Pt 2 HEATED DEBATES! CRASHOUT CONTINUES! DAILY WIRE, CHOLO CHURCH, JAY ON PIERS MORGAN!

Summary

---

Jay’sAnalysis Podcast – Episode Summary

Podcast: Jay’sAnalysis
Episode: Pt 2 HEATED DEBATES! CRASHOUT CONTINUES! DAILY WIRE, CHOLO CHURCH, JAY ON PIERS MORGAN!
Date: May 18, 2026
Host: Jay Dyer
Guests / Callers: Andrew Wilson, Daniel (character), various callers

---

EPISODE OVERVIEW

Theme:
This episode is a dynamic, often combative breakdown of current debates and controversies in the Christian online apologetics sphere. Jay Dyer, joined by Andrew Wilson and Daniel (character), tackles subjects like tribalism, accusations of interfaith "guilt by association," the legitimacy of churchless apologetics, the “Protestant Dilemma,” and debates over authority, canon, and church tradition. The episode also addresses recurring online drama involving critics such as David Wood and others, while taking numerous spirited calls and engaging in debates with Protestants and atheists.

---

KEY DISCUSSION POINTS & INSIGHTS

1. Guilt by Association & the Drama with David Wood et al.

• Main Issue:
  Jay Dyer and crew address accusations from David Wood and others that agreeing with a proposition from someone outside your faith makes you culpable for their agenda, particularly if it’s Muslims attacking other Christians online.
• Jay’s Core Argument:
  Agreeing with one statement does not entail agreement or alliance with all the person’s subsequent actions, nor their motives (see [11:07], [13:43]).
  • “If a Democrat says a Democrat politician ruined a city and you agreed with that tweet, this dumbass line of argumentation…this is like what children learn, right?” [11:07]
• On Inductive Reasoning:
  Jay rebuts the idea that public agreement gives collective guilt: “That’s the collective guilt model of the Left. This is what they do to all of us on the right.” [18:08]
  • “How does David Wood know that my motives were to get Muslims to help me? Does he have access to my interior disposition?” [09:53]
• Meta Point:
  Much of the opposition is focused on optics and emotionalism, not substance:
  “All these people want to do is have the meta debate about debating and about motivations, which is so gay because you can never prove people's motives…” [08:38]

2. Nature & Necessity of the Church in Apologetics

• Theme:
  Jay insists that uncoupling Jesus from the visible, historic church—the “mere Christianity” approach of many Protestants—is untenable.
  • “There’s no churchless apologetics. It doesn’t exist.” [77:17+, 142:46]
  • “How do you have Jesus without church? It’s just nonsense.” [45:02]
• Canon and Authority:
  Protestants lack a consistent and historical basis for their biblical canon without tradition—what Jay coins as the “Protestant dilemma.”
  • “Where did you get your Bible from? What tradition are you relying on for the canon?” [43:07]
  • “Who in the first three centuries has the Protestant canon?...Nobody. Exactly.” [77:26]
• On Councils and Synods:
  Unity of doctrine was historically decided corporately, not individually, which undermines the Protestant interpretive model.

3. Debate Tactics: Ad Hominem, Motives, and the Leftist Playbook

• Collective Guilt:
  Jay highlights parallels between contemporary apologetics drama and left-wing debate tactics, calling out “collective guilt” and “guilt by association.”
  • “This is exactly what the Left does. This is all Saul Alinsky left tactics.” [26:20]
  • “Classic leftist tactic. Come on, dude.” [12:45]
• Call for Intellectual Honesty:
  Jay criticizes “debates about the motives,” which amount to innuendo and pigeonholing, rather than substantive disagreements:
  • “Weak ass, no good basic debaters love to debate emotion because it’s super effeminate and unprovable.” [09:04]
  • “If you agree with a person 95% and disagree with one proposition, you’re in league with the person that you disagree with with like 95%...this is how crazy this is.” [24:27]

4. Debating Protestants, Muslims, and Atheists

• on Upcoming Debates:
  Jay mentions setting up in-person debates with Catholic apologist Trent Horn on (1) whether Orthodox Christianity fits the early church and (2) whether the Roman Catholic Church changed its doctrine of church and state post–Vatican II. [06:37]
  • “Props to Trent Horn for being willing to step up to the plate.” [06:37]
  • “I'm debating another Muslim… but that's because I'm in league with Muslims, according to David Wood.” (sarcasm) [07:50]
• Debate with Atheist Caller:
  At length, Jay critiques the atheist use of analytic/synthetic distinctions, pressing for meta-justification, and arguing that materialist worldviews cannot ground epistemology. [54:02–64:39]
  • “How do I know the word energy or matter corresponds to anything meaningful in the world?” [60:02]
  • “If you allow people to say, ‘well, this is just self-evident,’ the debate becomes pointless.” [64:16]
• On Protestant Callers and Ecclesiology:
  Multiple Protestant callers raise questions about authority, the fathers, and the reliability of tradition.
  • “We do not say the Fathers are above the Bible…they work together in synergy.” [51:07]
  • “You don’t have to, like, immediately know everything or be expected to have some like vastly worked out worldview…” [46:30]

---

NOTABLE QUOTES & MEMORABLE MOMENTS

• Jay parodying the guilt-by-association logic:
  “If I make ‘Mormon Space Wives’ the banger hit single of the year, I guess I’m Mormon now because Mormons like that song.” [00:39]

• Jay on Leftist tactics in debate:
  “This is agitprop. That’s all it is…David Wood’s side. It’s just agitprop.” [27:46]

• On Church authority and the canon:
  “How would they know? Well, there is a collective understanding...the prophets, they have authority...there are signs that accompany their texts. Their texts predict the future.” [69:14]

---

TIMESTAMPS FOR IMPORTANT SEGMENTS

• The Nature of Online Drama and Guilt by Association: [00:39] – [13:25]
• Meta-debates and Leftist Tactics: [18:08], [26:20]
• Debate Announcements (Trent Horn, Muslims): [06:37] – [07:50]
• On Motives in Argumentation: [09:04], [12:45]
• On the Protestant Dilemma and Canon Issues: [43:07]+, [77:17] –[81:07]
• Atheist/Materialist Debate on TAG: [54:02] – [64:39]
• Handling Calls on Protestant Authority, Tradition: [44:13] – [53:12]
• Handling Questions on Church Liturgy/Nationalities/Unity: [92:26] – [99:56]
• On The Christian State Debate (with Russia and Roman Catholicism): [100:29+]
• Superchats, Community Engagement, and Humorous Parodies: [122:04]–end

---

TONE AND STYLE

• Jay Dyer’s Tone:
  Sharp, irreverent, sarcastic, but often insightful and methodical in theological reasoning. Equal parts roasting and rigorous philosophical theology.
• Atmosphere:
  “Open house” discussion with hard-hitting debate and interactive caller Q&A segments.

---

CONCLUSION

This episode of Jay’sAnalysis epitomizes the current fracture lines in apologetics—where issues of tradition, authority, and interfaith debate come to a head amid the noise of internet drama and equivocation. Jay calls his audience to rational consistency, historic rootedness, and the necessity of the visible church, pushing back against both emotional arguments and reductionist, “churchless” Christianity. It’s a must-listen for those following the ever-shifting landscape of contemporary religious polemics.

---

For Further Reference:

• [06:37] Jay on upcoming debates
• [43:07] The Protestant Dilemma explained
• [51:07] Authority of Church Fathers vs. Scripture
• [54:02–64:39] Materialist worldview debate
• [77:17–81:07] On the canon and tradition
• [92:26–100:29] On Orthodox liturgy, unity, and nationalism
• [100:29–102:40] On Christian state and church-separation issues

Memorable Jay Line:
“If you agree with a person 95% and disagree with one proposition, you’re in league with the person that you disagree with with like 95%. This is how crazy this is.” [24:27]

---

See Jay’s YouTube or podcast platforms for the full episode and debate links.

Transcript

[Jay Dyer]

Hot take. You can disagree with someone and not hate them. I know really groundbreaking stuff, but lately that line seems blurry because hate is rising across communities in all kinds of ways, and Jewish communities are getting a lot of it right now. You don't have to agree with people. You just have to not be awful. The blue square is a simple way to say, I'm with you and I don't tolerate hate of any kind. Go to bluesquarealliance.org, get a pin, share it, and stand up. If the world were like a Sleep Number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Because as your life changes and your body changes, Sleep number mattresses adapt and

[Andrew Wilson]

shift to give you personalized comfort night after night.

[Jay Dyer]

And now everything's on sale during our Memorial Day event. Save up to $1,200 on mattresses for a limited time to experience a whole new world of comfort. Visit a Sleep Number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life Sleep. I wanted the clicks. I would just pretend to be everybody's friend and be an ecumenist. How does it benefit me for clicks and numbers to make everybody mad? It doesn't. Makes no sense. It's just like Cleave said. I would just be like, yeah, dude, we're all. We're all wanting Jesus, bro. I would even say the more the Mormons are Jesus too, bro. They believe Jesus, Lord. They were all the same, dude. So I guess if I make Mormon Space Wives the banger hit single of the year, I guess I'm Mormon now because Mormons like that song. Did you know Mormons like the song, which is making fun of them? They still like it because it's hard not to. Well, I guess I'm with the Mormons now. Andrew Wilson said bingo today or yesterday on a today on a Mormon or on a Muslim tweet. So Andrew's Mormon now. I said bingo several times on Tim Gordon's tweets. I'm a Roma Gallic now. I'm exposed papist to do this, but

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

it is Jay Dyer's. If Jay Dyer has inductively reasoned out that he believes that Avery is a grifter, whether I agree that he's a grifter or not, the inductive reasoning for what Jay gave is fine.

[Jay Dyer]

What the Muslim dude said is a fair question. If Avery is not a grifter, then he needs to pick a church. That's a true statement. Do I know Avery's heart? No, I don't. But as Catholic moral theology says the interior disposition is manifested by the exterior actions. Right. Which is why, for example, you can't pray in the mosques, pray in the synagogues. That's an interior disposition of apostasy that is manifested in an exterior action. That's classic moral theology in the Catholic Church. That's Alfonso Segori. That's. There's moral theology. So I'm just pointing out, not calling out the Catholics in this point. I'm just saying I think that's pretty obvious. I agree with that. You can't divorce exterior actions from interior disposition. The two are connected. So if that's the case, you can't be churchless apologist for several years. But again, you notice these guys don't want to take a position because it would hurt the audience. They're going to lose if Avery were to say, oh, I'm Orthodox. If IP were to say I'm Roman Catholic. By the way, somebody told me IP is Roman Catholic now. Okay, Nobody knows this. Does he not have enough confidence in the position that he's taken to publicly defend it? Tim Gordon defends his faith. I'm trying to think of a. I can't even. Are there any Protestants actually will just defend their position? I'm trying to think of one that defends it. At least that independent Baptist cult dude defended it. I mean, it was batshit crazy. Dude says there's an uncreated KJV in heaven, which is literal Sunni insanity, but at least he'll come and defend it. I mean, he's insane as all get out and was an absolute, but at least he'll defend it. Where's West Huff? West Huff has one debate with Billy Corson, the Internet's dumbest bipoc person, lowest hanging fruit possible. And the whole Internet's. Oh my gosh, West Hoff. Oh my gosh. West Hoff is the king daddy of Protestant apologetics. Okay, well, so when's he going to debate an actual opponent? I mean, dude like Tim Gordon's children could beat Billy Carson in a debate. I'm being serious. I think they actually could. I mean, 100% serious. I met Tim and his family. Shout out to them. They're great people. His kids are smart kids. They would be. They would beat Billy Carson in debate. Okay, so why won't Wes Huff defend Protestantism to anyone? Doesn't have to even be me. I don't care. I don't care if he debates me or not. He could go debate anybody. I don't even think he'll debate. Trent Horn will. He has that Maybe that's happened. I don't know. If they had a, it wouldn't be a debate. It would have to be a friendly conversation. We don't use the word debate because that's mean and offensive. Okay, well your friendly conversations, whatever your. What's that, what's that that women do where they get together and have like gossip sessions, tea talk or whatever. Let's have a tea talk. Let's. Let's have a tea talk that's non offensive and it's set in a safe space. We'll do it at Starbucks or a gender affirming coffee shop where no one feels offensive. We'll have quiet rooms where if the language gets a little too heated, people can go walk into the, the quiet safe space rooms and calm down. Maybe they had that, I don't know.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

And if he agrees to a set of propositions, it says bingo. For you to say that he's going out to embolden a bunch of Muslims to destroy you is one step too far. And you can't seem to tie that together. When are you going to tie it together?

[Jay Dyer]

By the way, speaking of Trent Horn, I drive my bus in a busy city. That's why road safety is so important to me. I know that I must slow down and be extra careful when I make a wide turn. Buses need more room than cars. Everyone can help keep our roads safe. Next time you're driving, remember to give

[Caller 1]

buses plenty of time and space to finish turning before driving ahead.

[Jay Dyer]

Let's all plan to share the road safely.

[Caller 1]

Learn how at www.sharetherodesafely.gov

[Jay Dyer]

it does look like we will have a two part debate. It does look like that will happen. It looks like MDD will host an in person, in person, part one and part two debate. I told Trent Horn that if I agreed to his prompt, he had to agree to my prompt. So we will be debating something about whether orthodox Christianity matches up to the first few centuries that the full prompt has not been laid out. And then the second prompt is did the Roman Catholic Church depart on its teaching of church and state after Vatican ii. So two interesting debates that are going to happen. It seems like via MDD in the near future we're going to nail down dates and whatnot. So props to Trent Horn for being willing to step up to the plate. I assume perhaps the esteemed Tim Gordon had some role. I don't know. I'm just speculating in trying to help in the background to sort of. I don't know. That's my speculation. But we'll see. So that one's going to be a fun one. And then I think there was supposed to be another debate. Oh, I'm debating another Muslim. Oh, remember? So I'm going to debate Trent Horn and a Muslim at mdd, but that's because I'm in league with Muslims, according to David Wood.

[Andrew Wilson]

It's not what I'm saying though. So let, let's, let's change, let's change a little bit if Dawa guys are tossing something out there. And I would say, obviously, obviously fishing for an ortho bro during The Ortho Bro vs. Avery controversy and he's tossing something up because they always do this. They always do this. Anytime there's some conflict, they jump in there and, and they go after the

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

person that is don't care about their motivation.

[Andrew Wilson]

Just let you talk for like four minutes straight.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yeah, but their motivation is irrelevant. You didn't let me talk.

[Andrew Wilson]

I'm, I'm modifying it. I'm modifying it. So if these guys are obviously fishing,

[Jay Dyer]

all these people want to do is have the meta debate about debating and about motivations, which is so gay because you can never prove people's motives unless you have like some explicit, you know, leak where they're like, ahaha, I'm going to pretend to be something and I will dupe them all. Like unless you have that, like, you can't know people's motives. Right. It's hard to know unless there's explicit external actions that somehow tell you their motives or something.

[Caller 2]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

So. But weak ass, no good basic debaters love to debate emotion because it's super effeminate and unprovable. And it's a very easy way to make people look bad because then everybody's just start thinking about, oh yeah, he's got bad motives. By the way, I didn't debate Ruslan about his motives. We didn't start calling him out until he started doing bad actions and suggested his motives. And people found the clips of him saying, yo, yo, yo, I gotta make money, dog. I gotta monetize this audience. Right? Becoming Saint Wigger of the Internet.

[Andrew Wilson]

That has nothing to do with Jay. Their motivations. But they're obviously fishing, trying to get the people who are already mad at Avery to help them to help them. So they say, hey, Avery's a grifter and what they want is some.

[Jay Dyer]

How does David Wood know that my motives were to get Muslims to help me? Does he have access to my interior disposition? How does he know that?

[Andrew Wilson]

Stands to agree. Yes. Avery is a grifter and you go with it because you've made your induction, because you agree. Yeah. You go to them and say, you Dawa guys are absolutely correct about this person that you're attacking, because you can't answer that and that that should be fine. Right?

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

So if Ruslan says his motives are to get paid and to get seven figures, it does it. Is it out of. Is it insane for me to say that maybe Ruslan's a grifter? Yo, I'm trying to monetize this audience, man. Yo, dog, I'm trying to get. I'm trying to get paid because I like shoes, I like money. Actual quotes, by the way. So is it outlandish to think that maybe Ruslan's a grifter? Of course not. What evidence does David Wood have that I'm in league with the Muslims? Because I agree with the tweet.

[Andrew Wilson]

If you agree with that, it should be fine.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yeah. Let me just ask back the same exact question. So if Dallinist says Gretchen Whitmer is a who ruined Michigan? And I went bingo, I went bingo. Right. I am now affirming all Dallas because they're setting a trap.

[Jay Dyer]

That's not. If. So if a Democrat says that a Democrat politician ruined a. A city and you agreed with that tweet by this dumbass line of argumentation, this is like. This is like what children learn, right? This isn't. This is like high school, grammar school era. Like, what you should be learning about logic and argumentation. Obviously, that doesn't make me a Democrat. Right. I mean, this is like. This shouldn't even. We are. It's funny to me that we're even having to have those discussions. Like, we. We'll get 3, 000 people over here watching this live stream about this dumb. But if I do a live stream about church history, pick any intellectual topic, we'll get 100 people in here. 800 people, I should say. But people love this drama stuff. And I think David Wood knows that the lowest common denominator also seems to also perhaps translate to lowest IQ denominator enemy.

[Andrew Wilson]

I've never said that he's responsible. He's assisting them, assisting them. He assist. He's assisting them, discrediting Avery.

[Jay Dyer]

So there you go. So if you ever agreed with a Democrat's tweet, if a Democrat was calling out something, then you're a Democrat. This is so silly.

[Andrew Wilson]

It's already being used. It's already being used.

[Jay Dyer]

That they're already using. They're already using.

[Andrew Wilson]

You see? You see? Orthobros agree with us.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

How's that J?

[Andrew Wilson]

Because he went to them and agreed with them and affirmed this about this guy.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

How is their respons. How is it his responsibility what they do, which is nefarious with what he said. Go use this to discredit Avery, can you?

[Jay Dyer]

Collective guilt. Classic leftist tactic. Come on, dude. Again, like, I think what's happened with a lot of these dudes is they've spent so much time in the anti Islam Islamianity sphere and dealing with all these Muslims that they realize the effectiveness for numbers and for low, low information voters. Probably the best low information people, the evangelicals and the Muslims. I love them all, by the way. Probably the best great people. Great people are wonder. Wonderful people. Probably the best. They know that this works and so now they're doing the tactics.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Show me that.

[Andrew Wilson]

How are you not getting this? If they said again, if someone said 80% of what Andrew says is a lie and these again, these are. It's not just a random person who's come to this conclusion. It's a person who is known for just making crap up about you. Daniel goes to him and says bingo, you're absolutely.

[Jay Dyer]

I disagreed with Andrew about Epstein and I agreed with. I agreed with. Not with Jake Shields attacks, but with Jake's shield's specific comment about Epstein. I then told Jake Shields that his response to Andrew and Rachel was unfair and wrong. But I agreed with Jake Sill's statement that Epstein had more going on. Thus that makes me then against Andrew and now on the side of Jake Shields. Even though I offered multiple times to debate Jake Shields and pointed out multiple times where I disagree with him. You see how silly this is. It's just left tactics. Even though I tend to agree probably 90, 95 with what Andrew says, if I disagreed on one point that that then makes me a partisan of some other. It's just so silly like and. But it's actually good because people are realizing that our sphere, typically we do have some loons and some weirdos, but typically our sphere doesn't operate this way. Like we try to steal men positions. We try to. We may not always do it right. Again, if I said the papacy. The Roman Catholics are liars because they teach the papacy is indefectible or is impeccable. They teach the Pope can't sin. No, they don't teach that. That would be misrepresenting their position.

[Andrew Wilson]

Bingo, you're absolutely correct. He lies 80% of the time. And then they use this. You're saying there's. There's no problem with him because there's no problem with him because they use it.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yeah. If they use that to affirm ideology.

[Jay Dyer]

I agree with Piers Morgan today. Right. There was two points in today's discussion where I agree with Pierce. I guess I'm a liberal Catholic, like Piers Morgan now or whatever his specific, specific position is. And then I agreed with that goofy Emily Saves America chick, but then I disagreed with her. Oh, so which position am I in now? Am I maga tard Emily Saves America, or am I Piers Morgan side, or am I on Dave Smith's side? Like, as you guys will see in tomorrow's Piers Morgan episode, everybody was agreeing to disagree with everybody for, like, the entire time. So how does this work in David Wood's weird system here?

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Did not agree with or agree to.

[Andrew Wilson]

No, there's a friend attack on you.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

How the hell am I responsible for that? I wouldn't be responsible for that.

[Andrew Wilson]

No, Daniel, he's.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yeah, yeah, but I'm just interjecting myself here as the Daniel character. Okay. Or somebody else. Right. I'm on the receiving.

[Jay Dyer]

One of the Muslims said that, quoting. I forget what he was quoting, but he said something like, it is a gift of God to be given a. To be given a wife is a gift of a righteous man or something. I don't know if he's quoting the Quran or one of the proverbs. I didn't see the whole. But Andrew said, you are. You said, bingo. So again, you see how silly this is now. So now Andrew's a Muslim because he agreed with the Muslims. Correct proposition. By the way, this is very similar to the Mason debate. Remember that? Because the Mason said, if you say the Pledge of Allegiance, it's no different than joining the Masonic Lodge because you're affirming the correct proposition. And then, as we saw in that whole debate, well, it turns out the proposition actually included a bunch of qualifications and a referent. And so there's a difference between the proposition itself and what it refers to. So likewise here, same situation. There's all we can. We can present all kinds of absurd cases, which is what Andrew's doing here, where it's obvious that you could agree to a person's proposition, and you don't even have to necessarily affirm the same referent. If I say the Pledge of Allegiance, and I think, okay, I interpret that as the one true God and not the generic Masonic deity, that's actually not inconsistent with my position. But it also doesn't mean that we're all worshiping the same God. Because we use the same proposition.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

End of this. Can you tie in how Jay Dyer would be responsible for these guys using him saying bingo to them to a specific set of propositions? How the hell is it that Jay is now responsible for these guys using that in a nefarious way?

[Jay Dyer]

That's the collective guilt model of the left. This is what they do to all of us on the right. I don't know how people don't see this. Right. If you're on the right, you know that the left says if you say a proposition and if somebody agrees with that proposition and goes and does an act of violence, you are responsible for that. Even though the left, by the way, openly calls for violence, setting aside that ridiculous contradictory fact so they actually believe violence is fine as long as it's them doing the violence. But if you agree with a proposition of a person that committed an actual activity, you are now also an associate of that crime. This is so stupid. Like, just think about this in a courtroom setting. Okay, I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's pretty obvious that I would not be convicted of. Unless a corrupt judge or something. I would not be convicted of a crime because I agree with the person's worldview who did the crime.

[Andrew Wilson]

This is so stupid because he handed it to them. He gave it to them. No thank. If let's suppose it's one isolated Christian.

[Jay Dyer]

No, you're absolutely right in the chat. It's actually Muslim logic. I think David Wood knows that Muslim logic is super retardo and low tier. That'll actually work to bait a bunch of people with emotional appeals.

[Andrew Wilson]

Just hates you because you, you, you always bake this guy. And he can't answer you, can't answer you. And again, he spends all his time calling your wife a whore. But because obviously, obviously he can't answer you. So he's just.

[Jay Dyer]

I don't spend all of my time attacking Protestants is another lie. Right? Everybody in the last year complained all you do is spend your time attacking Catholics. You only attack Catholics, which is not true. We're equal opportunity offenders. We went after Muslims. We went after again. I've debated more Muslims than I have Protestants. I think I've debated more Muslims than I have Roman Catholics. I debated more atheists than I have Roman Catholics. So we're equal opportunity offenders. That means that it's not true that we spend all of our time attacking Avery. This is just such like nonsense trying

[Andrew Wilson]

to attack you in any way.

[Jay Dyer]

And then of all didn't even attack Avery. We made a mild A mild criticism and an offer for formal debates. These people all say that's attack people

[Andrew Wilson]

Daniel could go and agree with. He goes to this particular person who's been calling your wife and therefore should be pretty darn obviously not the most reliable person and says bingo. When the guy says you lie 80% of the time, you wouldn't see any connect like he has.

[Jay Dyer]

Even if it's true that The Muslim lies 80% of the time, which he probably does, if he says something true, it's true regardless of his 80 of the time lying, it doesn't matter. Again, Judas said true propositions, they don't become false because Judas said it. That's a genetic fallacy.

[Andrew Wilson]

No response. Daniel would bear no responsibility for this being used to discredit you.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

I know that you love philosophy, which is why it's so bizarre that you don't seem to understand Basic.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I don't. I have a hard time believing that. I don't know what kind of philosophy degree he has. He never heard of a genetic fallacy. He never heard of guilt by association. I mean, what the heck did he study in philosophy?

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Logic it is.

[Andrew Wilson]

In fact, this isn't even logic.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

It is logic.

[Jay Dyer]

It is. This is like basic informal fallacies, dude.

[Andrew Wilson]

This is a logic sense here.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

This is a logical induction. You're making an induction. How are you not. You're not making a logical induction here, David.

[Andrew Wilson]

What are you even talking about?

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

I'm saying that you're saying event A leads to event B, which leads to event C. That's inductive reasoning. That's inductive logic.

[Andrew Wilson]

That's not, that's not even, that's not even what we're talking about. Yes, it is.

[Jay Dyer]

It is. You're make. You're drawing a conclusion based on a couple instances and you're then saying that there's moral. All these moral infractions from this, again, it's. It's not even an accurate presentation of what happened.

[Andrew Wilson]

And it's bad to go to a person who has nothing, who has nothing but bad intentions, and to affirm.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, by the way, you just said that the Muslim or the person attacking a person, you said that 80% of the time they lie, but 20% of the time they're telling the truth. Then even by Your own admission, 20% of the time they don't have bad motives because they're telling the truth, but they could also tell the truth from bad motives. But again, but none of that. The motivations don't have anything to do with whether propositions are true, firm and

[Andrew Wilson]

to affirm what they're claiming about someone when they are obvious.

[Jay Dyer]

So this is a. He has a weird ethic. I don't know where he's gotten this idea that if you ever agree with a person, you're ethically. You are immoral because they're a bad person. It's very bizarre ethic, by the way. And. But how can you. How are you supposed to know everybody's moral character via the Internet, by the way? Think how impossible this would be to actually uphold on the Internet. Right? You don't know everybody's moral character by interacting online. So I'm only supposed to agree with people that have good moral character. How do you determine that? Via the Internet? And by the way, even in court settings, there would be. Even if I was guilty of all this stuff, there would still be an alleviation or a laxing of the guiltiness because I did not know who this person was that I agreed with or his background track record,

[Andrew Wilson]

obviously. Just trying to describe David.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Now you're. Now you're making. Now you're making a normative claim. Yeah, that's. That would be a normative claim. And so now that you're making a normative claim, that's at least logic. Right? We're getting into the domain of logic,

[Jay Dyer]

this domain of ethics, and we need to know on what basis this normative claim of you ought not do that in David's churchless theology is. Is wrong.

[Caller 3]

No.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yes.

[Andrew Wilson]

Not required logic here. Someone, someone.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

No logic is required for you to make normative claims. Really?

[Jay Dyer]

He just said no logic is required as a philosophy PhD to talk about the ethical norms here. This is crazy.

[Andrew Wilson]

Oh, my goodness.

[Jay Dyer]

No, no.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

You don't need logic for normal.

[Andrew Wilson]

You heard it. You heard it here, folks. You heard it here. So now.

[Jay Dyer]

Now he's doing an audience appeal. Oh, you heard it here. There we go.

[Andrew Wilson]

You can go out. You can go out. You can go out.

[Jay Dyer]

He just. Yeah, he just lost the argument right there, logically speaking. And then says logic doesn't really matter

[Andrew Wilson]

to Andrew Wilson's worst enemy. Affirm whatever that person is making up. Believe it. And then that person can again.

[Jay Dyer]

I agreed with Jake Shields's one proposition about Epstein being more than a ring of criminals or whatever, which Andrew did affirm that Epstein is a criminal. So he wasn't defending Epstein, but Andrew argued that he didn't think that it was convincing beyond certain limited convicted crimes. I believe that there's more in the files that could be more convincing. Does that mean that I'm on a conspiracy in league with Jake shield. When I also then turn around and say, Jake Shields, I disagree with you about all these other things. This is how. So if you agree with a person 95% and disagree with one proposition, you're in league with the person that you disagree with with like 95%. I mean, this is how crazy this is.

[Andrew Wilson]

Use what you said to discredit this person. Even though it's all complete nonsense, with no evidence and you've done nothing, nothing incorrect. It's a good idea. Help the Dawa guys as much as possible.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

I see any notice of.

[Jay Dyer]

He just, he did a non sequitur there because I disagree with one proposition. Now I'm helping the Dawa guys as much as possible. What just absolutely crazy level. This is how women argue. If you argue with a woman, they will be like, if you disagree with them, why do you hate me? You don't love me anymore. How did you get that from? We're not going to go on this, you know, vacation. Oh, you don't love me anymore. Right. It's an emotional reaction. It's not grounded in. Come on, that's not reasonable. Right? That's like David Wood's reaction is like, you do you agree with a Muslim? You are jihadi.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Now, if any of you have a statement of agreement with anybody who doesn't like David Wood, you're not allowed to say anything to them about how you agree with them because they might use it nefariously against the beliefs of.

[Jay Dyer]

This is the left, dude. This is exactly what the left does. This is all Saul Alinsky left tactics. And you remember when Saul Alinsky talks about these tactics, you know, he says stuff like, you're not arguing to get to the truth when you're debating people. This is why you can't debate committed communists, by the way. And if you doubt me, everybody go watch my debate with Haas, which is like five minutes of him just screaming and cussing me out, making no arguments because Haas is actually a committed communist and he knows that debate is not about trying to arrive at the truth. And dum dums think that I'm gonna debate a communist because we both would just want to find the truth. No, they don't. They do not believe debate is about finding truth. They think debate is an action of it's revolutionary action. So their job in a debate is to scream, cry, cuss, agit, prop, agitate, make a big fuss, make a big stink, and have nothing to do with actual argumentation because it's a revolutionary act to negate the opposition. So what matters is to create more opposition and not actually finding or discovering truth. Because that's not what debate is for a committed communist. Right. That's Alinsky style tactics. Oh, interesting. That's exactly what David was doing.

[Andrew Wilson]

If someone. If someone is known for. If someone is known. If someone is known for.

[Jay Dyer]

This is agitprop. It just occur. It just dawned on me. This is just agitprop. That's all it is. Like it's not an actual argument, I'm saying from David Wood side. It's just agitpro.

[Andrew Wilson]

Making things up, going after people's families, things like that. And then. And then you go and agree with that person's latest.

[Jay Dyer]

So he's playing victim. As if this means that all of orthodoxy. He literally. He said this on the stream today. He said orthodoxy is. Is trying to work with Muslims to come after him. All because of agreeing with some random Muslim dude's comment on Avery critiquing Avery. See how it just like this is literal conspiracy Temple David Wood makes fun of me as a tinfoil hat lunatic and he's literally saying that the Muslim world and the orthodox Christian world is conspiring to get him. Because I like the tweet talk about Temple hat dude thing that he made up. Yeah.

[Andrew Wilson]

Yeah, I think that's wrong.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yeah.

[Andrew Wilson]

Great.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

I'm glad that you vibed that out.

[Andrew Wilson]

You seem to agree with that earlier, but now. No.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Well, no, I agreed to a specific propositional set until we started giving it specifics. Because I do that. I actually listen to the proposition like the one that you gave me that I beat you on earlier. Just like, hey, we're going to move

[Jay Dyer]

ahead to the Mormon analogy because a lot of people are saying that this was the. The stronger point. I missed this part of the debate when I was watching. So let's watch this Mormon part because I think this is really crucial, especially for people like ip Avery, Ruslan. We saw them on a stream earlier saying it doesn't matter what church you go to, dog. Just go to the one that likes Jesus. You mean Mormons because they like Jesus. That ain't the right Jesus. Yeah, exactly. That's the point.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Mormons to task. Even though they're attacking Islamists on their beliefs, even though it is the case that they're attacking Islamists.

[Jay Dyer]

If I agreed with a Mormon's critique of a Muslim by David Wood's line of argumentation, I'm now Mormon and aiding and abetting the Mormons because they made a good critique of Islam. Now, somebody brought this point up too, which was a kill shot as well. Remember when I used to go on Ridvan Streams when Ridvan was an atheist, I would go on Ridvan Streams to critique Islam. According to David Wood, I was an atheist because I was aiding and abetting David Wood's atheistic critique of Islam. This is how stupid.

[Andrew Wilson]

This is what I would. I would leave that to someone who studies Mormonism. This is what I mean. I can't get my mind around the idea.

[Jay Dyer]

So he doesn't even know that Mormonism isn't even within the bounds of just even historic Christianity at all. He would say, I just leave that to people that know Mormonism, that I'm

[Andrew Wilson]

going to focus on a bunch of stuff that I don't. I don't know about.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

So you would leave that.

[Jay Dyer]

So he doesn't even know that Mormonism isn't even within the bounds of what is, quote, historic Christianity.

[Caller 2]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

Whatever.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Your flavor is somebody who actually studies that stuff.

[Andrew Wilson]

Like Jay Dyer, if he knows Mormonism. Absolutely.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Yeah.

[Andrew Wilson]

Great. Got it.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

So you're saying here, if Jay Dyer goes and attacks these Mormons and says your beliefs are just as false as their beliefs, he's. He's not an error. Correct.

[Andrew Wilson]

No more. No, mor. I mean, I'm not. I'm trying to figure out the math of what is worse. I think Islam is worse than Mormonism,

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

but if you're talking about it, I understand.

[Andrew Wilson]

Okay.

[Jay Dyer]

How is Islam worse than. Well, man, I guess you could say it's worse in the sense of numbers and like. But I mean, I mean, it's hard to. And look again, the orthodox position is they're both faking gay and domestic. Right. I mean, Mormons are just prairie Muslims, so they're pretty much the same. I don't know how he thinks they're. Maybe he means just in terms of numbers of Muslims being more dangerous to the west or something, but they both.

[Andrew Wilson]

I would have. I would have. I would have zero problem. I would have zero problem with J. That needs to be done. That's a. That's what. It's an important branch, by the way.

[Jay Dyer]

I've actually done that. I've debated countless Mormons in the last two years. There's countless videos with 50, 70, 80,000 views of me debating these idiot Mormons. And so he could actually go and see that? No, I actually do do that. I don't just debate, quote, unquote, Christians, dude. I just debated that idiot black cult leader twice in a row. Captain Crackrock. Two debates with that idiot so, no, I don't just debate, quote Christians.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

What if he said, the reason you fucking Mormons are going after these Muslims instead of arguing your own belief structure.

[Jay Dyer]

Right.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Is because specifically it brings you in a lot of fucking money and you can't actually defend your own beliefs. You can only attack these beliefs. Is Jay now justified in making that claim about them?

[Jay Dyer]

Interesting.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

I don't know.

[Andrew Wilson]

What if. What if it's Mormons who say, no, the guys who defend Mormonism are against the.

[Jay Dyer]

He doesn't understand. This is a defeater for his whole silly line of argumentation.

[Andrew Wilson]

Objections of Eastern Orthodox are those guys over there. Go, go debate with them. I think of Christians. I think of Christians as a body. And I. In we come to it, I want.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

I want an actual answer.

[Jay Dyer]

So again, here we come to the real issue, which is the whole thing in question is everybody who just says, I believe in Jesus, quote Christian. Again, if you go Back to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th century, the only people who would have been considered within the bounds of Christianity are people who believe the N Constatin Creed. And they didn't believe it in the Protestant sense of redefining one holy, Catholic, apostolic. Right. So we all admit this, hopefully. Although I don't even. I don't think it's Protestants even know that. But whether you're Roman Catholic or Orthodox, you at least recognize that in the first several centuries, the attitude of the Church fathers was if you did not accept the Nicene Creed, you were outside the bounds of Christianity. You can't lay claim. This is why we say, even to this day, William Lane Craig is not a Christian. Why he is an open affirmer of Apollinarianism. That means he's condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council. That means he's outside the bounds of the church and of Christianity, just like Aras was, just like Jehovah's Witnesses are today. Right. So you're not within the domain of historic Christianity just via the creed. That simple. Right, but what's their idea of Christianity? It's not creedal. They're not creedal Christians. You just heard IP say, I don't care what church you go to. If he's supposed to be Roman Catholic now, he's not supposed to say that. You're not supposed to say, oh, it don't matter, dude. Go to the Baptist church. You want to.

[Caller 3]

Sure.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Because.

[Jay Dyer]

And it sure as hell ain't Ruslan's

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

rap church with Jay. If he went to Mormons and said, you're all a bunch of grifters, With a false belief structure. All of your belief structures are completely false. Which they are, you stupid ass Mormons, all of you. Okay? So I'm going after your beliefs and their beliefs. And the only reason I think that you're attacking Muslims is because you will not defend your own ideology against somebody who's competent. Does that sound like a reasonable induction to you?

[Andrew Wilson]

No, no, of course not. No, no, no. You could have. You can have Mormons. Yeah, you got the Mormon Church. You've got.

[Jay Dyer]

I mean this is. That's enough of that. I'm not dissing Andrew at all. But it's just like David Wood is being so hard headed here and ridiculous that I think that's enough of that. And by the way, if you want to see the full debate, I did tell Andrew that I would say, yeah, here is the full debate right here at the Crucible. You can sign up there. If you want to see that full debate as well as their archives of many, many, many debates over the last several years, there is the link and you can join right there. So appreciate. Because I know David Wood was never going to debate me. He said he wouldn't. He would not debate me. Get it? David would not debate. So I appreciate Andrew coming in there and at least agreeing to that ridiculous prompt that they agreed to. And I think there was one more quote from these guys right here. This one.

[Andrew Wilson]

Tony Coston, Tony Costa.

[Jay Dyer]

No, it's this one.

[Andrew Wilson]

Avery, ip, Thaddeus, Chris Claus, Drake just been doxing people. Even doxes Muslims and stuff.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay. I don't, by the way, I don't know who these people are. They just assume that like I keep up with all the Dawa drama. I don't. The last Muslim debate I had was fresh and fit with Sam Shamoon in 20. Whenever that was 20, 24, 25. So I don't keep up with the Dawa drama.

[Andrew Wilson]

Trying to get us killed. He showed up to the church where Avery and IP were speaking at. He gives the address and then he says, the two guys, by the way,

[Jay Dyer]

this idea that only the evangelicals are standing up against Islam and being persecuted. Absolute. Daniel Sisayev is a recent orthodox martyr who was martyred by the Muslims for converting so many Muslims.

[Caller 2]

Right?

[Jay Dyer]

It's. This is all like grandstanding. Like no one is opposing the Muslims but the online anti anti Islamianity crowd of the E apologists. That's not true. And I agree. They've done a great service. That's why I went on their podcast for several years and said, yes, this is great. And they have cheered me on as I was debating all the Muslims. Okay. But I'm not going to be inconsistent and say that it makes any sense to tell all these Muslim converts. Yeah. Now go to whatever church you want. Go to the fake Mexican messianic synagogue, which is what Avery did, telling people. Oh, you're an Adiq Muslim conference.

[Caller 4]

Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

Go to this Mexican dude's online zoom synagogue. I'm not joking. That's actually what happened.

[Caller 2]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

It makes no sense.

[Andrew Wilson]

It's in there. Rip the.

[Jay Dyer]

The Serbs have been fighting the Muslims for centuries. Look up King St. Stefan. I mean, there's all of these classic Islamic wars by countless Orthodox kings, saints, nations, etc, Byzantine Empire, etc. Go look all that up. This idea that no, only the e. Apologists are being persecuted. That's nonsense, Ron.

[Andrew Wilson]

These are guys who ripped the crown. Totally false. Totally false. They don't. They don't. Lying about them trying to get someone to go and do something. And Sam says, yep, this is the guy I want to team up with. And it's a. For me, it's like, once you get to that level. Right.

[Jay Dyer]

So he's just saying that. And I don't know what the situation is with Sam, Shamoon and some Muslim, but he's again saying that Shamoon is trying to team up with people to get me killed. It's like weird paranoid schizophrenia. I'm not saying the Muslims won't do this kind of stuff and have death threats. I'm not saying it. I don't know. But the idea that because you. You agreed with a Muslim's proposition, you're now party to a conspiracy of assassination is absolutely like, schizo town.

[Andrew Wilson]

Like, once you get to that level where I am so obsessed with getting this person that, I mean, I'll help a guy who's just trying.

[Jay Dyer]

How are we obsessed when we've only talked about Avery positively for years and then made one mild criticism and won two debate offers in the last couple weeks. That's not obsession to get Christians killed.

[Andrew Wilson]

Even cr. Even Christian Sam claims to like, like Avery and so on. Hey, this guy is trying to get that guy killed. But I'll still help this guy because he also wants to get David killed. So, you know, if everyone gets killed, it's worth it just to get David killed pretty well. It's pretty wild stuff.

[Jay Dyer]

And imagine this trying to stand up in a courtroom. Imagine trying to argue that he's party to an assassination because he liked a Muslim's critical tweet of somebody's motives about Grifting. Like who in their right mind thinks that that would hold up in a court of being party to an assassination? This is so just looney Tunes.

[Andrew Wilson]

And of course you have the ortho bros. Everyone, everyone remember the, the debate last night? I saw the debate. Everyone, everyone watching. So we had a debate last night

[Jay Dyer]

and I thought it was a Jerry Springer show.

[Andrew Wilson]

Oh yeah. The real point of that debate, guys. And I was just telling these guys beforehand, if someone does something, whether Muslim, Muslim, Christian, whoever, someone does something and they're part of like a much bigger group, someone does something. Well guess what? Someone from a group can do something extremely messed up that the group does not approve of. And so when someone crosses what I regard as like a serious, serious line and it's some, it's some really bad, really dangerous.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, but nobody's buying your arguments except your call that that actually occurred. And that's why almost everybody thinks you lost the debate because you didn't give a, a coherent clear case as to why agreeing with someone's tweet is now making them party to assassination attempts is so behavior.

[Andrew Wilson]

I like to give the group a chance to say, no, no, no, okay, that was wrong. That was wrong. We do not approve of that. Okay. And then it's that person. Then it's just that person. When the group comes out and defends it, even when it seems like insane behavior, then okay, it's your group. So it's your group now.

[Jay Dyer]

So now he's admitted that the entire orthodox world group is part and party to working with Muslims. Like Sam Shamoon is working with the Muslims to get people unalive. I mean this is like, like weird creepy level. Like I would just stay totally away from this dude is just not all there. This is weird creepy stuff. So anyway, let's go back to the calls. I think hopefully you guys can see that this is all just absolutely ridiculous. Fluffing retorted. What's up, dude? By the way, I want, let's take a poll in the chat. I want to see what you guys think about who won the debate. Did David Wood win the debate? Did Andrew win the debate? Let's see what our chat. Thanks. I want to honest appraisal from the chat. What's up, man?

[Caller 2]

Hey, dude.

[Caller 1]

I don't know if you saw or

[Caller 4]

caught it or if it's even worth

[Caller 2]

pursuing, but in that debate, David did say he would debate you.

[Jay Dyer]

Not on the true church, but yeah, not on any of the relevant topics. Yeah, yeah. On debating motives. No, that's, I, I, that's all smoke and mirrors. I'm not here to debate people's motives like I'm some like. Yeah, you probably just pull tea time gossip. Yeah, no, this is not tea time gossip debating people's motives. It's come argue your Protestant church.

[Caller 2]

Right, right.

[Caller 1]

It's just, just a joke, man. Like you didn't warn us, bro, that

[Jay Dyer]

once we learned the truth that we would become meanies.

[Caller 2]

Can only imagine since you've been debating

[Jay Dyer]

it for 20 plus years hearing the same five arguments. Yes, yes, you are correct. Very rarely do we hear new arguments. I've heard maybe one or two people give a new argument. Chris, what's up man? So I'll put the. What's up? Hey, two things.

[Caller 1]

One, you said this was gonna be

[Jay Dyer]

a three but you're late so you're

[Caller 3]

a bipoc for sure.

[Jay Dyer]

Yep, that's well established. I always tell you guys too, I'm on bipoc time. So if I say it's gonna be 7 o', clock then that means in BIPOC Central Time it's 8 o' clock or 9 o'. Clock.

[Caller 3]

Okay.

[Jay Dyer]

And then second point, Jim Bob made a point earlier today on his live

[Caller 1]

about the Protestant dilemma. I just wanted to get your.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes, this is exactly what needs to happen because all of these people have championed the Islamic dilemma for the last several years to all of these Muslims. And now all we got to do is flip this around and all of these evangelical E apologists and say, okay, cool, now do the Protestant dilemma. Where did you get your Bible from? What tradition are you relying on for the canon? And they're immediately going to realize that, oh, I guess the Islamic dilemma could be flipped on me absolutely. 100% riot. What's up man? Do we have any Protestants want to call in? It's always or which is fine. I appreciate orthos calling in, but if you disagree, you will go to the head of the line. What's up man? And here I'm about to start the poll. Yeah, yeah, what's up?

[Caller 1]

So I'm actually trying to, I, I'm not really sure exactly what Andrew's argument was on the, he made it, he made a point at one, at one point where he was basically saying that they basically.

[Jay Dyer]

So these guys basically like David Wood

[Caller 1]

and, and God logic and all of them, they basically, they don't hold a theological stance and on, on their belief, but they more critique Islam. Is that kind of the argument that

[Caller 3]

he was making at one point?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I mean we've all made this argument that's the root of the issue is, like, Christianity is not anti Islamianity. Like, you can't just have a. It's like. That's like the libertarians who are, like, you ask them what their theory of the state is, and it's. And it's all just, oh, well, we're negative liberty. So we're all just defining everything in terms of being anti state. Oh, okay. Well, what's your positive positions? Freedom, bro. So in the same way, like, how do you have churchless apologetics? It doesn't make any sense.

[Caller 1]

Yeah, it's kind of like slapping the title of Christian, but when you boil down to what their belief structure is, it's not Islam.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, for these online dudes, that's exactly the point. And so it's like saying, well, how do you have Jesus without church? Like, it doesn't make it. It's just nonsense. Like, it's just the Protestant assumption that there is mere Christianity. And we're saying that. Not really. Who disagrees? You got a headline? Hold up your hand. Anybody? We got quite a few people here. 10 people in the chat. Raise your hand if you disagree. Front of the line. See, this always happens. Nobody disagrees. Well, we did have that Calvinist dude who. Oh, here we go. Who disagreed? Boss, what's up, man? Boss, you Want to unmute? AJ yeah.

[Caller 1]

I'm a really big fan of yours. I'm 15 years old, but I am Protestant. I got a list of questions here for y'.

[Jay Dyer]

All. A couple.

[Caller 1]

One of them's not related to Protestantism, and one is. So other than one that's not related, first, how do I know if God's guiding me in the right direction or if it's my own, like, personal judgments or, like, my own. My own reasoning?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, part of that takes time because I know when I was a young dude, I thought that when I read the Bible, that would just teach me that evangelicalism is true. And so I just thought it confirmed my evangelicalism. So you're gonna get older and wiser and more mature, and you're going to be exposed to a lot of ideas. And I would say you should welcome the engagement with a lot of different ideas, because that will actually make you stronger in your positions. I'm not telling you to go be an atheist or something like that. I'm just saying don't be afraid to engage the critiques and the other positions. And if you're 15 or if you're young, you don't have to, like, immediately know everything or be expected to have some like vastly worked out worldview or something like that. So just take your time and trust God because God doesn't lead, mislead people or confuse people. If you're serious. If you're serious, I think you will be led to. And if you're sincere, I think you will be led to the in the right. But here's the thing. The, the worst roadblock for all of this for any of us is actually just ourselves. Right? Our own arrogance or pride is the thing that can be the roadblock at all times or at any times. So be wary of that. And yeah, just continue to. Jesus says seek first the kingdom of God and it will be. You will be led in the right direction.

[Caller 1]

So do you think anyone searching for God and Jesus and good heart and faithfully will eventually be led to your church?

[Jay Dyer]

Yes.

[Caller 1]

And sorry, I don't want to be too long for like the non Protestant quest or for like the arguing for Protestant question. How can I trust trust like the church fathers and stuff. And do you put the Bible as an authority over the church or would you say they're equal or the church is more?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, first of all, we don't accept any church father as individually infallible per se, or above the others. Right. So we believe in synodality. We believe in the collective mind of the church. So for example, when you see the councils, that's the synodality model of Acts 15. So we're not going to say, oh, I just go with Jerome. Right. Like Protestants will say, how do we know what the canon is? Oh, it's just St. Jerome's canon. Well, by the way, Jerome submitted to his patriarch, he submitted to Rome. So how is that going to help you, especially when Jerome wasn't Protestant. So it's just arbitrary to say we pick that guy. Oh, we go with this dude. Well, if you go to the 4th century and you look at the apostolic canons, which was the normative church law in the east, it includes the Deuterocanon. If you go to the normative church law in the west under Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome, it includes the Deuterocanon. So by the 4th century accepting St. Jerome, almost the entire church was universally accepting the Deuterocanon. So that would be a good indicator right there, for example, that the Protestant canon is incorrect. And why would I follow Martin Luther and not follow the first 1400 years of the church? Right. So it becomes a very difficult situation when you say I'm going to pick one dude against all the rest. That's why the, the teaching of St. Vincent of Lorraine in the quantity about. We believe what everybody at all times, in all places believes. It's not literally every single situation of the Church Fathers. So many Church Fathers made mistakes. Many of them made theological errors. Many of them ended up even. Well, not many, but several of them ended up being heretics. Right? Origen left the Church, Tertullian left the Church. So it's not any church. We don't just say you have to believe all the Church Fathers, right? Because in the 4th century there was a lot of Arians, and they had to have a council, had to have a debate. So you don't just collectively say, we follow them all, but when they speak in one accord, in one mind, and when over time, that gets received, this is part of reception theory, then we know that was the mind of the Church, right? So the deity of Christ, it gets debated. Well, Council of Nicaea. Ichmetes says Arus is wrong. Eventually that becomes dominant throughout the Empire. So we know that Arus was not correct, even though there might have been confusion at the time of Nicaea. So it's not like a simplistic thing where you say we just pick this Church Father or we just pick that Church Father.

[Caller 1]

Thanks, that was really good.

[Jay Dyer]

And by the way, no, we don't think that. We don't think that the Church Fathers are above the Bible. We would say that there's multiple authorities, right? You can't know. They just work together in synergy. So you can't know the Scriptures without the Fathers in apostolic succession. You can't know the Church without the Scriptures in apostolic succession. So all of these stools or legs of the Church all go together.

[Caller 1]

So would you put Church authority equal Scripture, or would you put Scripture over Church authority again?

[Jay Dyer]

I mean, if by Church authority you would say something like an ecumenical council, then yes, we would say, as Saint Athanasius does, he says that the Holy Spirit spoke at Nicaea. Well, the Holy Spirit can't lie. And I agree with St. Athanasius that the teaching of Nicaea is infallible. But that doesn't mean an individual Church father can't make a mistake or have a theological error. So, no, we wouldn't say that. So, for example, I'm under a bishop, right? My bishop is not infallible. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have normative authority. So this is a Protestant. I'm not faulting you. But many Protestants think that to have authority necessitates infallibility. No, that's not true. Because Even Roman Catholics, for example, are bound by their local bishop as a normative authority, and their local bishop isn't infallible. So infallibility is not the precondition for a normative authority. But when the church has a collective, in our perspective, Pan Orthodox Synod, something like the Byzantine Palamite synods, they are accepted by us as essentially the ninth Ecumenical Council. There's nobody in the Orthodox canonical world that rejects the Palamite Synod. So they would be normative for us. Right. Even though there's no oikumene or empire to have empire councils or ecumenical councils. But we do have Pan Orthodox Synods that are still accepted. So in other words, I'm just saying that Protestants usually think of authority as either infallible or. I can believe whatever I want. No, you don't. It's not. That's a false dialectic. You can have fallible normative authorities like a local synod or a local bishop.

[Caller 1]

I think I understand. It makes a lot of sense. I also want to say you did really good in that Mason debate.

[Jay Dyer]

Thank you.

[Caller 3]

Like that.

[Jay Dyer]

Appreciate that.

[Caller 1]

I think you held your stance really well.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. Just keep. Keep your patience and be. You know, I know that's hard when you're young to be patient, but. Yeah, keep searching and keep. Keep seeking and you will be led in the right direction. Patrick, what's up. So far? It looks like in the poll we have.

[Caller 3]

Hello?

[Jay Dyer]

Hold on one second. We have. In the poll, it looks like. Can you just go ahead with your question?

[Caller 3]

Hi, Jay. I'm interested in engaging with you on what I see as two unspoken premises in tag, in the transcendental argument for God. Do you have time for that?

[Jay Dyer]

I mean, it's not the topic, but what is it?

[Caller 3]

Sure. It seems to me that the two unspoken premises in your argument are one, that God, the existence of God, your God, justifies your epistemology, ethics and metaphysics. You often say that you've made this clear in your videos, but I've never been able to find the video where

[Jay Dyer]

it's called from tag, Trinity.

[Caller 3]

Yeah, I watched that one.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay.

[Caller 3]

And anyway, and then the second if.

[Caller 2]

If.

[Caller 3]

The second unspoken premise, it seems to me intact, is that there is a. That materialism, empiricism, these other worldviews cannot account for your three aspects of a worldview.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes. No, that's all. That's correct. Those are all. I would say those are entailed by the argument. Yes.

[Andrew Wilson]

Yes.

[Caller 3]

And so what I'm saying is, in logic, there's a difference between something that is unaccounted for and something that is uncomputable. In order for that to be a premise in your argument, the question of the justification by those other worldviews has to be uncomputable, not just unaccounted for. And that requires usually in mathematics and logic, a rigorous proof. For example, the three body problem is rigorously proved to not have.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, but this is not a first order level of argumentation question. It's actually an argument that is prior to logic itself. So even though the argument assumes logic, it's a category error to say that I have to prove logic first or have a rigorous sort of syllogism before I can make this argument if the nature of the argument itself is actually prior to logic. Which is why this is a unique argument. So no, I don't have to do that.

[Caller 3]

You misunderstand my question and perhaps I'm not making it clearly enough. What I'm saying is that there would have in. To prove something to be uncomputable requires that it has to be self contradictory, not just missing an explanation. Right? That's the difference between a math problem to which.

[Jay Dyer]

No, but that is what we argue. That is what we argue versus analytic distinction. No, that is what we are arguing. We are arguing that not only is it incomputable, it also is contradictory, such that it makes knowledge impossible. That's the argument.

[Caller 3]

Okay, so I'm interested if you would please make the unstated premise then just. Just demonstrate the uncomputability. If anyone can do it, you can.

[Caller 2]

Jay.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, so again, the non Christian worldviews cannot account for knowledge, ethics and metaphysics in the sense of justificate, justified true belief plus gettier problem. It can't do that. And how does it not do that? Because those worldviews necessarily have fundamental contradictions that make those three domains impossible to know or to have.

[Caller 3]

Can I give you my attempt at a materialistic metaphysics?

[Jay Dyer]

That sure is.

[Caller 3]

Yeah.

[Caller 4]

Okay.

[Caller 3]

And thanks for hearing me out on this. In my sort of metaphysics, in my materialist metaphysics, there is a gamut of all the possible propositions that are candidates for truth and falsehood. All those propositions have a subject and a predicate. Now the analytic propositions are pretty easy to account for. The subject is matter and the predicate is also matter. And there's an is in the middle of the proposition, right? I could say my arm is a limb. That's an analytic proposition. You remember that? I'm using that correctly from your philosophy classes. Those are pretty easy. The second category would be the synthetic propositions. And in these, the subject predicate distinction is synonymous with the matter energy distinction insofar as the proposition doesn't have an inherent contradiction.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I mean, this is all a bunch of assertions. And I don't even grant you that you can make sentences. So how do you know that sentences actually make sense of the external world?

[Caller 3]

I'm happy to do that. So let's just, let's. Because. Because the, the matter energy distinction is very similar, though not synonymous with sort of the noun verb distinction in linguistics.

[Jay Dyer]

How do you know that? How do you know that? So you're using, you're already using meta. You're already using metaphysical. You're already make. No, you couldn't. No, you can't. No, you can't. No, sorry, go ahead. No, you're already using all kinds of metaphysical claims and terms that are absolutely unjustified. You start talking about propositions and truth value, the propositions and energy and matter. I don't grant that you can make sense of what energy or matter is.

[Caller 3]

Well, why not? I interact with them every day. I have.

[Jay Dyer]

No, you're. That's begging the question. That's begging the question. You're. That you interact with them is the thing in question. What is energy or matter? Those are very generic terms and you're just assuming that there's some sort of self evident, you know, notion of what energy even is.

[Caller 3]

You're doing Cartesian doubt now.

[Jay Dyer]

No, I'm actually doing.

[Caller 3]

I, I doubt everything I see, feel.

[Jay Dyer]

No, this is a basic. It's not even Cartesian doubt. Because I would make the same argument refuting Descartes. I would. I would. I can use Kant's Critique of Descartes because in Descartes he doesn't have an account for time determination and the argument assumes time determination. I'm just saying the same thing to you. How do you have a determination of what energy is? Of some propositional truth value, content or meaningful content?

[Caller 3]

Oh, it's. It's just as simple. It's the other side of the coin. Right? Matter. Energy is what matters.

[Jay Dyer]

How do you. You're just asserting. Again, the thing. You're just asserting the thing in question.

[Caller 3]

Relational.

[Jay Dyer]

You're asserting the thing in question.

[Caller 3]

Oh, sorry, I didn't hear you.

[Jay Dyer]

You're asserting the thing in question. How do I know that the word energy or matter corresponds to anything meaningful in the world?

[Caller 3]

I'm just asserting normal use of those.

[Jay Dyer]

That's not a. That's again, that's a fallacy. That's a fallacy. Just asserting normal use is a fallacy. And I can just assert normal use of my positions if that's a justification.

[Caller 3]

No, no. Excuse me. That's why I started this. And, and you'll recall that I started this with the synthetic analytic distinction, which comes from the very.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, how do you know the synthetic analytic. How do you know that. Okay, let's just move it back a step. How do you know that the cons. Synthetic analytic distinction is true?

[Caller 3]

Well, because it's. The distinction itself is an analytic claim.

[Caller 2]

Right?

[Caller 3]

He says that there's this.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, how do I know Proposition, the

[Caller 3]

analytic proposition, and your viewers. I'm gonna make it.

[Jay Dyer]

No, no, no, no, no, no. That's not true. That there. That there is a distinction between synthetic and analytic propositions is not true by definition.

[Caller 3]

Excuse me, can I finish?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, you've already said something that's not true. That's not the case.

[Caller 3]

It's. It's a. There. These are called containment premises in Kant, right? That is to say, all young men are young. Right? This is a predicate containing subject.

[Jay Dyer]

The question was of. I know that. I know what. I know what analytic statements are.

[Andrew Wilson]

What.

[Jay Dyer]

What I'm asking you is.

[Caller 3]

And then the distinction is merely the observation that there is another.

[Jay Dyer]

How do you know that. That. That doesn't prove that it's the case. If you, if you read the Quine paper, you would know that. You would. You would be in a circle about the linguistic signifiers actually matching up to anything. And Quine's paper is just continuing the Kantian skeptic tradition. And so that's why you didn't want me to go to Descartes and the whole skeptical tradition because it undoes the analytic synthetic distinction or the phenomenal nominal distinction. If the skeptic position is true, I can just keep doing the skeptic position to refute your assertions. On a materialist paradigm. It's just human. I'm just making Hume's argument.

[Caller 3]

Yeah, I, I hear Hume's argument. I've never really agreed with Hume's argument.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, that's great. Now give a justification for your meaningful. Give a justification for your meaningful predications.

[Caller 3]

Excuse me, you were denying the distinction between the analytics.

[Jay Dyer]

No, I didn't. No, I said, how do you justify that it's true on your worldview? I didn't deny it.

[Caller 3]

Okay, so you do believe in the distinction.

[Jay Dyer]

You can make that distinction. I want to know how you justify it.

[Caller 3]

Yes, I'm. I'm. I'm using the distinction.

[Jay Dyer]

I don't Care that you use it. What's the justification for the distinction itself being true and in the. And actually the case in the world

[Caller 3]

for the. For the proposition I'm making to be uncomputable?

[Jay Dyer]

That doesn't tell me that it's true.

[Caller 3]

In the world that is lacking.

[Jay Dyer]

That doesn't tell me that the synthetic analytic distinction is true. That doesn't. That you use. It doesn't tell me it's true.

[Caller 3]

Sorry.

[Jay Dyer]

That you use. It doesn't tell me that it's true.

[Caller 3]

Of course not.

[Caller 1]

However.

[Jay Dyer]

Then tell me why it's true.

[Caller 3]

I'm trying to show you that it's consistent.

[Jay Dyer]

It does. You just argue at the beginning that just because something is consistent, the Lord of the Rings narrative is consistent. That doesn't make it true.

[Caller 3]

No, no argument from me here, brother. On the Lord of the Rings. However, what I'm saying is the distinction between something that is true and something that is consistent is the distinction between something that is merely lacking content versus something that is incomputable. Tag is built upon the incomputibility, right?

[Jay Dyer]

No, that's just part of the argument. We already. We already went through this.

[Caller 3]

That's just the materialist worldview.

[Jay Dyer]

Now, what I'm saying is there is no materialist worldview I can actually make.

[Caller 3]

I think I can charitably make the other side of this argument. But I don't want to waste your time.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I want to know why I'm supposed to believe that the analytics synthetic distinction is actually true. Give me the justification for that. Because that's where you're beginning.

[Caller 3]

Because the. The analytic side of it is. Is true, right?

[Jay Dyer]

Oh, so because analytic is True, it's true.

[Caller 3]

One is also 1/2 plus 1/2. These are.

[Jay Dyer]

You're just restating what an analytic proposition is. Which I didn't disagree. I want to know why the analytics synthetic distinction is justified and true. Maybe it is.

[Caller 3]

Tell me why occurs if there is a kind of.

[Jay Dyer]

You're just restating the position.

[Caller 3]

A candidate for truth and falsehood which is not analytic.

[Jay Dyer]

You're restating the position. I know the position. Why is it true? I don't need to hear it restated for the 10th time.

[Caller 3]

It is true because there are propositions that are not analytic.

[Jay Dyer]

So it's true because it's true by definition.

[Caller 3]

A young man.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, this is not going. This is stupid. I know what analytic synthetic statements are. Analytic is true by definition. Synthetic is about the world. I know all that. Why it's true is a different layer of level of questioning. And you Just keep restating for the 10th time the analytic synthetic distinction, as if it's self. Maybe it is self evident. If it's self evident, please tell me why you can say that it's just self evident as an epistemic justification and I can't just do that for the opposite position. So understand, in a debate, if you allow people to say, well, this is just self evident, the opponent in the debate can say, ah, well, well, all of my propositions, which are the opposite of your propositions, are also self evident. Now maybe they are, maybe they're not. That doesn't matter because it's a debate about justifying the first principles. And you can't just appeal to restating what the analytics synthetic distinction is. By the way, that's a blast from the past. I haven't thought about Kant in like three years. So. Okay, who wants to argue about the prompt today? It's not tag. I'm not in the mood for tag, honestly. I'm want to talk about do Protestants have the gospel? Is there a mere Christianity truncated gospel? Don't ask me tag questions. I'm not in the mood for it. Don't ask me catechumen questions, please. If you're a Protestant evangelical, because that's the topic right now all over Twitter because of these goobers, you go to the head of the line. Okay, Sam, what's up? So it looks like according to the poll, we have almost a thousand votes and it looks like, yes, I am a broke ass wigger. What's on your mind?

[Caller 2]

I can't hear you.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, that's your broke ass wigger phone. Dude, you over there talking into a damn track phone trying to be a player. You ain't no player. Talking into your cricket grandma phone calling me a broke ass wigger with a damn battery. Dude got triple A's in his bat in his phone. Dude, get out of her. Looks like according to the debate, we have 90 Andrew 10, David Wood. Yikes. Not looking. Now I know that's our side of things, but I don't think David was not going to be convincing anybody about his Adiq ex Muslim audience who wants to come up next? Raise your hand if you disagree. Go ahead and line nobody. Okay, George disagrees. What's up, George? George Jetson. George Jefferson. What's on your mind? What's up? I'm Wheezy, you're George, I'm a Bak.

[Caller 2]

Did you hear me? Huh? Yeah. So my question is, when Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees or the Sadducees, I Can't remember in the New Testament. And he refers to the, to the word Scripture. He says you search the Scriptures or you have you not read in the Scriptures. So he's using the word Scripture there, which lets me know that he's holding them accountable to knowing that some text of their time is Scripture. Some isn't just sure the fact that he's referring to it. So if there was no infallible body of Christ Church in the Old Testament at the time of Christ until Pentecost, then how did they know what the Old Testament canon or what was from God and what wasn't from God?

[Jay Dyer]

So we've addressed this probably 50 times, and I'm not trying to be rude to you, but. And it is a fair question because I remember one time struggling with this question as well. Go watch the debate that I did with Dr. Bo Branson against Dale the Protestant, because that whole debate ends up being about this. So you can go watch a fuller, lengthier debate on this topic.

[Caller 2]

And can I ask you one more question, though?

[Jay Dyer]

Well, let me, let me address that question first. I'll try to do it as quick as I can. So first of all, it's conversation. There's two different questions at work here. One of them is normative authority, and the other one is individual existential certitude. How an individual knows what the Scripture or the canon is or was, et cetera, is a different question from is there a body of people that can bind individuals to an interpretation or to some decision of excommunication or whatever? Right now, between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, we agree that there's normative authority in the body of the Church, meaning that there is a group of people who Christ gave authority to, to bind people to an interpretation or to an excommunication or whatever.

[Caller 2]

Right.

[Jay Dyer]

So we can make an analogy to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is there, but the Constitution isn't just for every random American to decide for himself. And then you go to the courtroom and you argue with everybody and with the judge as to who has the right interpretation. Right. That's the Protestant model of how the Constitution would have worked. No, there's a Supreme Court that has the normative authority to decide. This is just an analogy, what the proper interpretation is. And they make rulings. Well, guess what? In the Old Testament, that existed, the synagogue system with that Ezra set up, or prior to that, when they had the Temple or the tabernacle, the Levitical system, they actually had the authority to make rulings and judgments on the basis of interpreting the Law. So, for example, in the Book of. In the Torah, you have Moses sitting in judgment. And the people would come, Moses would judge their case. His decision was binding. Right. So there's a living authority. There's also the texts, and there's also a normative Levitical authority. Okay, okay. Now we would say that. Okay. In a sense, you could say Moses because he was a prophet. And when he was receiving divine revelation, you could say there's a kind of infallibility with Moses in the sense that when we don't think he would be writing errors into the text or something like that. There's also oral tradition in the Old Testament. If you read the book of Isaiah, Isaiah says to the law and to the testimony. The testimony is the interpretation of the text. Right. So even in the Old Testament, it's not scripture alone. Even though they did have a premise that you could say for Scripture, but that Scripture didn't exist. And you can even see Dr. Bo Branson's argumentation in that debate with Dale. Dale thinks that, like, in the Old Testament, it's just Protestant world, and you, like, rolled up with your scroll and you would debate with everybody to see who had the right interpreter. No, it didn't work that way. You had to submit to the Levitical decisions, the Mosaic decision, or later on, the rabbinical decision. That's why Jesus says in Matthew 23, the scribes of the Pharisees sit in Moses seat. Therefore, what do they tell you to do? Do it, but do not do as they say, because they say and do not do so. But they still had a normative authority, even though they weren't, quote, infallible. Right. So, but again, we see that authority is not bound up necessarily with infallibility. For us, though, we would. Hold on. We would say that. So they. How would they know? Well, there is a collective understanding that in the religion of Israel, the scribes and the Pharisees and the prophets, they have authority. There are signs that accompany their texts. Their texts predict the future. And in the Old Testament itself, in Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 18, other places in Jeremiah, there's all kinds of tests and indicators that were given to know when a person's a false prophet. So, for example, Deuteronomy 13, Deuteronomy 18, say, if the prophets prophesy another God, they're false. Don't go to. If they say something and it doesn't come true, then you know they're false prophets. Okay, so there's varying tests, varying evidences and argumentation, even within the Old Testament, even within the setting of normative authority amongst the Levites. And yes, the Levites could be apostates and could be wrong. And that's why in many cases prophets are persecuted. Isaiah is persecuted. He's sawn in two, because the Jews were mad at him for saying that he saw God. Right? Likewise, you have people who preached, I brought this up in the debate with the Baptist guy. You have people like Obadiah and other prophets preaching the Word of God. And we don't know what they preached. Some of those messages are gone, are gone. But this shows that because it wasn't written down, but they were quote, preaching the Word of God. There was oral word of God in the Old Testament. If you go to Adam, to Moses, as far as we know, nothing was written down. Uh oh, how did they keep the word of God and know the Word of God? Well, they had oral word of God, oral tradition. So there's nothing inherently bad or defective necessarily about oral tradition that makes it impossible to be a vehicle for divine revelation. Here's the key point though. When we get to the New Testament and this is where it makes it different exactly. After Pentecost, there's a change. This is something different that Protestants never recognize, even though the Holy Spirit is present in the Old Testament, to witness to people, to testify in their hearts to the Messiah, to change their hearts, etc. We would say, as St. Maximus says, that for Abraham to dine with the Lord and to know the triad, he had to have his noose cleansed by the Holy Spirit and purified. We believe that with Saint Maximus, that yes, Abraham believed in the Trinity and worshiped the Messiah to come. And that can only happen by the grace of the Holy Spirit. You can't do that by mere natural faculties. Thus when Pentecost comes, something new, something different has come. This is the empowering of the church to have the presence of the Holy Spirit, such that it would never leave the church, never forsake the church, etc. So there's something new post Pentecost that's different even from the Old Testament. Now the whole argument I'm making here is that if in the Old Testament, when it was more quote, like the Protestant idea, or so they think, right? If even then they still had to go to the normative authorities to have the law interpreted by the fallible authorities of the Old Testament, right, like the Levites or whatever, or the post Ezra synagogue system, and they still were expected to obey unless they commanded something evil. How much more is it the Case in the New Testament after Pentecost, that obviously the Church has the mind of Christ and has the ability to determine its canon. And guess what? The Church decided in terms of the canon. They did not go with the Rabbinic canon. So they didn't use the Proto Masoretic text. If you look at what St. Irenaeus and St. Justin Martyr argue, they argue that in their day, Jews were already altering the Proto Masoretic Rabbinic text because there were so many passages in the Deuterocanon that Christians were using to prove Christ. So the Jewish response was throw out the Deuterocanon. We don't accept that. And also change some of these references that refer to Christ. They're annoying. They're problems. So the whole Protestant position is premised on misunderstanding the difference between individual certitude, which we agree comes through the Holy Spirit. Even Roman Catholics will say, even Ibarra says, at the end of the day, you gotta rely on the Holy Spirit to understand the papal teachings. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. That's the point. Whether you're Protestant, whether you're Roman Catholic, whether you're Orthodox. At the end of the day, we're all relying in the last analysis on the Holy Spirit. Where we differ is the means the Holy Spirit is using to bring about that certitude. Right. So individual certitude is a different question from is there a normative historical authority? So that all. I know I yapped a lot, but all of that is necessary to understand why It's a. It's a false dilemma to say, hey, Jesus appealed to the Scriptures, therefore the Old Testament teaches soul Scripture. No, it doesn't teach that. In fact, Jesus appeals also to oral tradition when he says, the scribes and Pharisees sit in the seat of Moses. There is no Old Testament seat of Moses. That's a tradition post Ezra.

[Caller 3]

Okay.

[Caller 2]

It's because I read a book by Michael J. Krueger. I'm sure you're familiar with it, called Canon Revisited. And the whole point I'm reading that book is to answer that question, how was Protestants, was I able to know which books are from God, which ones aren't? And at the first time I read it, I was satisfied with the answer. But going back to it now, especially now that I'm. Because I actually converted to Orthodoxy, even though I still have these questions that are not fully answered. Now, going back to it, re reading some of, like the criteria, the. The criteria he had for what makes Scripture Scripture, some of it seems arbitrary and he does end up referring to communal acceptance. The church.

[Jay Dyer]

Yep.

[Caller 2]

So the second. So I'm guessing if he does decide to go with the church on this opinion, why stop there? Why not agree with them on this and this and that? So it just feels like, well, look,

[Jay Dyer]

did Jesus set up for the Church a team of rabbis to decide what the canon would be, or did he set up Apostles? Apostles, right. And then the apostles have successors. And guess what? You can read them. You can go read Ignatius, you can go read Clement, you can go read about, you know, Paula, Car, Martyrdom, Polycarp. You can go read all these post Apostolic Fathers. Irenaeus, Justin, Martyr. Guess what? None. Who? Let's. I like to frame it this way. Who in the first three centuries has the Protestant canon? And don't say Melito. Don't say Melito of Sardis, because this was the thing that Trent Horn trapped James White with. Because Melito Sardis does not have the Protestant Old Testament canon. So who does? Nobody. Exactly. Right. So, and again, by the 4th century, what's the norm in the Eastern canon law and apostolic canons? The second to last can. Last canon is what, 85. Deuterocanon. Oh, yeah. What's the norm in the west in the 4th century? The Latin Patriarchate, Pope Damasus. Deuterocanon. Oh. So by the 4th century, pretty much everybody except Jerome thinks the Durocan is part of Scripture. Even Saint Athanasius says, let the catechumens come into the church through reading Sirach, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the duocanonical text. He says that that's for catechumens.

[Caller 2]

I see.

[Jay Dyer]

So let me. And you can ask. You could ask it this. You can also ask it this way if you get the Lee McDonald book, the Protestant scholar, Formation of the canon.

[Caller 2]

I think I've heard you mention.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, get that book. Okay, so in the back there's an appendix, and he's got all the different patristic canonical lists in the different centuries. Okay? And guess what? There's a lot of commonalities, but there's also some pretty significant, significant differences amongst Old Testament and New Testament canons amongst differing church fathers. Now, how do we know today which one we're supposed to pick, right? If you're a Protestant, do I go. Do I go with the Synod of Laodicea? Do I go with Amphiliacus? Do I go with Epiphanius? Do I go with Gregory Nazianzus? Do I go with Cyril of Jerusalem? Do I go with Athanasius?

[Caller 2]

Whichever they pick, it's just arbitrary.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, even if it weren't arbitrary, we would need to know some principle or methodology by which we know or have that's object objective and public to say, ah, yes, it's that one. We all agree. And here's the funny part. Here's the funny part. You would think Protestants would want to say, well, it would be the majority opinion. Oh, really? So by the 4th century, the majority opinion is Deuterocanon, east and west. And here's the thing, they never think to look at church law. Everyone overlooks church law, canon law, because they just go to councils or this or that church. Father, wouldn't synodal decided canon law be a better perspective of the mind of the church collectively? If you were thinking in the Protestant majority opinion. I'm not saying that's true just because the majority opinion. I'm just saying wouldn't. Why wouldn't pro. In other words, if you're going to say it's just Jerome, why could I not just say why not the majority of you? In other words, maybe it is Jerome, but why am I supposed to choose one guy over the majority?

[Caller 2]

Exactly. Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

Regardless of whether the majority is true or whether one guy is true. How do I know that I'm supposed to go with one guy versus the majority or the majority versus one guy?

[Caller 2]

No, it makes perfect sense. Yeah, and I really appreciate the.

[Caller 4]

I'm gonna.

[Caller 2]

Is this gonna be on your YouTube so I could re. Listen to what you said?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, it's there right now, dog.

[Caller 2]

No, but I mean like once the. The live stream is done, I can go back to it and just play this part correct. Awesome.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I appreciate that. By the way, there's two great books from Protestants that admit all this. There is Formation of the Cannon by Lee McDonald and F.F. bruce's Canon of Scripture. I read those when I was Protestant. I said, wait a minute. Why are these evangelical scholars constantly appealing to tradition and church fathers? This doesn't make sense. You can also read Yaroslav Pelican, Volume 1. You can read Yaroslav Pelican. Whose Bible? Which tradition? I read all those books and I couldn't. I went to my Protestant professors and I said, how are we supposed to be Protestant with all this? And why would I think Augustine is on my side when he teaches the wrong canon of scripture according to you guys? There you go. Find a consistent Protestant answer to all that. Good luck. Debbie. What's up? Debbie, what's up?

[Caller 3]

Hey, J.

[Jay Dyer]

Can you hear me? Yeah.

[Caller 1]

Amen. The pleasure to be talking to you here.

[Jay Dyer]

By the way, guys, also, we know what all the Protestants are going to do, they're going to go to attacking icons. That's all. That's. You're all idolaters. Be sure and get Michael Garton's book, Early Icons in the First Three Centuries. It's a great book. Early icons, Western evidence, and in paintings and statuary. And he even goes into like Byzantine coinage and, or, excuse me, not Byzantine, but it would be early Roman coinage, I should say. He goes into mosaics, reliefs, Protestants. If you ever go to anywhere outside of the Bible belt, go to Rome and go to the catacombs. I did this a couple years ago. Guess what's in the catacombs? Altars and imagery. Oh, when I brought this up to the Baptist dude, what did he say? Limbs was all the heretics. So just. He asks for evidence of imagery prior to Nicaea. I give him an example of the catacombs and then what's the move? The goal post. Oh, well, they were all the heretics. Oh, how do you know that? You just move these. You just asked for evidence. And then when they're not kjv, only Baptists in the first three centuries that had altars and imagery. Oh, well, those are all the heretics. What's up, man?

[Caller 1]

All right, so I come from a Protestant background and by the way, I'm not, I'm not American. I grew up in Brazil my whole life. My father was a. Was a deacon or let's say an elder in their Brethren Church because they don't even have pastors.

[Jay Dyer]

But anyway, the Brethren. Like, like, like. Hold on. These. When you say Brethren, like Plymouth Brethren or like Hutterites or Mennonite, what are you talking about? Brethren?

[Caller 1]

I don't even know exactly.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, that's fine. Go ahead.

[Caller 1]

It was, it was, it was a really small church, but anyways, a group going to a lot of camps which, so they call concentration or concept. Not constitutional camps, but this Doctrine camps.

[Jay Dyer]

Doctrine camps. You went to Jesus camp, dude, Would you. At George Bush's Jesus camp.

[Caller 1]

So I wanted to get to a point that when they graduated high school, went to Europe to study theology with. Was a Protestant institution really, really big in the U.S. okay. We had, we had a lot of professors which were from Boston, Boston Seminaries and Dallas Seminaries.

[Jay Dyer]

Boston and Dallas?

[Caller 4]

Is that.

[Jay Dyer]

You said Boston and Dallas?

[Caller 1]

Dallas, Semin. No, I didn't study there, but we had professors that did go to those seminaries.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm just asking if that's what you said. It's some of your language to understand what you're saying. You're saying Boston seminaries and Dallas seminaries.

[Caller 1]

Boston seminaries.

[Caller 2]

I.

[Caller 1]

Sorry, the pronunciation is not. Not the best.

[Jay Dyer]

It's okay, go ahead.

[Caller 1]

And then I started realizing with all of this, this craziness of Protestantism today that everything that they care about is money and to try to move you in a way that you will always be with them. So when I was going to these camps, their goal was to, since you were camping, kid, to doctrinate you, for you to always be under them and always like. Their goal is for you to grow up and believe in exactly what they were teaching you. And if you try to go away a little bit, they will say you were never saved and they were part of the church and you have to do the Jesus prayer again or the salvation prayer because you're never part of them. And today I'm going to look back. It's just like everything that they care was money. They would charge you so much, much for this camp to. To play those instruments and to try to catch a feeling from you. You know what I mean? Uhhuh.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I think. I mean, a lot of Protestant evangelical stuff just relies on emotionalism and. And that kind of stuff. So I think that's pretty rampant. It reminds me of that documentary G. Remember Jesus Camp? That documentary that came out where it was, they're like iconoclast, but then they have these pictures of George Bush that they're parading around the churches like it was. I mean, it's a crazy documentary if you've never seen Jesus camp, but that's. It sounds like what he's talking about. And yeah, unfortunately, it is kind of a lot of brainwashing. This was back when they were like, we gotta believe in George Bush. Jesus sent George Bush. And now, by the way, it's the same with Trump now too, right? All the mocards are like, Trump's got a gold statue. I love it, I love it. Them orthodox has got them icon idols, but I love that Trump statue is gold. It's so pretty. Oh, I love that thing. Anyway, all right, we got a lot of super chats. Thank you guys for being very generous tonight. Let's try to last chance for anybody disagrees before I do a little super chats. Who disagrees? Last chance for a disagreer. Don't ask me tag questions. Don't ask me a catechuming question, please. You can take all those to your catechesis priests and catechists. Don't clog it up for the. The prots. And don't ask me tag Questions? What's up, man? Bruce, you better disagree or I'm not answering. I'm just gonna say her silent Bruce. What's up? Hey.

[Caller 4]

Hey, what's up, man?

[Jay Dyer]

What's on your mind?

[Caller 4]

Yo. Yeah, yo, I'm still. I'm still a prod, man, for now.

[Caller 3]

Can you hear me?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, yeah.

[Caller 2]

Can you hear me?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah. That's what I wanted, boy. What's up?

[Andrew Wilson]

What's on your mind?

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, I'm still a Protestant. Gotcha. What's on your mind? All right, all right.

[Caller 4]

Hang on a sec. I got like double. I got like, double stuff going on. Hang on.

[Jay Dyer]

Double stuff.

[Caller 4]

I'm here.

[Jay Dyer]

Oreo double stuff. I don't know what a double stuff is. Sounds kind of gross, though, but.

[Caller 4]

All right, there we go.

[Jay Dyer]

What's up?

[Caller 4]

So I'm trying to figure out how this.

[Caller 2]

How the.

[Caller 4]

How the theosis position doesn't also sound like Wesleyan Holiness Movement.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I think they have an idea that you can achieve a state of perfection. And, you know, especially when it comes to how they viewed what they consider perfectionist sanctification. It's. It's this very sort of Protestant, puritan, puritanical sort of ethos of like, don't drink, don't cuss, don't chew. And I don't like people that do. Right. So, I mean, maybe that's not John Wesley or George Whitefield's own personal perspective, but I would say, typically speaking in terms of the majority of the, you know, Methodist Holy Roller type people, their attitude was this sort of truncated, puritanical idea of what holiness was or is. I would say, in the Orthodox Church, outside of certain select saints that we think attained a very high status of grace, like the mother of our Lord, the Theotokos, or perhaps, you know, somebody like St. John the Baptist, we don't think that you can really attain a sinless state and even a, quote, sinless state in the case of a. Outside of Mary, because obviously we think Mary was sinless. But outside of Mary, even if there were a saint who was sinless for a time, there would still probably be small sins even in the holiest person. So I don't think it's the tendency of the Orthodox church ever to say that there's some perfect sinless state. For example, even the hesychast, if they achieve a state of union or the vision of God, in many of their cases in their life, they describe it as something that wasn't long lasting. Right. They had a period where they felt or saw that level of theosis or Intimacy. So I think whether St. John the Baptist or very few select saints, I think even still, even in the holiest saints, we would still think, okay, but they still have small sins, right? They still have some earthly attachments. And I think that that would be very different from the Wesleyan attitude of, you know, holy Rollers or whatever. I mean, if you read the saints, their attitude is always, I'm full of sin, right? So it's. It's like, it wouldn't make. I mean, if you're a Protestant and you're a holy roller and you say you become sinless, and then you look at, you know, saints in our tradition who are like, even if they did attain a period of sinlessness, they're always like, I'm full of sins. So I don't think there's a danger of delusion. I mean, well, there's a danger of delusion for anybody. But I'm saying in our church, there's not a danger of that because the expectation typically is you have to constantly confess your sins, and the saints do that. So it would be very difficult.

[Caller 4]

He.

[Jay Dyer]

Did he drop off? Are you there? We lost him. Anyway, hopefully that answers your question, But I think, I mean, you could ask people that are more spiritually advanced than me that question, too. Bruce, did you want to say something? Was that you? You want to come back? We lost you, Bruce.

[Caller 4]

Back.

[Jay Dyer]

Jason, did you hear. Did you hear that answer?

[Caller 2]

Yeah, I did.

[Caller 4]

I did hear that. But, like, I'm trying to figure out if this is, like. So there's like a semantic distinction here. So here's the thing, Jay, like, I'm really pursuing Orthodoxy.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, hold on. How is that a semantic. Hold on, hold on. How is it semantic when I gave you a qualitative difference that I think

[Caller 4]

I feel you on the theological position, but when conveying these sorts of things. Listen, man, I'm trying not to precept my grandma, okay? Try not to precept my wife, all right? So I'm trying to, like, navigate this particular distinctions here with, with the Protestant paradigm and understanding this. This new sort of theological system of peace and orthodox.

[Jay Dyer]

Look, you're not going to. I can guarantee you there's not going to be any danger of, like, Methodist Holy Roller ism, because we confess all the time, okay? Right. The only way you're not going to confess all the time is if you go to a Greek church, and the Greeks have a tradition because of their history of confessing, like, once every few months. If you go to Rokor Church, it's the same as trad cats, you confess pretty much every week or every two weeks.

[Caller 4]

So, yes, my situation is like, I have to navigate this, you know, with my wife, especially in the churches that would be close to us. Within an hour, we're going to be Greek, OCA, or Antiochian.

[Caller 2]

Right.

[Caller 4]

That's where we're at.

[Jay Dyer]

Well, I would say out of those, I would test them all, because there's no perfect jurisdictions. And some you might be in a situation where you have a Antiogan church that's better than a Serbian church or. But you just have to. It's very decentralized and Orthodoxy people don't understand that. So you got to test them out. Don't worry so much about the jurisdictions. Although there are tendencies in certain jurisdictions to be more liberal. For example, Greeks tend to be more liberal, but you can also find, you know, crazy Antiochian people. So just test them all out. But I would say, if I had to guess, probably you'll find the Antiochians to be the most, the best fit, unless you're in some place where they're all Arab. Because I went to the Antiochian Church in Florida and I was the only white dude, and I didn't. I felt out of place there. So.

[Caller 4]

Yeah, one of the big, the issues that I think I'm finding here is it seems like there's significant problems in every church, no matter what. Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

[Jay Dyer]

Yes, every church has problems.

[Caller 4]

Yeah, theological position is correct in Orthodoxy, but you have to just accept the fact that there's warts everywhere. And so you can't find a perfect church. But you could find some, say something closest to the apostolic deposit. Yes.

[Jay Dyer]

I think that what matters the most is are they teaching the true faith and do they have the liturgy? And the Orthodox liturgy doesn't change. It's still reverent. And so even, even, even Greek shirt. Hold on a second.

[Caller 4]

Hold on. Chrysostom were Basils and not an older one.

[Jay Dyer]

Say what now?

[Caller 4]

Why are we seeing the Orthodox churches use Chrysostoms or Basils and not the older liturgies?

[Jay Dyer]

Because where the older liturgies were, in the case of, say, the liturgy of St. Mark, they became Coptics, so they schism.

[Caller 1]

So.

[Jay Dyer]

But there are places where Orthodox will sometimes do the Liturgy of St. Mark. So, for example, I believe if you were to go to Egypt and you went to not a Coptic, but an Orthodox church in Egypt, they would probably do, unless they're under the Greek Patriarch, they would probably do the Liturgy of St. Mark. But because the Greeks ended up pretty much all Especially during the Byzantine period, just doing the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, Byzantium, the power of Byzantium, the expanse of Byzantium, just normalized that in a lot of places. However, there are quite a few parishes in America where they do the old Roman rite, so you can go to a Western rite Orthodox Church as well. So it's not the case that there's only the Chrysostom liturgy. It's just ended up being the norm because of the history of the church, because Byzantium and then the Byzantine ethos is what goes to Russia. So Russia ends up having that as its norm. But there are, there are places where sometimes other liturgies are done.

[Caller 4]

Yeah. Okay, so I'm in the same path that you went on, but a lot faster, Right. I didn't make the Catholic. I didn't make the Catholic side quest like you did.

[Caller 3]

Right.

[Caller 4]

Of non denom to Reform Baptist, the Presbyterian. And now I'm in the Orthodox conundrum. But I'm trying my best to navigate this. Right. And, and make it such that it's digestible for my wife and family. Right. And so it seems to me that there's like, there's claims of unity, but also like visible distinctions among the visible body.

[Jay Dyer]

Okay, well, every. Okay, hold on. So. So every church, whether you're Roman Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, all of them will have liturgical and national proclivities. If you go to Poland, everybody's going to think and identify Polishness with Catholicism. If you go to Russia, they're going to identify being Russian with Catholicism with Orthodoxy. If you go to Mexico, Right. Mexico is. So this is really. I mean, if you go to German areas of Germany, areas of Protestant Ireland, right. Being Protestant is just identified as a national reality. Right. I mean, this was, this was the case. This is still the case in certain countries in Europe that are, quote, Protestant, even though they're pretty much apostate now. So I don't think that that's a unique situation amongst Orthodox. And one of the reasons that Orthodoxy is, quote, nationalistic is that if you look at the Council of Nicaea, when they come to Nicaea, for example, the canons still speak, and this is pretty consistent throughout many of the canons of the councils, they still speak in terms of national jurisdictions. Even in the Roman Catholic Church, for example, you have the U.S. conference of Catholic Bishops, Right. So in a sense, that's nationalism and then it's American nationalism. So even in Rome, they still kind of have some of the remnants of this idea of a. I'M not saying that the church should be nationalistic. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's a healthy nationalism that is part of the ethos of the church, and you see that in the canons. But there's also dangers and limitations with nationalism. And what we could say is ethnophyletism. And yes, Orthodox can absolutely be. Pray to this, but it's also condemned as a heresy, what, like 100 years ago. So what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is. What I'm saying is.

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

Hold on, hold on.

[Jay Dyer]

Hold on a second.

[Caller 4]

It's going to get.

[Jay Dyer]

Hold on just one second. What I'm saying is this specific issue is not an issue that you will necessarily avoid, because I will say this. I've been to Antiochian churches that are the most diverse in the truest sense than any other church I've ever been to. I went to a lot of Roman Catholic churches, and I was the only white dude there. And it was all Mexicans. Okay. I've been to Antiochian churches where I was the only white dude. It was all Arabs. But I've also been Antioch in churches where there was 30 black dudes and white. Black girls. There's 50 white people. I mean, there's 20, 30 Arab people. I mean, if you go to the Antiochian, the giant Antiochian temple in Franklin, Tennessee, outside Nashville, I mean, it's diverse in the true sense. So it is truly an orthodox Catholic church. So I'm just saying the nationalism isn't necessarily a problem, although it can at times be a problem.

[Caller 4]

Yeah.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah.

[Caller 4]

So, I mean, you have the Reconstructionists that you're well familiar with, right. In the United States and the Protestant side. Is that sort of. Is that sort of thing anathematized entirely in the Orthodox world? Because I got to be honest, like, I'm pretty. I really was pretty bullish on the Rush junior World.

[Caller 2]

Right.

[Caller 4]

In the Boston world, you know, and that kind of like that nationalistic slash Christian Christendom with, you know, a, you know, sort of a theocracy of sorts. Right. Like a theonymous position. It doesn't seem like that's the case in Orthodoxy, albeit.

[Jay Dyer]

No, but it is. No, it is. No, you. That's the thing that. One of the things that made me be Orthodox, it's not the only thing, but one of the things that made me be Orthodox was that I no longer believed that the Roman Catholic Church continued to hold its necessity of a Christian state position, which it did for formerly hold to. And although that wasn't like, my number one issue, I did consider that important issue, because if Christ is king and if the, you know, Roman Catholic Church had the feast of Christ the King, we're supposed to hold to that position. Which means that. Can you stop doing the dishes? It's really loud. You do have to have. There is a Christian teaching of the state. And I'll be debating Trent Horn about this, by the way, in the. In the coming months, though. One of the things that convinced me was if you read St. John, of course, on that, and if you read Reflections of a Russian Statesman, that is a fairly recent promotion of the idea of a Christian state. So the mere fact from my vantage point, that the Orthodox Churches. Now you've got libs in America that are not considered. You've got elpidophoros, you've got these kind of people. They're American, bro. Can you stop with that noise? It's so loud. You've got people in America that are bad, that are bad or heretical in the Orthodox Church. Yes, absolutely. But the fact that you do still have confessing patriarchates that do still uphold the Christian teaching about the state, aka, if you read the Moscow Patriarchate statement on church and State, it still upholds the traditional Byzantine position that there ought to be symphonia and there ought to be a Christian state when the majority of the people are Christian and believe in that and want that. We're not talking about taking over the government or some fed slot. That's not what we're talking about. We're saying that there is still a duty that the state has to the Church. And the Russian saints have continued to teach this all the way up till today. So for me, that was a very powerful point. Being formerly a Christian reconstructionist, as you said, that, hey, they're still teaching that Christ is the basileus. And if he's the basileus, then there you go.

[Caller 4]

Yeah, you're speaking my language. That seems to be the case because I was looking at Catholicism for that very reason. Like, you know, reading Peter Light Heart like that.

[Jay Dyer]

Yeah, right. All over.

[Caller 4]

Well, this. This would make sense with. With Catholicism, but they're not doing anything with that papal seat.

[Caller 3]

Right.

[Caller 4]

It's a joke.

[Jay Dyer]

Here's this book I would recommend, Get Reflections of a Russian Statesman by Constantine Pabinatiev. And he argues very forcefully that, by the way, it's not just a great book on Apollo, like he argued, it's a great apologetic text because he says, if you believe in the Separation of church and state. You don't actually get that. He says, what you actually get is a secular church that runs the states because there is no real separation of church estate. I mean, in the sense of, like in the sense of separating God from the state, there's different spheres of authority. But what I'm saying is the arguments that the liberals and the seculars were using for very, for many centuries, that, by the way, many of the papal encyclicals accurately respond to. So there's many very powerful good arguments in the papal encyclicals, whether it's clement, whatever is 1617 that opposed, that opposed the Masons. Right. When those popes were writing those anti Masonic encyclicals, they were pointing out that one of the goals of the Masons was to divide church and state to make the state secular. They did the same thing in Bolshevik Russia as well. And Pabnatsiev correctly says, you're not actually going to get a secular state. You're going to get a secular religious persecution. That is the real church. And so it's not actually separation of churches, it's just another religion. I thought that was a very powerful apologetic.

[Caller 4]

So yeah, that's great. So not whether. But which.

[Jay Dyer]

But let me tell you this too. If you go into Orthodoxy and this is what a lot, a lot of people misunderstood, don't convert to Orthodoxy because it's based. Because people go in thinking, oh, I'm going to go in here and it's going to be this based. And you will meet a lot of bas and tribe people, but you're going to encounter problems. I'm just going to tell you that it's not. There's no we're not donatists. There's no the perfect saintly society on earth you're going to meet. I'll put it this way. When you become Orthodox, the best people that you will meet will be Orthodox, and you will meet the worst people in your life will be also Orthodox. So the church is a mixed multitude. We're not done. It's just, it will be a mixed multitude until the eschaton.

[Caller 4]

Okay, that seems fair.

[Jay Dyer]

And take your time. Don't rush. Don't rush into it.

[Caller 4]

I think I'm gonna go to Ruslan's church and get.

[Jay Dyer]

Oh my gosh. Well, you better prefer affect your beatboxing skills if you're going to be at St. Wigger's church. Okay. There's a lot of super chats. I don't have time for any more calls. I apologize. Let's. But I'll be here for forever if I don't get to the super chats. Do says for $10 I will make a universal claim. You cannot win an adiq against an adiq person in an argument in any possible world. I actually think that's true. And by the way, dumb people will actually be the hardest people to debate because they will throw the weirdest, craziest arguments at you that you don't even know how to respond to. So actually think really stupid people are actually the hardest people to debate. Dookie says for $20 you should challenge Protestants to debate about head coverings. They are very confident that this teaching is false. Actually, that's not totally true because when I was in the Reformed Presbyterian world, this was actually an issue many Reformed Presbyterians, well, this is just tiny minority little tiny groups, they actually believe in head coverings. This verse caused me to realize that a lot of the churches don't actually care about what the Bible teaches. Well, you know, when I was Roman Catholic, everybody at the Latin mass wore head coverings. And then in the Orthodox world, unfortunately many of the Greeks and the Antiochians don't. But anywhere, any Russian church, any serp. They're all the women wear head covers as far as I've seen. I've never been to a Russian Orthodox church where women. It's just expected, right? And I mean just like the Latin Mass. If you go to the Latin Mass, there's already head coverings out for the women who didn't bring one. It's the same way at the Russian Church. Mickey. $5. J Fire song about Mormons. Therefore, Jay must be a Mormon because he made a song that more. Yeah, exactly. I'm Mormon now. Blade, $5. The Emperor of Wigsanthim is on. I am paying my tax to Wigsanthium. You understand and do rightly, my son, Mr. B. $20. This wouldn't be a perfect stream without Jay's boomer tech fumble in the beginning. Yes, I do oftentimes fail to mute you got me or unmute Ramon. $2. Jay, bro, you can't criticize Avery cuz dude, he's like super nice or whatever. I love my cholo chatters Saltwater. Thank you. $2. John Rock Jesus is God. Thank you, brother. Yes. Popper, $5. What are the restrictions in Orthodoxy about what is forbidden between a man and wife? Oh my gosh, dude, come on. These are the kind of catechumen questions this is you talk. Take this to your priest. Dude, I'm not your priest, man. SSPX $5. For the sake of argument, isn't Vatican II a pastoral council? Thus it is economia. Well, I don't know that Roman Catholics exactly have the translation of our idea of economia, but they basically have the same idea because, yeah, the bishops interpret their canon law and apply it. But the fact that I think this is. Even when I was a trad cat, I thought this was a terrible argument because just because Paul VI says it's a pastoral council, there's nothing in the word pastoral council or the phrase that makes it not dogmatic or not teaching theology or not binding. Orthodox bishops has said that the Vatican II style reflects pastoral dialogue with heterodox. Well, first of all, just because orthodox bishops say that doesn't mean it's true. And I would say there's a lot of ambiguity in saying, well, this is just pastoral dialogue. I mean, what does that mean? I mean, just because you say that you're having pastoral dialogue doesn't mean that you're not including topics that are dogmatic. For example, if pastoral dialogue includes the deity of Christ, that's a dogmatic topic. So it's just ambiguity. Man in the fill, $2. Unmute. Dude, when are you doing merch? And do a new merch that says bingo? Unmute and bingo. I have to put that on a T shirt. I keep forgetting to make T shirts. I feel like I'm kind of Ruslanish if I make a bunch of T shirts, though, right? If I make T shirts, y' all all look. He's been like, ruse line selling merch. Grifter. That unmute shirt that I have isn't. Somebody sent me that as a joke. I don't know. Epic skeptic. $10. Oh, my science. Jay Dreyer is a cult leader in a cult. How do I know? Because of vibes. Oh, you're making fun of David Wood J. Dyer and his followers are the cult and the bingo. Exactly. Bingo. Everybody's saying bingo now. I. I don't. Who would. I never would have thought just saying the word bingo would just ignite a week of insanity. This is crazy. VJ $5. Jay, order the red book in March. I know. I had to order more today. It was backordered, so. Excuse me. Yesterday, I ordered more of the red book, so I apologize. It will be coming soon. Can you tell me when? I don't know when, because Jamie mailed today about 30 books, so. She. She did 30 orders today. Void $7. I'm about to pull up to my local Protestant church. I'M gonna blast your debates in the parking lot. That would actually be funny, but, yeah, I don't know if that's a good idea. JMail, $20. Do another interview with the Collins brothers. Invoking the beyond was incredible. Actually. The Collins brothers are about to go on Jamie's podcast to cover the alien psyops, so. But, yeah, I'm not opposed to having them back on. They cite you in chapter one of their book. Yes, I'm familiar with that. Jacob official. $10 shout out to Andrew. He defended you as his buddy. Yes. Andrew's always been a good lawyer, loyal friend, Always been there, always promoted me, always helped me out. Andrew got me on Piers Morgan. Andrew got me on tons of podcasts. He's always been a supportive, good dude. I don't. People hate Andrew so much over tweets and arguing on Twitter like, who cares? Bird, $10. Andrew was a good friend last night. Yep. Akana Clash. $3. I was telling. It was telling that the Protestants on marriage. Wait, it was telling when I pressed Protestants on marriage and why they charge for weddings if it's a remedy for lust. But they said a court and church wedding are the same. It exposes that they are atheists and therefore have no church. Well, again, I think that they're mad because a Greek church asked for $200, $250 for baptism. But they don't understand that in the Greek church, baptisms usually are a celebration. So that includes a feast, a party. In the Orthodox church, we also do baptismal robes, candles. It's a big deal. And it takes an hour to do the service. Okay, so baptism is not, you know, Protestant dunk you in the river in. In your underwear, like Russell Brand in two seconds. That's not what it is in the Orthodox church. Also, Greeks have a tendency to. To. They have a big family. They want all their kids baptized. It's a big deal. It's a big affair. And Protestant churches, people were putting this up. They charge like, 1, 2, 3, $5,000 for weddings. What are you talking about? Bitching about a minimal fee for a baptismal celebration. And all these dumb Protestants. The simony. Dude, that's not simony. It's literally. It's not even simony. Simony is purchasing a religious office with money, not a minimalist tithe. Oh, oh, Protestants. Oh, you guys are usually required or want. You. You are told that you need to tithe 10. Guess what? Orthodox Church doesn't demand a 10 tithe. Did you know that? Now you can do that. But in the Orthodox Church. Yeah, there's a basket or whatever, but it's also voluntary. But I've been in. If you grew up Baptist like I did, Everybody knows Baptist pastors love to preach that minor prophets, the tithe, the law, the tithe. Every Baptist. We used to get pamphlets called every Baptist a tither. Every Baptist a tither. Arguing for whatever reason. I don't know why, that we're still supposed to do the 10 tithes, which, by the way, I don't think it's a bad argument. It's just like, on what basis, as a Baptist, are we supposed to do a 10% Old Testament tithe? I don't know. But Baptist, Protestants, they're flipping out because a Greek church requires or asks, by the way, it's not mandatory. Everybody who chimed in said, when I got baptized, the priest didn't ask for money. So that. Some Greek churches do that. Who cares? Iconic clash. No Sagan, $10. I went on Avery Stream and asked if he would be open to interfaith discussion. He said, and. And to not debate. Avery said he will never do or not do interfaith debate. I'm like, bro, Avery, can you talk manto man to a guy? Yeah, exactly. I don't. I also said he shouldn't send Muslims to non traditional Christian churches. Well, yeah, I mean, that's the. That's the point here. Cause YouTube, $20. Jay. I fell into the live Islam for a couple years. I was even Sneako's clipper. Oh, wow. I left all of that for orthodoxy. That was about a year and a half ago. Thank you for all the hard work that you did. Did you watch the Muslim lantern debate that we did? Was. That was the. I'd like to know. I mean, I don't know. Maybe it wasn't, but if that was effective, that's a very important point. So notice we have this guy here. He says that he was Sneako's dude and he realized that the Muslim stuff was silly. Mickey, $2. Bingo. Ortho cards, $10. It took time, but the truth is out. Jay, you're championing the faith. Standing at the top. Everyone knows that Orthodox Victory Christ has risen. Indeed, he has risen. DC $5. I used to watch all these evangelical apologists when I was Protestant. Seeing this unfold now that I'm orthodox actually makes me sad, but it doesn't surprise me. Look, guys, you're all upset. In five years, a bunch of these people will convert. A lot of the. I don't know about the apologists, but a lot of the people Bitching are going to realize president was faking gay. Literally. In the case of Gavin Ortland's church hiring dudes married to dudes that they know are gay and the other co pastors are openly pro gay and pro gender affirming care. Hello. By the way, where is Ruslan calling out that? Where is any of these people? Because look, if Nick Fuentes says a bad word, if Tim Gordon says a bad word, if Andrew says a bad word, if I say a four letter word right, if I don't say poop instead of It's a huge Internet wide meltdown pearl clutch session. Oh, so where is the calling out of Gavin Orland's butt buddy preacher church? Still waiting on that to happen. By the way, how can you say I'm a hateful person when I got a Purple Rain shirt on? Exactly. Refuted. I mean, I like Prince, but I gotta admit, Prince is a little effeminate. So how can you say I'm a hateful person if I'm a Prince fan? Beef salt, $2. Anybody want to get coffee over at Rhythm Church? I need to replay my Randy Ball skits because this is very appropriate. Throw away $5. These Protestants say that orthodoxy is okay unless you call them out. Exactly, exactly. So notice now they're like, yeah, we don't care what church you go to. Oh, but actually don't go to the Orthodox church. Go to whatever you want, but don't go over there. Emilian, $20. Get these dudes. Jay, thank you a million. Appreciate you. Or our based Cerber, bro. By the way, the Serbs, man, they are the best. The Serbs, Those dudes are always the best. I have interacted online with a lot of different people and the fact that the Serbs would support somebody like me, a bipoc indigenous person who is also an ediva and be so awesome. Shout out to the Serbs. AI World Champion. $5. Paul's letters to Timothy. That's what we're supposed to study next semester. Yeah, so he's talking about the Protestant guy they called in. Prozolch. $20. Was Judas ever saved? I don't know. I mean we. I don't think we know if he had a period where he maybe believe. I don't know. It's a good question. But I mean, ultimately he did not, you know, persevere to the end. Prozel, $20. Notes can be slow, boy, $5. David Wood inviting you on. I'm not going to go on his stream. He's doing that while you're streaming so that if you don't come he'll say you ran. Again. The offer is for a formal debate, not to go on people's live streams when they demand it. I mean, that's what my text. Look again. What does it say right here? Formal debate offer not will you come on my live stream? See it right here. This was two days ago. Formal debate offer to West Huff, David Wood, God Logic, Gavin Orland, IP Frank Turek, Mike Winger. Obviously Ruslan already said he won't do it after saying he would do it. So no, I'm not going to go on his stream while I'm streaming. Of course not. This was Sam Shamoon's trick too. Remember he did this. He was like, tell that filthy bastard son of a muta. Tell that lying bastard that son of the devil come on my stream with me and my butt buddy at William Albrecht. And if he doesn't, he's a coward. While I'm streaming. Obviously I'm not gonna come while I'm doing super chats on your dumb stream. That's a trick, dude. That's all tactics. Guy pan says for $3. Thank you. Quick song. What's up? It's amazing how they say, quote you were never saved to begin with when it's a reputation of their presupposition of everybody in the process. Yeah, exactly. That's a great point. SDN Michael $50. First Timothy and Titus are actually scriptural proofs of apostolic succession. Absolutely. Yeah. I go to them all the time. And can you believe that Protestant dude called in super intent ready to debate? He wanted to do a formal debate and he didn't know that Timothy was the Bishop of Ephesus. He asked like, who did Paul put as the Bishop of Ephesus? I don't know. Why are you trying to do it? A public debate, dude. That's a. That's level one stuff. Taylor Brownie, $5. A lot of these people start out in earnest, but then they see that you can build a channel on an audience on out on the lowest common denominator. Then it becomes clickbait fame. They're surf. They are self righteous. Yeah. Chronicles $5. What do you think about Jim Bob saying that this is now the Protestant dilemma? That's exactly right. That's what. So take the Muslim dilemma, flip it on all these apologists and say, okay dudes, where did you get your Bible from? Just call it the Protestant dilemma. Quick song. Bingo. Split is B I n G O J say you're a BIPOC NGO oh, that was a good one. Trend can't cap trend cap. $10. Tony Costa did a response to my Protestant epistemology video with Joshua Shuping and Eli Ayala, and they literally did not contribute a single cogent thought in a stream that went for two hours. They are actually the pinnacle of ignorance. Well, that's why I told you guys Tony Costa asked me to debate him in 2018 or 19. I said yes, and then he said, oh, sorry, you're too mean. I won't debate you. This is all the same stuff. Epic. $5. Jay, you don't understand that Ruslan's rap church is the one holy Catholic rapistolic church. Oh, dude, that just just got cooked. Yo, that is cooked.

[Caller 2]

You, bro.

[Jay Dyer]

You like my wigger voice? Come on, who does a bigger. Nobody does that. Nobody does it better. They can come closer than close. Yeah, yeah. Original. They never will be. We would go from C to C. Not many of y' all get that reference, but you got to know I did. The best worker left. Dude, I just debated Piers Morgan today that I was the wigger of all wiggers. Who else can claim to have debated Pierce Morgan on being the best? W. Wait till you see Tomorrow's Pierce Morgan. D.C. says, hey, Inquirer, don't you dare step into Orthodox church. But you can go to this synagogue. What are we doing Exactly? D scene$10. The reason that Father Peter Gilchrist and 2000 of the Protestants converted Orthodoxy back. Yeah, Remember that back in the 80s? Because they saw the problem with saving people but then failing them to send. Failing by sending them to churches with bad doctrines. Yeah, exactly. Interesting that maybe this is mirroring that early Protestant conversion into the Antiochians back in the 80s. I wonder if we're seeing a mirror event there. By the way, that church in Nashville, that big Antiochian church, is the mother church of Those converts. Barbarians. $5. David woods said that he's going to do a stream. He's going to challenge Orthodoxy. Who cares, dude? He will compare it to the Book of Acts. Okay, good luck with that, Flavius. $10. Those dudes are all wall kissers. Yeah, a lot of these guys are Zio promoters. Beef says just join the Sam Shamoon Apostolic Church. Exactly. It's another. It's just Branch theory, Iron Giant. $5. My Quaker boomer grandma brother is enthralled with a messianic rabbi Goober Jonathan Cahn, because he has a spiritual connection. Well, I mean, just love your grandma.

[Caller 3]

Don't.

[Jay Dyer]

Don't pre sub. Grandma, angel says you should discuss this with Bob from Speaker's Corner. I have go Back to this is why Bob doesn't like me anymore is because I won't admit his ecumenist apologetic. But if you find. You can find old clips where I talk to Bob. So again, here's another example of Bob, right? We're friendly with Bob. We do some podcasts, try to tell Bob, become Orthodox. Bob says, not interested. I'm an ecumenist. We move on. I mean, we've had the same MO doesn't mean I hate Bob. I don't wish the best for Bob, but I can't agree to Bob's approach of, well, it doesn't matter what church you go to. Lord Byron, $5. Protestants actually debate the Orthodox like Muslims debate. Yep. Protestants say, oh, the church was corrupted after 300 AD or XYZ. Exactly. John Marion, $5. Former Muslims and Orthodox churches experience a coherent spiritual formation. Exactly. That's the point. In event Evangelicalism, they encountered a fragmented discipleship and incoherent ecclesiology. Yes. That's why you can't just send them to whatever church you want. And that's exactly what IP just said. Doesn't. Who cares what church you go to? Where did you get this idea? D.C. $10. They're all willing to talk about Antichrist and the nature of Islam, but they won't do a proper discussion of Antichrist and the writings in the nature of Talmudic Judaism. Yes, well, because many of them are Zionists. Exactly. I'm talking about the E apologist. Sphere flare riot, $5. Kyler Birch, a hundred dollars. Thank you so much. Appreciate that. Based on the debate, David Wood thinks that everybody's on the same team because you just have the label Christian. Yeah, exactly. Which is why all you have to do is say, okay, does that include Mormons? I don't know. I don't know about Mormonism. Then he says everything is infighting, but from our perspective, it's out fighting. Exactly. For us, David Wood isn't actually, quote, Christian in the truest sense of the term. Correct. Spirit led Paul, $5. What about when Ruslan said that elders in his church. Wait, Ruslan said he has elders that attend his church and also go to the Coptic church. That's ridiculous. Like, again, this stuff makes no sense. It's just. It's just crazy. Crazy world. Right. He says, however, that we all lay hands. Oh, okay, so you just lay hands and it doesn't matter what you believe. Like, that's what they actually think. Craftsman, $10. Jay, the issue is that they have an issue with your handle. If you change your name To God bipoc instead of God logic. They won't. Yeah, then they'll be attacking a black person, which would be racist. Shane says, here's my two dollar tax to the Emperor Wigsanthium. David says for $12. I don't even think that Avery is against what you're saying. Yeah, but you can't send people to synagogues, dude. It's not a personal attack on Avery. We're simply saying you have to have Jesus with a church. There's no churchless apologetics. It doesn't exist. He who does not gather with me, Jesus says scatters abroad. Thus, if there's one holy catholic apostolic church and you're telling people to go to the Baptist church or to the whatever, strip mall church, then you're scattering abroad. He said once that Orthodoxy is based. Yeah, but you got to be in the Orthodox Church. This is not a bunch of propositions that you accept. It's good that you accept the propositions, but you also got to be in the church. I mean, this is not. By the way, hasn't every critique of the Ortho bros been for the last 10 years? They're an online church. They're. They're an E movement, which is not true because we tell everybody, you got to go to church. So wait a minute. So everything that we've been saying and that has been the critique of us is merely what we're saying. You got to be in the Orthodox Church. So we're agreeing to what people have critiqued us for. For 10 years and then telling the same message to all these Protestant goobers. But we're now bad because it's not a human. I mean, this makes no sense. It's like Jesus says, you'll never make them happy. We played a. A dirge for you, and you did not cry. We do this right if we drink. You. If we drink. Oh, then you're a glutton. If we fast. Oh, that's not good. It's never Good enough. David. $12. Excuse me. We did that. I'm formerly oriental. I want to become Orthodox. Can I go to a Greek church? Yeah, Bought in the rabbit hole. Oh, that was bought in the rabbit hole. That did the $20 thing about. Yeah, check out his response to Tony Costa and shooping on his channel. Hopefully. I think your channel is called Bottom of the Rat hole. Right, Shepherd? $5. My voice is going away, so I don't know if I can talk much more. David Wood sold me an art sub

[Caller 3]

box,

[Jay Dyer]

and then he told me to go To Rhythm Church. Now I'm actually rapping for Jesus with Ruslan, but I'm also looking into snake handling. However, I am saved. That's a good one, Alex. $5. The funny thing is, Avery holds to a Chalcedonian trinity model. He then uses all the orthodox arguments and then says believe in pick and choose the entity. Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Chalcedon teaches a certain church as we saw in my many arguments. I'm not going to rehearse all that. Not your personal Jesus. $20. The gospel according to Ruslan is number one, chapter one, verse one get paid. Exactly. Beef salt Nala Ray appeals to John Bevere Fallacy. I don't know what that is. Fernando Wigagog Apologetics Road Show I'm not reading $1 Super jets anymore. Sorry Flavius $50 according to the chat, I'm now a Muslim under Muslim rule. Yeah, by the way, any of you that are now liking any of my posts, you are now also by proxy Muslim. See how that works? It's like an std. So I liked a Muslim's comment. Now I am Muslim. And now you are all Muslim. Haha. I tricked you. Let's all get ready for our Hajj to mecca Scottish Kinsey. $10. Evangelicals Lism as a result of having no masculine role models. Yeah, and then the ones that they do have like that screaming, yelling, crazy Mark Driscoll dude that all ends up collapsing. You remind them that they don't have actually masculine role models and then they just say that you're a bully. By the way, how am I bullying anybody? Just saying. Would you like to have a formal they think bullying is Would you like to have a formal debate and not letting people yap endlessly on a on a call in. That's bullying to these people. Or a fat joke about Ibarra. By the way, you notice a bar lost weight. Good. I wanted him to lose weight. Props to Ibarra. I'm glad that he is eating a better diet and getting healthy. I don't want bad things for Ibarra. He thinks that everybody we're all his enemies because of mean cartoon strips. I didn't make memes about you, although I did after you said that we shouldn't because then it became funny. So you notice what happens in Bro world. Bros roast each other. Like we just debated on Piers Morgan. The Kevin Hart comedy roast. Bros roast each other. Ibarra got roasted and Ibarra decided he's going to lose weight. That's great. That's what we wanted Scottish Kinsey do you want to have? He's asking somebody about having a fight outside of Aldi. That's a joke. Death tiller, $10. If Christian so called influencers don't call out Ruslan as a grifter, then by this logic are they not grifters? Yeah, exactly. When are they going to call out Gavin's church? Church? Now many of the evangelical fundamentalist people, Calvinist people, they were actually calling out Gavin's church. Okay, where's Ruslan? Trent Horn, all the more moral signalers. Where are they at calling out Ruslan? I mean, and Gavin? They actually are prioritizing business connection with Ruslan over the truth. That's actually Pharisee behavior. Yeah, exactly. If I was just wanted to be clickbait, wouldn't I just do nothing to anger anybody? I wouldn't be talking about this stuff. It was all about just clickbait and getting them clicks. Flavia says for $10. Al Kubara 2252 if y' all want to read something wild. It's insane. Protestants nominate. Non denominationalists are not far behind this. Quranic logic. Kubra2 252 Scott is still arguing with people in the chat. Corey says for $5. Humility is actually the narrow gateway. It is. I look at these guys and see how much Protestant heretical views lead to a problematic source of pride and vanity. Humility is an m effort. I pray that God bless you. Thank you. Yeah, it is difficult, right? And people think that humility is an affectation in your voice or some fake performance. If you talk like this, this means you're humble. That's not what humility is. That's just made up gay idea. What it is real poseidon$10 brother gl's stream brother gl. I don't know God logic stream brought many people to Christ. It's a shame to see that this. Yeah. Now I'm not saying that he is an evil person. And it's not bad to say we want your best by becoming orthodox. If we believe that that's what's best for people, then how is that. How does that make us mean? Proverbs says that God is just. If I don't defend others, who will defend me against false slander? Matthew $5. I grew up Roman Catholic. I was baptized. Confirmed. I was an atheist then for 20 years. I watch videos on Tag. I'm thankful for your knowledge and wisdom you've imparted to me.

[Caller 3]

Thank you man.

[Jay Dyer]

Appreciate. Appreciate you. I'm very sincerely Thinking about looking into Orthodoxy. Gotta go check it out. Go to the church. Don't just be. It's not just an Internet thing. That's the thing. The evangelical e apologists are actually treating it like it's an online marketing message and it doesn't matter what church you go to. Now we're not saying that you have to go to the Orthodox church if. Obviously I'm not saying if you don't have one around you, you're not. It's not your fault. But Tristan. Tristan has no Orthodox church for eight hours. And Tristan built in his house an Orthodox church that the Orthodox priest comes to do liturgy in. And now there's a whole community they go to. They go. They'd be going to Tristan's house in Ecuador. That is an example of what can happen. Cheating. $20. David Wood tapping on Kneeling Redeemer. Redeem Zoomer's head like Zed the cop in Pulp Fiction. Avery's in the corner, tied up Maroo's lines in the rap song is blaring on the radio. This is what Protestant apologetics is now. It's a wild image dog. Crypto crusader. $5. Homie treats it like they are in a war with Muslims and now Jay is on the Muslim side of the battle line. This whole apologetic nonsense online is based on optics and not the truth. Yeah, you say for them. Exactly. Steve says for $20. David Wood has middle school type beef arguments. Exactly. Christ is God. $5. J for the Wigs Anthem. Dawa Cult Shepherd, $5. When you spend your days debating the people of the Middle Eastern persuasion, I'll have to say your inter intellectual prowess rarely grows out beyond that, you know, wise wolf. $5, y'. All. Well, remember, if we agree on things, then we're in a cult. Yeah, but so just agreeing. I mean, doesn't Christ say he wishes that the church will be Paul say as well? The church would be a one mind. It's not like the personality cult that they have by default. Exactly. Exactly. Bingo. $2. Thank you, Steve. Jesus, $5. Wait, these people are zio. They are guilty of persecuting the church then by association in Palestine and Ukraine. That's a good point. Can we just flip that around and be like, oh, so wait a minute, you're pro zio then? Now you're pro bombing the Orthodox churches and your murderers. Corbin, $20. I got him to admit that he lost the debate you saying Wood. But he coped and said it doesn't matter because Andrew is an immoral person. Well, there we go. So that's all these people care about is moral virtue signaling. Cheat and $10. Go watch his apologetics, bro. I'm not gonna watch it.

[Caller 3]

I'm done.

[Jay Dyer]

I'm moving on.

[Caller 3]

Dude.

[Jay Dyer]

I don't like, I'm done with that whole sphere of people. I mean, if they want to do a full formal debate, the offer stands. But there's no. There's no what Paul says after second, third ammunition admonitions. Right? Move on. Don't keep engaging with heretics. Their stream was full proto tardation fergalicious. $10. They do entire streams about what's going on inside of Islam as a daily drama stream every single day. Well, I mean, if that's. I mean, they're one trick ponies, like the whole thing is just anti Islamianity. That's it. I mean, if you read the Church Fathers, is Christianity just anti Aryanism? Is it just anti Nestorianism? No, there's also the church salt water, $10. My mom is hyper charismatic. I had quotes from Ignatius of Antioch about the Eucharist. I put them on my whiteboard. She said they were too Catholic and she erased it. Well, I mean, the COVID whiteboard, sneaky apologetics, probably not going to work. So I would say just be nice and love your mom and become a responsible adult. That will be. That will go much further than trying to. To debate your mom. So, yeah, this is all people have in the chat is to come at me personally. Exactly. No, I'm not 65. I'm 62. So the chat is. Is making up lies. I'm not 65. Sam Hyde is like 66. 68. He's. Or maybe 66. He's massive. And Nick Roshford's about the same height. But Don says for dollars, how do I answer? There are gaps in episodic succession. Ruslan made this critique. I mean, what's he talking about? He's got to be more specific than that's an assertion. Okay, so what's the. What is, what's the argument there? We did a five week tour, so no, I've not been in the gym in five weeks. That's why when I did 25 weeks on the road, 20 podcasts, I didn't have time to. It's too much to do. Can't work out. So I'm sorry that I've let all

[Andrew Wilson]

you

[Jay Dyer]

body bros. By the way, who cares about dudes bodies? Bunch of gay dudes. Sorry I've let you all you gay dudes down stream $5 crisis risen. Have you ever Considered writing a theology book. The red book is all theology stuff. Current orthodox status. Do a tag book. I don't know. I think FDA needs to do the tag book. I'm tired of tag honestly. Not because I disagree with it. It's just I did that. We've done that for so long, so many atheist debates, I would say we've done tag more than anything. Then if I write the next book it's going to be on espionage and geopolitics. 6. I'm not running a tag book. I think there's people with way better philosophical qualification to write that book versus how I would do it. But the problem then is going to be if FDA writes a. A high tier logic argument, what's like nobody will read that. So I don't know.

[Caller 1]

I don't know.

[Jay Dyer]

Duvall, you must agree with him or you're the enemy. Which sounds like a cult. Well, they're doing the same thing, right?

[Daniel (or Daniel character)]

We.

[Jay Dyer]

You have to agree with them or else you're a cult. But if we all agree we're a cult. But they also operate on the same position that you have to agree with that. So it's. None of this makes any sense. AI says Christ has risen. Thank you. We couldn't save it when weren't true. Indeed he is finding $10. Jay, hi. I'll tell you something I told David Wood. You probably agree on topics that matter. Don't get distracted with useless bickering. You should agree to disagree. Well, but again the problem is that there is no apologetics without the church. I don't understand why you guys can't get that through your head. It's not a question of do I agree with this person 90%. I mean that's good. And you can do streams where you talk about what you agree on. When I went on last time I went on with them, I we talked about what we agreed on. But I'm also going to say, oh, I disagree with this. And then it, lo and behold, I was a freaking meltdown. What about Mark? No, Jesus is not saying that you can do do it yourself because there's a guy casting out demons. He also says that they will not be. They will also be among us if they're not against us. And that means that you have to come into the church. So you read the book of Acts. When Paul goes and finds people that are out there who had heard parts of the message, he brings them under the episcopate. Just read the book of Acts. You should do more tick tock live stream. Well the problem is with the Tick Tock live streams is that the Oriental goblin sphere will report your. They just report my streams again and get them pulled down. This is how disgusting these people are, which is why I don't interact with them. And then when I say that they're acting like a brown cult, which they are because they're actually ethnocentric, then they scream racist and then they will just get. So the last time I did a TikTok stream, all of Aegon's goblins just had it. Really reported it and got it banned. Got me a strike. So no, I'm not going to. There's no point. There's no point in going on there to let them ban my Tik Tok. That's how disgusting these people are.

[Caller 3]

Cool.

[Jay Dyer]

Bear acuta. $5. Any plans on going to the First Parish Desic dedicated to St. Joseph in Texas? I don't. I mean, I'm only in Texas like once or twice a year. Father Moses will be there. I don't know, man. Appreciate the offer though, Bruce. $20. Thanks, Jay. Sorry about the noise. I was in the server room and the noise was canceling things that grabbed reflections of Russian statesman. That's good, man. I will try not to preset my wife. Just get her meeting people at the church. That's how the wives convert. Henry, $3. I don't understand the east didn't recognize the west having supreme power. But are there examples of the. I understand the east not. Good grief, dude, I'm so tired. There's a million super chats. I understand the east not recognizing the west as having supreme power, but are there examples of the Roman bishop admitting he didn't have that supreme power? Ah, good question. Well, I guess this is. You have to be more precise. By supreme power, do you mean temple oral power of the Roman bishop? Because that's very late. Or do you mean supreme universal jurisdiction as a bishop in the church? And I would say yeah, there's plenty of indicators that in many cases popes didn't. I mean, how about just go read the Chi 80 document which says that the popes weren't didn't have universal jurisdiction the first thousand years taint. Nothing to know. The fact that Vatican II claims to be pastoral actually makes it worse because it also makes salvific claims. Would that mean that salvation claims are pastoral? Saltwater, $5. God bless. Thank you. You too. Death tell us part. $20. You should popularize this argument. If these Christian influencers don't call out Ruslan's grift then they are now participating in grifting. Exactly. They are prioritizing business church over Christ and business church with Ruslan over Yeah exactly. People should call them out on that. So if you don't call out the wrong then you are pro business church. And by the way not just Rusland, also Gavin Orland. I don't understand why more people aren't making a stink about Gavin Orland. Like Ruslan's grif thing is one thing but Gavin Orland's gay church is like even worse. How where are all the people calling that out other than a bunch of protestants? A bunch of like Calvinist types? Leo $5 you are beefing but a power team with Sam could go crazy again. Problem with Sam Shamoon is that Sam Shamoon constantly talks the exact same that all these people do. Constantly acts like he wants to be friends and then he'll back backstab you in a second as soon as he finds.