book is Gregory of Nazianzus 5 Theological Orations. But also the rest of the orations too are very important. What's the best book on theosis? I mean, if you want more modern, you can get all of Dr. Bo Brand Benson's lectures and his PhD thesis on monarchical trinitarianism. Best book on theosis? Probably something like.

D (109:22)

I have a Theosis.

C (109:24)

There's one, though, that's really good with Professor Mansaridis's book on Palomas. So it's Deification in Deification of man or Deification in Christ. One of the Professor Georgios Manzaridis, and it's his little pink book book on Gregory Palomas. That one's really good. And then there's also Defecation of Man by Paniotis Nellis. And then Nick has a recommendation.

D (109:51)

I lost my book on theosis. I'm going to hell.

C (109:53)

That's okay. Development of the oc. What's the best book on the development of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? Well, actually, I only know of one book. I think Dvornik has a giant book on that. No, actually it's not dvornik. It's another Uni8 scholar. I don't know where I got a hold of this monstrosity here. There is a gigantic unique history of the Byzantine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by Kazimir Kucharik. That's one. But this is like an 800 page, you know, scholarly text. You might not want that. Another text, I would say that's a little more accessible is Hugh Wybru's book Byzantine Liturgy. I think I have it over here.

D (110:38)

Let's see.

C (110:42)

Yeah, this one is. Is more accessible. And by the way, this one is actually really good for. This is a. An Anglican scholar, Anglican liturgist. And this book is really good for refuting a lot of Protestant ideas, especially about. Oh, the, the. The early church was lowchurch. The early church didn't have any imagery. This book is actually pretty good for refuting that. So those are my recomm. Buckle buckets. What's up, man?

A (111:07)

Yeah, that's it. How's it going? First of all, happy early birthday, Jay.

D (111:10)

Thank you.

A (111:10)

And Nick, your. Your discussion with Junior is some of the most entertaining content I've seen recently. Recently. So that was fun.

C (111:17)

Is that. Is that the Muslim, what's his name?

A (111:21)

Yeah, with aspiring philosophy. That one, yeah. Oh, I thought that conversation was.

D (111:26)

He's like the newer guy on the team.

A (111:29)

I do have a question question for you, Jay. I've been watching your content, I would say for the past year, but I really started to watch a lot, a lot more of your philosophical content, content about philosophy and specifically about Tag and I. I've been seeing in like your debates and your videos that you use a lot of David Hume and the Problem of Criterion and even Barrett's kind of attack on. On Cogito kind of to kind of strengthen your arguments. And I've been doing a lot of research and readings on that. I was just wondering if you had any more recommendations to help even further bolster my arguments.

C (112:07)

Yeah, I mean, I think it's absolutely necessary if you want to go in that direction to read W.J. wood's book on epistemology. It's a really readable Christian version of epistemology. And so he stresses virtue ethics and how you can't. Can't really do secular epistemology because it's not going to make any sense. So it's really good for that. A more technical graduate level manual is the Bonjour text on epistemology, the Green Bonjour. It's usually used in grad school for grad classes on epistemology. So that one's really good. I mean, FDA has a lot of lectures and courses that are free on his channel Patristic Faith that you could do, but that really focuses on, you know, like certitude and epistemic questions. But I think it's really important also to understand the metaphysics stuff too. So I would say, you know, read like Copleston's. It's a whole series, but you could read Copleston's. I forget which volume it is on like the ancient Greeks and then like, you know, more modern stuff too. So the Copleston series. I'm actually going to buy the whole series. I only have like two volumes of it. I need to get the whole series. But Frederick Copleston on. On anything is pretty good for overview. All right. Do we have any oppositions? We had no ops yet. Really, so. And we got zero. Yeah, I mean, we've got 21 people in the chat.

D (113:25)

You come on my stream. That's all I get?

C (113:26)

That's. Yeah, I think they've just decided that, you know, it's not worth it to come over here. So both of us together are too powerful now. It's. Now both of us are like, nah, hell no, I'm not doing it. Okay, here we got a guy who's. So Colin wants to come back about the flood. Okay. What's up? Colin, you're back. Go ahead.

A (113:48)

Hello there. Yeah, sorry, I accidentally signed out last time.

C (113:51)

That's okay. I thought maybe you just left.

A (113:53)

Oh, no, no. So, yeah, I actually agree with most of the stuff that you.

B (114:01)

If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication, listen up. Up at Joy and Blokes, when you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan. And right now, all labs are 50 off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandbloks.com and use a promo code podcast. New customers get 50% off their labs. And for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more@joyandblooks.com oh, Colin, we're having a hard time.

C (115:05)

I can't hear you, man. Maybe you need to get nearer to your. To your hamster wheels. Sensei, what's up, man? Let's try some of these randos here with no, no pictures. Sensei, how you doing?

D (115:20)

Can you hear me?

C (115:21)

Jay? Huh?

A (115:22)

How you doing, brother? Hey, I have a question. Every time that I speak with Protestants when they try to justify solar scriptura, why is it that they always go to second Timothy 3, 16?

C (115:36)

I guess because it's one of the, you know, few places in the New Testament where you have explicit reference to the text of scripture and inspiration. So they, they think that it's kind of a kill shot. But they don't realize that there's, there's some really obvious problems with citing that for Sola Scriptura. First of all, all it says is that Scripture makes a man sufficient. It doesn't say that it's absolutely sufficient for, you know, for the entire life of the church or for the Christian because Paul says you got to do other things too. Like for example, don't forsake the assembling. Okay, well that text doesn't say that I need to attend the assembly. So does that mean that I could just take the second Timothy text and all that I need to, you know, for the man of God to be sufficient for every good work is to read the Scriptures? No. So it's, first of all, it's not this universal exclusionary statement. Secondly, Paul is talking about the Old Testament there. So if we're going to be consistent with that reasoning, then I don't need the New Testament because Paul is telling Timothy that he's known the scriptures from his youth. Well, the, what he's known from his youth is, is the Old Testament. So there is no canon of scripture yet. Paul has, there's books that, you know, book revelation hasn't been written yet. So it doesn't prove sol Scriptura. It, it just proves that the Scriptures are central and necessary to the life of the Christian.

A (116:48)

And in this verse, would you argue that Paul teaches what scripture is, not what books are Scripture?

C (116:56)

Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. When there's not a, there's not a can yet. That's, that's my point with the canon. Yeah.

A (117:01)

Okay. And then one more question, if you don't mind on this verse, if you press somebody on it and you ask them, okay, was this verse before or after the canonization with the process and.

D (117:13)

Have to then bite the bullet.

C (117:16)

Well, of course it was written before the canonization of Scriptures.

A (117:20)

No, I, I know, but if you know, they're very hard headed so they.

D (117:24)

Like to use this, like you said.

A (117:26)

To apply to the Old Testament. But like you said, when you actually go into the context, like you said, this is referring to the Old Testament, which you would agree was the Septuagint. So in the context of this, how can he Be referring to the New.

D (117:38)

Testament when we haven't even had a.

A (117:40)

Canon during that time.

C (117:42)

Exactly. Yeah, that's a doubled up good argument. Yeah. Because first of all, it is the Old Testament primarily. Paul's referring to the Septuagint and then which has the Deuterocanon, which is not the Protestant canon. And secondly, yeah, there's not a New Testament yet. Paul is still writing the New Testament. So. Absolutely. Yeah. I think those are great arguments. I mean, not Protestants are always going to just be like, you know, well, you know, it still teaches soul scriptura. Well, the other thing too is that there's other passages where Paul also says keep the traditions, like in second Thessalonians. So you can't just take this one verse and not also look at the other things that enjoin upon you, other things that are necessary. Nick, did you have any comment?

D (118:22)

I mean, yeah, I just think you're just going to be begging the question. I mean, if you're just going to say, oh, scripture says this, therefore we must abide by what scripture says, but then they'll actually have some sort of justification as to how they know it's scripture in the first place. You just, you're begging the question at that point. That's even scripture. So.

C (118:37)

A good point. Yeah. How do we even know that that's, you know, part of the canon Just because, you know, Paul wrote it? And how do we know Paul wrote that other than the tradition that the church, hands down, the Paul wrote it. Okay, here we have, I think a Muslim. Amin, what's up? You want to unmute?

A (118:55)

Poj, what's going on? Hey, what's going on? Nick, good to see you again.

D (119:00)

What's up, man?

A (119:01)

Hey, quick question for you. It's a, it's one question, but it's in two parts and I'll be as succinct as possible. I'm a Christian, by the way.

C (119:08)

Oh, I'm sorry. I saw Amin and I saw Arabic. I was like, okay, we finally got a Muslim.

A (119:12)

But sorry to disappoint.

C (119:14)

I'm disappointed that you're a Christian. No, I'm joking.

A (119:17)

So the question I have is about eed. I've been, been reading it a lot for the past couple of months. I read 150 chapters, read Basil's letter, 234, read St. John of Damascus. I read a bunch of books on it.

C (119:31)

And the question, did you read book three about Christology? Because that's where he really.

A (119:36)

Okay, yeah, I read book three. I believe that's chapter 15.

C (119:39)

Yeah.

A (119:41)

And so the, the question I have, like, I have an understanding of it pretty well, but I don't see any Church fathers explicitly stating that wisdom itself is an energy. And the reason I ask is because, you know, Second Peter, chapter one, verse four, says, you know, that's a crucial text for Eed, being partakers of the divine nature. But James chapter one, verse five says that if we don't have wisdom, we ought to ask of the one of God, and then he'll give wisdom to all who ask. And First Corinthians, chapter, I believe it's chapter I'm in the car driving. First Corinthians chapter one, verse 24, I think, says Christ is the wisdom of God. So my understanding of eed, you know, we partake in the energies, not in the essence. Being that we're partaking in the wisdom of God, Would that be an energy?

C (120:40)

It is. And the answer to this question is in Athanasius, because Athanasius and a lot of times when he's refuting the Arians. And by the way, I have a talk on this specific question. It's on my channel. It's really old, it's like seven years ago. Because Roman Catholics are trying to use this argument that calling Christ the wisdom of God collapses energy or attribute into person. No, as this gets explained later in the Church Fathers, because we have to understand that the reason that there's not explicit statements in every first, second, third century church father about every one of these issues is that the issues aren't raised yet. Nobody has really significantly questioned the essence energy distinction. Until you get mainly to Christology is where it really gets hits the nitty gritty. So what ends up happening is that, remember, all of the energies or attributes, they have a triadic movement, they proceed or move. This is called the energetic procession. They proceed from the Father through the Son in the Spirit. So that applies not just to the generation of the persons, but also the movement of the energies. And that means that every energy or attribute, you could also say the Son is the love of the Father. Well, does that mean that Jesus is love? Because we also have statements that the Holy Spirit is the love, right? Well, it's the manifestation in that sense, where the Holy Spirit manifests the love of God, the Son of God manifests the wisdom of the Father or the wisdom of God. But just to, in some passages equate person and energy does not mean they're, they're isomorphically like merged or that they're subsumed. There's still an essence energy distinction. But it's not wrong to call the Son the wisdom of God. And you see this in the argumentation about this. And I understand this because this actually tripped me up one time back in about 2015. I was actually tripped up by this question. I was debating a guy who ended up leaving orthodoxy, and he was arguing with me and he said, why would we call the sun the wisdom of God in Athanasius when wisdom is an energy of God? And the answer is, you have to get later into the. The doctrine of the procession and the manifestation of the energies. And that's the answer.

A (122:54)

Exactly. And yeah, okay, so. So then this goes into the second part of my question. And sorry for. You know, that's fine. But it's. To me, this is really interesting because I was researching, you know, some, some rebuttals and I was writing about this, actually some rebuttals to Mark 13:32. Now St. Basil and I actually did look up like, I actually used some of those writings from on the Incarnation. It's like in section 54, where he talks about how God became man so that man can become God. And this goes into theosis. What's really interesting is that St. Basil in letter 236, where he talks about. He gives like two really good reasons as to why Christ does know the hour. The first reason he gives his rhetoric, he says, you know the term no man can be used, it's rhetorical. But then he says something really interesting and he says, he basically says that because of monarchical trinitarianism, Jesus does not say that he knows the hour because knowledge starts with the Father first.

C (124:07)

And. Yeah, well, everything that the Son, everything the Son has is a dependence relationship on the Father. So that's correct.

A (124:15)

Exactly. So, so it started. It started getting me thinking, okay, so if that's going to be the case, then would this also be a reason as to why Christ knows the hour? Because, I mean, would you say that wisdom is synonymous with omniscience?

C (124:35)

That's a good question. You'd have to actually look at a lot of the patristic, like, explanations and exegesis of what exactly is the connotation of divine wisdom? I mean, sometimes they describe it as like the plan of creation, sometimes because of Proverbs 7 and 8. Sometimes they describe wisdom as. I mean, sometimes it's even described as the Holy Spirit, for example, in Sirach and, and Wisdom, the book of wisdom. Like the Holy Spirit won't come and abide in a soul that is unrepentant or impure. And so it's calls. It calls what abides in you in one place wisdom, and then another place the Holy Spirit. So we have also the identification of wisdom with the Holy Spirit. We have in other places where, as you said, Christ is called the wisdom of God. So wisdom is an energy common to all three, but manifests as every energy does in a unique way in each person. So the Father is the source of wisdom. The Son would be a unique manifestation of wisdom, and the Holy Spirit would be a unique manifestation of the wisdom of God. So I think that's. But I think you're right to point to Basil in terms of monarchical trinitarianism there too. And I did. My talk, by the way, is called I am that I am Essence, energy. Saint Athanasius instead of a consist cults. Because this argument was actually a Diamond brothers trad cat argument that was used a long time ago that. Well, Athanasius says Jesus is the wisdom of God. So wisdom is a divine essence. And they're all the same. They don't realize how dumb that would be an anti train. It would be modalist, like. So if you're going to collapse. If Jesus is an energy and an attribute and the attributes are identical to the essence, then Jesus is the essence. And now you're modalist. It's really stupid, but. So there's one more thing I want to recommend to you. You should read Crisis in Byzantium by Papadakis if you haven't read that, because this is very. It's a very important book for eternal manifestation. And also you should read Florovsky's paper called Athanasius and the Doctrine of Creation, because he shows definitively that Athanasius teaches the essence intersection.

D (126:40)

And read Wisdom of Solomon, specifically chapter seven through 10. Those are good for seeing wisdom as a person.

C (126:45)

Wisdom seven through ten. Yeah, exactly. Teaches the personification of the Spirit. I mean, wisdom.

A (126:52)

Okay, yeah. Because I know in chapter 75 on the 150 chapters, Palomas explicitly states that. I believe he's. Like I said, I'm driving. But I believe he says something to the effect of there's three realities in God. There is the essence, there are a triad of persons, and then there's the. The energy. So even, by the way, this is.

C (127:13)

This is the point.

A (127:14)

Doesn't make any sense.

C (127:15)

Exactly. And I'm glad you mentioned that, because this is. When you hear me always say Palomas talks about there's three planes in God, pla and E. That's the thing I'M referring to that right there.

A (127:26)

Okay. All right, guys. Well, I won't take up too much of your time. Thank you so much. And I'll get on those. Those.

C (127:31)

Oh, good job, man. You're doing really good reading there. You're on the right rock. Nick, do you want to say anything about that?

D (127:39)

No, I was gonna say wisdom seven through ten. I mean, it's. It's really good for. If he wants to learn the. The personification portion of it. I mean, it literally calls wisdom, like omnipresent, omniscient. Says that it was the one who rescued them in the flood. So it's like, actually right action bearing someone that's doing something. So I think it's literally the most clear thing ever to. And just a lot of people just don't read it because, you know, know, most people that convert to Orthodoxy come from a Protestant background, and they're never taught these books, so they never think to look into them.

C (128:08)

Exactly.

D (128:09)

When I read Wisdom of Solomon, I was so mad that I was, you.

C (128:12)

Know, that was deprived of that. I was felt the same way because I went. When I became Calvin Back in 2003, I started reading the Deuterocan. I was like, why? Why were we deprived of this? And then when I became Orthodox, I reread the Duro Canon and we. On my. On my channel, guys, we do have a lecture through the entirety of Siroc. If you want to go back and find. Find the. The C lectures. Don says, I'm a former atheist. I converted. I'm a current agnostic. I have bought that Mind of God book that you recommended by Paul Davies. Yeah, that's a good book. I worked through the Presocratics, Plato, Clement, and Philo. For my first time, I've dabbled in some of Neoplatonism. What is the Church, Father? I should read first? Well, I would say if you're coming from an agnostic perspective, I would start with something like S. Athanasius's essay Ad Genti because it's a pretty good little apologetic against, like, paganism and whatnot. And then I would read something like the. Hold on, I bumped my camera here. I got to get it straight. Then I would read maybe Fount of Knowledge by John Damascus, because he gives a good kind of layout of patristic philosophy. But like I said, in terms of triadic theology, I would not begin with. With Augustine. I would begin with the Cappadocians, like the five Orations of Gregory, Nazianzus. And that's a little book you can get from St. Vladimir's so I would start with those to get introduced to patristic theology. Zayn for a hundred dollars. What's up man? Now y' all are being generous now because we said it was my birthday. I gotta say it's my birthday every time I do a stream now it's suddenly gonna be a lot of birthdays around here. It's. Hold on, we got a bunch more super chats on this. Let me go back. It's Grizziac. It's Grizziac. It's $20. God bless you both. Jay and Nick. Happy birthday, Jay. Thank you, man. Appreciate that. Guys are being really generous today. Web man yalls names, dude, like can't somebody just come up with like a pronounceable basic name? Y' all come up with the craziest names on here. Web Citycolo 28. Jay, I love your videos. I heard you on Lord Voldemort say the P A N D emic was plan. Was it all fake? Well, I mean, I think people got sick. People got something. So I don't think everything was fake, but I don't think that a lot of what we were, you know, told and sold was real. Was all of this intentional and also real? Yeah, to a degree. I'm not a virologist, so I don't know exactly how all that works, but I think that there was something going around. I think it was, you know. Well, we're on YouTube, but, you know, you get the idea. Jaw Juan. $5. What do you think about Myophysitism versus Diaphysitism? Well, we are. We are currently going through a massive lecture series on my channel. If you type in Oriental Orthodoxy refuted, you'll get four or five installments that we've done so far. And I think we're going to do eventually. 10. What exists after the incarnation? Two will, two wills, two natures and two energies in one single divine hypostasis. How are the operations and will different between the two? Well, one of them is created and one of those uncreated. That's the difference. True. $5. Jay. Nick, where are all the Muslims and the Mormons at? Get them in here.

A (131:35)

Here.

C (131:35)

We're trying.

D (131:36)

They're scared.

C (131:38)

Listen, you guys can be the recruiters. So you got the link. Send that link to, you know, all your Mormon buddies and your Muslim buddies.

D (131:48)

So the link is on Twitter. Tick tock, all that good stuff.

C (131:51)

The link is in the chat. Zane says for a hundred dollars, science isn't the problem. As in science itself. Rather, it's a deduction method for the physical world. I agree with that. Yeah, sure, Yeah. I think science is a tool for studying and understanding the natural world and that's it. So it's a limited tool. It can't tell you, for example, grand narratives of where we came from and all this kind of stuff. And that's where science goes outside of its bounds and becomes scientism. The problem with science is that they use a quote mathematical theory such as multiverse or quote dark matter. By the way, that's all speculation and metaphysics, which supposedly modern science and scientism is against. They say it is true and that it exists in an almost purely metaphysical way. Exactly. That's the the main critique here is.

B (132:39)

That if you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication, Listen up at Joy and Blokes when you start TRT or Enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan and right now all labs are 50 off off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and Blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use a promo code. Podcast new customers get 50 off their labs and for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or Enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more@joyandbloaks.com.