Pt 3 DEBATE! ALIEN DISCLOSURE, Redeemed Zoomer Replies, Trent Horn, PSA, Gladio,, MEGA PODCAST TOUR!

Summary

Jay’sAnalysis – Pt 3 DEBATE! ALIEN DISCLOSURE, Redeemed Zoomer Replies, Trent Horn, PSA, Gladio, MEGA PODCAST TOUR!

Date: April 6, 2026
Host: Jay Dyer

---

Episode Overview

This episode is an energetic mega-mix of debates, theological deep-dives, quick-witted banter, and call-in Q&A, featuring Jay Dyer with guests and regular call-in contributors. The conversation roams from alien disclosure and the significance of Freemasonry, to incisive debates on atonement theology (especially Penal Substitutionary Atonement, or PSA), the canonicity and authority of Scripture, and Protestant vs. Orthodox paradigms. The episode is marked by a series of colorful interactions (including memorable internet personalities and trolls), all laced with Jay’s characteristically sharp humor and rigorous approach to theology and philosophy.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Theological Authority, Canon, and Church Structure

(01:11–03:04, 101:47–107:19)

• Jay emphasizes the necessity for an interpretive body within Christianity, likening the Church to the U.S. Constitution: “That's like saying that the Constitution is the supreme authority, but there's no legal body to interpret or bind.” (01:11, Jay)
• Discussion of the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) and its implications on epistemology, especially regarding whether faith or acceptance is compelled or simply justified.
• The canonicity debate surfaces regarding whether the Church or Scripture is foundational, and challenges to Sola Scriptura arise, especially from the Orthodox perspective.

2. Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) vs. Orthodox Soteriology

(53:00–78:46–Various timestamps)

• Heavy critique of PSA, Calvinist theologians, and versions of atonement which Jay (and various callers, including a “reformed pastor in the process of reforming back to Byzantium”) characterize as not only unorthodox but leading to theological contradictions.
• Jay, pulling from sources such as John of Damascus and Maximus the Confessor, explains Orthodox teaching: Christ assumes the natural human passions and undergoes real death—not spiritual death or seperation from the Trinity, as PSA sometimes claims.
• Notable challenge to the “ontological curse/forsakenness” language in PSA, insisting Christ “was not actually cursed by the Father, but to human vantage point it appeared as if he was one cursed … because death is the curse, he willingly takes on the curse of death.” (71:34, Jay)

Memorable Exchange:

“The punishment for my...” “Yeah, it’s a... it’s a equal transference, right. He has to take the punishment that was due to you.”
— Pastor Daniel and Jay, (55:40–55:47)

3. TAG Argument and Atheist Dialogues

(06:54–13:27, 84:51–86:43)

• Extended back-and-forth about whether the Transcendental Argument (TAG) is simply a justification for Christian belief or a defeater for atheism, with Jay arguing that all non-theistic explanations ultimately collapse into “accidentalism” (belief in a universe without intention or meaning), which logically defeats any claim to knowledge or meaning.
• Callers challenge the idea—Jay parries, “There is no knowledge, there is no meaning. But there is meaning. Therefore accidentalism and atheism is false.” (09:03, Jay)
• Debate frustrations abound: “I find the debates to be kind of like talk ... tedious, and nobody gets anywhere.” (05:45, caller)

4. Morality, Atheism, and Meta-Ethics

(31:03–34:12, 84:51–86:43)

• In-depth explanation of why moral non-cognitivism/self-referential arguments about ethics render debate itself meaningless: “If they do that, they think that they… So what they're trying to do is escape the contradictoriness of subjectivism, relativism… But if that's the case, then there's nothing actually to debate because debate implies that you're making propositions that your position's true.” (33:01, Jay)
• Further, the incoherence of atheistic “greater good” morality: “Just saying that it's quote, the greater good doesn't tell us what the greater good is or why we ought to choose that. So it would just be an assertion … and it’s begging the question.” (85:36, Jay)

5. Freemasonry, Gladio, and Political Conspiracy

(15:26–24:50)

• Listener stories about encountering Masonic lodges “everywhere,” leading to discussion about the omnipresence of Masonry and its ties to historical revolutions, organized crime, and even intelligence operations (e.g. Gladio, P2 Lodge).
• Jay distinguishes between different flavors of Masonry (e.g., Grand Orient vs. Scottish Rite, European vs. American variations). “I think the Freemasons were used by the British Empire as a kind of an intelligence network.” (18:31)
• The Italian P2 Lodge saga: playing both communist and anti-communist roles, entanglement with organized crime, and intersections with Catholic Church geopolitics.

6. The Intercession of Saints and Use of Deuterocanon

(28:32–30:22)

• Question about using Tobit 12 as a defense for intercession of saints.
• Jay explains that such arguments are often dismissed by Protestants because they do not recognize the Deuterocanon, but agrees with the substance: “That's why I said, even tonight, I said it was early Jewish belief that the saints and angels interceded, and this is an example of that.” (30:01)

7. Debate Etiquette, Internet Culture, and the "Mean Ortho Bro"

(34:41–39:18)

• Conversation about the so-called “mean” reputation of Orthodox debaters.
• Jay and guests observe that cross-examinations and tough questioning are standard in academic and legal contexts; those who feel it’s “mean” may simply be unaccustomed to high-level debate:

“If you're going to go and have like a debate on a complicated, important topic on YouTube, you should be prepared for some heat… it’s just an effeminate reaction to be like, it's not even effeminate. It's the other word that I'm not supposed to say on YouTube.” (36:45)

8. Callers, Humor, and Memorable Banter

Throughout

• Recurring lighthearted riffs on “can God create a stone so heavy…” paradoxes, parodying misguided atheist arguments.
• Waffle House and moon landing jokes, as well as references to “Redditors,” internet trolls, and “quantum time machines.”
• Jay roasting red-pill personalities and grifters:

“He would charge you, like, $10,000 to scream at you. It's like, that's an interesting grift.” (100:16)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the necessity of Church authority:
  “It doesn't make sense to even say that those are authoritative. That's like saying that the Constitution of the United States is the supreme authority, but there's no legal body to interpret or bind. And so that's why it's so important to have this…” (01:11, Jay)

• On TAG and atheism:
  “In atheism, I.E. accidentalism, there is no—if that were true, there is no knowledge, there is no meaning. But there is meaning. Therefore accidentalism and atheism is false.” (09:03, Jay)

• On PSA and Orthodox Christology:
  “When we say that Christ suffered in the flesh, we do not say that his divinity suffered. That would mean that he's not damned. You guys don’t see that?” (03:47, Jay)

• On morality and debate with non-cognitivists:
  “If that's the case, then there's nothing actually to debate, because debate implies that you're making propositions that your position's true … So in other words, there's no force to their arguments because they forfeited a whole position that actually entails their propositions have truth value.” (33:01, Jay)

• On Protestant “gotcha” moves:
  “It's a kind of a cheap debate move, actually ... an emotional appeal to the audience to get them to feel bad ... but that really has nothing to do with the argument.” (43:03, Jay)

• On the PSA paradigm:
  “He has to take the punishment that was due to you ... And then they have to conclude, usually, eternal death because of the total depravity of man.” (55:47, Jay)

• On liturgical/theological development:
  “Nothing happens in the triad that's not all three ... It's a triadic action, and it's an action that uplifts. It's not a payment model, so it is a deification model.” (76:35–78:46, Jay)

• On internet and cancel culture:
  “I'm a big fan of the block button. I think that it's my own little personal excommunication, and I revel in that power and authority.” (78:46)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• TAG Argument & Epistemology (06:54–13:27)
• Freemasonry and Gladio Discussion (15:26–24:50)
• Intercession of Saints Debate (28:32–30:22)
• Meta-ethics and Morality (31:03–34:12)
• Debate Etiquette/Internet Culture (34:41–39:18)
• Atheist Paradox Arguments & Banter (41:01–45:38, 112:49–115:09)
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Orthodox Soteriology (53:00–78:46, further scattered 58:15–74:48)
• Conversion, Canonicity, and Church Authority (101:47–107:19)

---

Tone and Language

Jay’sAnalysis lives up to its reputation with sharp but accessible philosophical/theological arguments, robust references to patristic sources, and a uniquely irreverent yet thoughtful tone. Jay and his co-hosts aren’t afraid to roast callers, each other, or the absurdities they find in online culture, yet their explanations of complex theological debates are thorough and grounded in original sources.

---

For New Listeners

• Expect deep theological analysis—especially Orthodox polemic against Protestant/Reformed paradigms.
• The show’s style is both cerebral and comedic; moments of highbrow philosophy interleave freely with lowbrow internet humor.
• Questions about Christology, canon, and authority repeat often—listen for Jay’s references to Church Fathers for Orthodox answers.
• If confused by the recurring “Waffle House” or “quantum time machine” gags, just know: this show loves its inside jokes as much as its theological debates.

---

Summary by Jay’sAnalysis Recap AI – providing clarity for Orthodox polemicists, Protestant questioners, and internet memers alike.

Transcript

[A]

This is Julian Edelman from Games With Names. I want to take a second to talk about something that's personal to me. I've had the privilege of working closely with Robert Kraft for a long time, and one thing I've always respected is how seriously he takes up standing up to hate. As a Jewish athlete, my identity is something I am proud of, but I also know what it feels like to be singled out for it. That's why this new commercial for the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate that aired during the big game really hit home. It's about showing up for someone when they're targeted, even if you don't have the perfect words. And sometimes standing next to someone is enough.

[B]

And you can show support by sharing

[A]

the Blue Square

[C]

Introducing Home Care Plus,

[A]

a new subscription service from Lowe's that

[C]

helps make life easier by giving members

[A]

a hand with home maintenance.

[C]

Let Lowe's tackle the tasks you keep

[A]

meaning to do, like electric dryer, vent

[C]

cleaning, replacing hard to reach light bulbs, and more.

[A]

Subscribe to Home Care plus for just

[C]

99 a year and consider your to do list.

[A]

Done. Members get more at Lowe's. Available in select zip codes only.

[C]

Cancel anytime.

[A]

Non refundable fee.

[C]

Product purchase required terms and service restrictions apply.

[A]

Details@lowe's.com Terms subject to change in terms of the whole context, it's not only all of the fathers, but also the the ecclesial and episcopal body that is the Church. Let me have a conversation with your priest and your bishop. Apart from that, it doesn't make sense to even say that those are authoritative. That's like saying that the the Constitution of the United States is the supreme authority, but there's no legal body to interpret or bind. And so that's why it's so important to have this is because exactly of these kind of confusions.

[B]

Let's read John Damascus. He says there's two ways to speak of appropriation, one that's natural and essential, and one that is personal and relative. The natural and essential is that by which our Lord, in his love for man, took on Himself, our nature and our natural attributes, becoming in nature man, and making trial of that which is natural. But the personal and relative appropriation is one where one assumes the person of another relatively, for example, out of pity or for love, and thus in his place utters words concerning himself that have no connection with himself. It was in this way that Jesus appropriated our curse and our desertion, and such other things as are not natural, not that he himself became accursed, but that he took it upon himself and was ranked as 1. That's what appropriation means. This is the meaning by he became a curse for our sakes. Galatians 3:15. Not that he became such in reality, but was seen as such. That's what is the point here. That's why John Vaska says he did not actually become accursed.

[A]

Alex, I think I've been trying to pin this topic as well myself, because I've been trying to put together something against the apostate Joshua shooping lately. And this is one of the things that he's hung up on. But I think it's really important that, you know, everybody understand that we cannot really separate this from kenosis and, like, what it means when Christ is, like, taking upon himself the blameless passion. So I think all of these things are connected.

[B]

Yeah. Say Maximus is very clear on that.

[A]

Add to the Orthodox understand, wrath is God's wrath is a divine energy. It's love. And God's wrath is against sin and death, not the person.

[B]

Yeah, Christ. And by the way, this is why the. The Fathers explicitly constantly stress that Jesus willingly took on death, meaning the severance of his soul from his body, not spiritual death and damnation. And that's why you will never find in this that Christ undertook a spiritual death. The body of our Lord did not experience corruption. For as David says, you will leave, not leave my soul in Hades, neither will you allow your Holy one to see corruption. So he willingly underwent death, which is the severing of the human soul from the human body. He does not undergo a spiritual death or damnation or rejection by the Trinity. That's what the appropriation is. And that's why he will say in chapter 26, summing up perfectly the Orthodox view and the Church Fathers, when we say that Christ suffered in the flesh, we do not say that his divinity suffered. That would mean that he's not damned. You guys don't see that? Tyler, what's up? What's up, man? Tyler. Tyler, what's up?

[A]

Oh, hey. Am I on?

[B]

Yep.

[A]

Hey, I. I really. I don't. I don't want to debate. I find the debates to be kind of like talk.

[B]

Reasons to be. You're cutting out.

[A]

You can hear me. Okay.

[B]

To be what?

[A]

Am I good? Am I good now?

[B]

Yes, you do you find them to be what?

[A]

Hello? Okay. I just find them to be, like, tedious, and nobody gets anywhere, so I really want to engage.

[B]

Well, why does all of the ancient world. Why does all the ancient world and all.

[A]

I think academia people are coming at these Things from totally such disparate starting points that nobody gets anywhere often. So I was just hoping to have.

[B]

So you're smarter than all of the history of academia in the West.

[A]

Well, right. But I'm hoping.

[B]

Right.

[A]

I understand that, but. But you and I don't have to, like, adhere to those patterns. We can say. I'm just asking if you'd be willing to just have a good faith dialogue more than a debate with an atheist who has, like, some questions, some concerns about the TAG argument that I hear sometimes from you. It's not fully tracking to me. Okay. What you're claiming about it and.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Supposedly how it functions for you and.

[B]

Okay, go ahead.

[A]

I guess what I'm wondering what's up.

[B]

Okay, go ahead.

[A]

Well, are you. Are you saying that the TAG argument reasonably justifies the believer in having their faith? Or is. Is your contention that TAG compels even the non believer to necessarily adopt to the Christian faith or I guess specifically the orthodox faith?

[B]

I think it has. I think it logically goes in that direction. I don't think it compels a person. If you mean like, I mean, TAG could be the means by which somebody converts, but it doesn't have to be.

[A]

But I guess what I'm saying is if somebody hears TAG and they accept, you know, the basic premises. I guess what you're saying. Are you saying that then they're being irrational in. Yes. Not ascending to the conclusion?

[B]

Ultimately, yeah.

[A]

Okay. So this is my issue with that because, like, you know, the problem of the criterion, I guess, is really what TAG is designed to address in epistemology. And that is like, I guess from my understanding, that's a pretty, like, live, open debate across the field. And there are a ton of people in sort of the.

[B]

It's not really there. It's not really there to address that. It's more so that it's saying that philosophy is pretty much dead because it's led to that. And so there's no way out from philosophy. That's the point of it.

[A]

Right. But the thing is that I. When you say philosophy is dead. Well, there are still people who are researching this. People are saying that, you know, they're maybe like neuroscientific grounding.

[B]

How is neuroscience. How is neuroscience going to ground?

[A]

That's because we don't want to lose our jobs. I told my students this the other day. I'm like, philosophy's dead. We ignore these issues because we still want to get paid for teaching you.

[B]

How is neuroscience going to solve an epistemic Problem. How is neuroscience going to solve an epistemic problem? It's a totally different domain.

[A]

Right. And again, I'm not here to take like one position. I'm not here to be like a coherent.

[B]

Come on, dude, just physicalist or anything.

[A]

I'm just trying to say that it's, it seems to me like what you're, what you're saying about TAG is that. And what I hear, what I hear is actually incredibly reasonable, that if you have faith in God, there is this big hole potentially at the heart of epistemology and at the heart of knowledge itself that God very neatly fits into. And that is very. I think that's a beautiful sentiment. I don't, I don't. What's that? That's not what the argument is. The argument, your argument is, okay, is I can show you different failures of autonomous epistemology and attempting to justify knowledge. But the argument really is, look, there's two categories. Either there is a personal omniscient being behind the world that created everything and there's an intention behind law, meaning and knowledge, or the opposite category is. There's not the opposite category of doing something on intention or intention, being behind something is accident. So the argument's deeper than just showing system failures. And the argument is from the atheistic point, it is the acceptance of accidentalism. So now you have to explain everything in terms of the, even the very meaning of the term, the history of how it arose or something like that. But you have to explain knowledge in terms of accident, the very thing that knowledge precludes. So the laws of physics, by accident. Laws preclude accident, meaning, etc. So it's a self defeating system. In atheism, I. E. Accidentalism, there is no. If that were true, there is no knowledge, there is no meaning. But there is meaning. Therefore accidentalism and atheism is false. Yes, right. The, the issue is that in atheism there is no meaning. That's. I don't, I don't know. I said you have to explain meaning in terms of accident and meaning precludes accident knowledge. There's no accidental knowledge. So the opposite category in the universe is accidents. So you have to explain knowledge in terms of the thing that it precludes. So you're contradicting yourself. So that's what I'm saying is that atheism is a defeater for any statement. So you can't even support the. Give any possibility maybe atheism might be true. Well, hold on. Accidentalist. Hold on. But that's not, that is not. And Nobody is saying that knowledge is impossible. In. In this argument. The coherentists, the foundationalists. None of these people just. That's not the point.

[B]

That's not what he's arguing.

[A]

What I'm saying is that nobody's saying that knowledge is impossible. What?

[B]

You're not addressing what he's saying.

[A]

It's almost like the quantum theory of gravity.

[B]

Dude. None of this is what he's arguing. You're not addressing what he's arguing.

[A]

Saying of what people believe or whether knowledge is impossible or not. It's the principle of explaining it, I. E. Atheism makes knowledge impossible. Not that you don't believe that knowledge is possible. You have two contradictory positions that, if true, would make knowledge impossible. That's the argument. No, because there are other possible explanations for how knowledge is possible.

[B]

You're missing. That's not the argument.

[A]

People are saying that they can absolutely prove that those positions.

[B]

Positions.

[A]

And that everybody else is forced to ascend to those positions.

[B]

Oh, my gosh, it's too low here.

[A]

The point. There's only two positions it rolls back into. So I. Whatever. The coherent. What all the theories, ultimately that's subsumed either under. Well, those are possible because there's intention behind the universe, I. E. There's a God or there is no God and it's accident. So I don't care what theory or whatever possibilities, it's still going to be accidentalism, which is a defeater for even making statements.

[B]

He doesn't get that. Waste of time.

[A]

I know they don't get it.

[B]

Yeah, but there's people who have theories of knowledge. Yeah. So what? That's not what we're. You're not addressing what was being. Go ahead, Grok.

[A]

A.J. can you hear me? Huh? Awesome.

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea. After the Big Game, like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials, and there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who was Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself, but the impact is still huge. If you saw the Blue Square square spot during the Big Game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the Blue Square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season, and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's an important one you need to $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one in four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialist will fix it, backed by another good the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with Lifelock identity theft protection. For tax season and beyond. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apply.

[A]

Do you mind if I go back to earlier in the stream when you were talking a little bit about the Freemasonry stuff?

[B]

Nope.

[A]

Okay. Have you ever heard about the transcendental argument for the existence of Freemasonry? I have not. Let me like, why don't you hit me with it? Oh, it's the impossibility that they don't exist because every town that I've been in, there's always a Freemason temple or something.

[B]

So they're omnipresent.

[A]

Texas, they're on the present, a town of like 10 people. There's a Mason Lodge there.

[B]

Go ahead.

[A]

I don't know if you, if you recognize me, but I'm. This is Matt Scroggins. I'm a truck driver and I have a bike I carry with. Every time I go to get groceries and take a ride through a town, there's a freaking lodge. Yeah. It doesn't matter how small the town is, they're everywhere. Well, you can thank Tristana for that. He. Thank you. I mean, even in Latin America, like, I live in Ecuador, I'm an American, I'm an American, I live in Ecuador. And there's, you know, you feel right at home when you get in the big cities because you see all these Masonic statues and stuff. And as a Roman Catholic country, Ecuadorians have no idea that the history of all the Latin American revolutions are intimately tied in with Freemasonry.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

With, you know, Simone Bolivar and a lot of elite being involved in masonry down here for centuries. So it's everywhere.

[B]

Okay, so what's your question, Matt?

[A]

I know probably deacon at a nice is a huge fan of a Lubovitch. But they have headquarters all over South America, especially Argentina. But they're. They're in Ecuador as well. When I lived in Argentina. Huge in Argentina. It's crazy.

[B]

Grock, Grock, what's your question? Oh my gosh, dude. Ripping farts on my stream. I'm about to block your ass, dude. Ripping big old farts. Give me a break, dude. Brap.

[A]

Oh, that. Oh yeah, that was. That was my truck.

[B]

Yeah, your truck. AKA your butt, dude. Come on now.

[A]

I. I picked up the, the Paul Williams Gladio book on the audiobook and I've been good through it.

[B]

Good.

[A]

And yeah, I was. I got to the section where they were talking about like how hardcore they were with the P2 Lodge. Yeah, I mean, I understand why, because it's like, hey, you guys are like doing highly illegal basically and like offing people, so you have to be hardcore. But I was curious. I know that Masonry in the United States is like a kind of. It's a different kind of approach more because I guess they were just here from the beginning, so they already started with the kind of.

[B]

Well, so, yeah, go ahead. I don't want to cut you off.

[A]

No, it's okay. Just the. They had the kind of democratic equalitarian fraternity kind of stuff at the beginning of the United States. So I was wondering how hardcore and violent like the American Masonry lodges were.

[B]

I mean, again, I brought this up with Gerald. I mean there have been, you know, classic famous cases like Captain William Morgan, where you had a Masonic murder which led to America creating at one point a anti Masonic political party. So there used to be an anti Masonic party and this had to do with the Masonic murder of Captain William Morgan. There's also a very famous case that I will not go into depth with related to the founding of B' Nai B', Rith, which is also Masonic associated organization. And that's another famous case that dealt with organized crime. And we just saw, for example in France a couple days ago, the case of the 20 plus Masons that are on trial for running an organized crime hit squad in France that they thought they were supposedly freeing the country of Mossad. Which could either be they were working for just organized crime or they're working for the French intelligence. It doesn't. It's unclear because one of the people involved was a French intelligence operative. But. But those are examples of Masonic associated crimes and murders that have always plagued Masonry, I would argue. And that's because I think the Freemasons were used by the British Empire as a kind of an intelligence network. But you, you do have a difference in, in some degree between what's called Grand Orient European Masonry and kind of Western Scottish Rite Masonry. I don't ultimately think this is something a lot of masons will show. We're very different. We're very different. They try to make these big distinctions and one's good and one's bad. It's all bad. But, but the European Grand Orient lodges have a long history of being pretty radically Jacobin, Communist, Socialist, Marxist. And that's what's odd about the P2 lodges is that they were largely tended towards the far right, which is kind of out of the norm. And that's why they were the breeding ground for recruitment. Because there's a lot of people that supported for whatever reason Mussolini, even though Mussolini like pretty much kicked out the masons for some reason certain Masons were af, they didn't want communism. So they rather have Mussolini than, than, I guess than the, than the Bolsheviks or, or the Soviets. And so it became a recruiting ground for the CIA to train the stay behind units for gladio. But exactly why the P2 Masons, the propaganda due lodges were in some way pro Mussolini? I, I don't know. That's an odd question. I've never exactly figured that out but because he, he booted out most of the, the Freemasons because they thought they were, they were Jewish and same reason why, you know, tiny mustache man. Right. Had similar positions against Freemasonry because it was, it was Jewish. So exactly why the, how the P2 history comes about, I don't actually know. But they are different I would say from American masonry in certain respects.

[A]

I think Masonry in general is just, it's a breeding ground for, it's a good recruiting ground for different political and kind of any subversive movement.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

To, to hijack. So I think the, the model that, that V shop used in the 18th century, kind of just that that's the vehicle Masonry is, is a vehicle, it's a secret society is organized in this way where it's very easy to co opt it and there are a lot of power hungry people within it and highly ambitious people within it. So the passions are really stirred easily and the revolutions in either direction, whether it's to the, you know, whether it's, you know, communist or. Yeah, I think it's just a debris ground for that.

[B]

Yeah, somehow, probably, probably under Licio Galli and Leecho Galli was closely connected to organized crime through Mikhail Sindona as you'll see in the Gladio text that you're reading. But they were very anti Communist, very anti Soviet, anti Marxist. And so that became a very fertile breeding ground for. For the CIA to recruit and train people for the state within a state, which was the. Basically, according to Williams, he argues that Kissinger was running all of Gladio. So basically they had to control the entire Italian government through Gladio. Matt, are you there? We lost, Matt. Let's see what was. Did you have more to your question? Matt?

[A]

Hey, sorry about that. I. I dropped out. I'm going through some, like, part of Utah to Wyoming, so it's like bad coverage. The other question I had, I'm. I'm just trying to figure this out. So, like, I found out a few years ago that my grandfather was a. He was a.

[B]

You're cutting out. Your granddad was a Shriner. What's the question? You're cutting out. All right, we can't hear you, dog. Just call back in when you. When you get a good signal or something. Roscoe, what's up? So let's see a little bit of the history of the P2. It says it was founded under, I guess, Victor Emmanuel, Kingdom of Italy, grand orient of Italy, 1877. Just the famous Mason Communist Giuseppe Mazzini drew up a list called propaganda masonica in 1877 in Turin. It was the Propaganda Masonica lodge frequented by politicians and government officials. A lot of the Piedmont nobility. Let's see. Talking about various. Maybe because there was a lot of nobility amongst this lodge, they were not inclined to leftism, perhaps. Let's see.

[A]

Hello.

[B]

Now here's my question. Hold on a second. This is. This is where I get to things being a little fuzzy. P2 was banned in 1925 as well as all other Masonic lodges by Mussolini and the Fascist regime. However, Italian Freemasonry was reconstituted in exile in 1930 following the end of the war for Masonry was legal again and the name was changed. Changed to propaganda due by 1960s Lodge is all but inactive. The original lodge was restored by Licio Galley in 1966 after two years after him becoming a Freemason. On the contrary, Giuliano De Berno Bernardo, the Grand Orient of Italy firm said the cards, the pizza affiliates, blah, blah, blah. It was reconstituted under the name Propaganda due A for reasons of numbering Italian lodges opposed to organizational necessity. The lodges resume their activities under LICIO Galley. During the Cold War, Italian Freemasonry and the traditions of free thinking under the Resortamento. Resort Resort resorgamento transformed into anti Communism. This is the area. I don't understand why and how that came about. The increasing influence of political left in 1960s became a concern even for the masons of Italy. Licio Galli was appointed by Lino Salvini of the Grand Orient, one of Italy's largest lodges to present represent him in all functions. In 1970 he re reorganized P2. Okay, so this is all in concert. By the way, he was very close to Kissinger and all these USCA people. So this is probably where this is beginning to come to fruition.

[A]

Ah.

[B]

According to other sources, the secret head of the PT Lodge was actually Christian Democrat Julio Andriati. So this is how the CIA is using this angle against the communists getting elected and hence the alliance with the Papacy. What's up Roscoe?

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea. After the Big Game, like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials and there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't last or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who is Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself. But the impact is still huge. If you saw the Blue Square spot during the Big Game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the Blue Square is one small way to do that that it's tax

[C]

season and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one. In four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialists will fix it. Backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with Lifelock Identity theft Protection for tax season and beyond. Visit lifelock.com identify iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apply.

[A]

Oh, hey Jay. I've been watching your content for a while and I just wanted to Ask a question about a potential argument for the intercession of saints.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

Yeah. I was watching a, a debate you had with a Protestant who said. Or it was just somebody who said, not even in the Apocrypha or our Deuterocanon are there examples of saintly intercessions. And I'm wondering why Tobit chapter 12 is never brought up.

[B]

No, I, I remember arguing that there are saintly intercessions. I mean, maybe I forgot to bring it up in that discussion. It's about with jp.

[A]

It's, it's worthy, the angel that.

[B]

No, no. Is it me arguing with jp? Is that the one that you're talking about?

[A]

I think so. Yeah.

[B]

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, with Raphael. What's the verse? I've got it pulled up.

[A]

It's Tobit chapter 12. I think it's around 12, verse 12.

[B]

When you, tobert and Sarah prayed, it was I. Raphael presented the record of the prayer to the Lord. Yep.

[A]

So. So would you say that's a useful argument or.

[B]

Absolutely use so.

[A]

So sparingly because.

[B]

No, no. Well, it's used sparingly because the Protestant's going to say, I don't care what the Deuterocanon says.

[A]

But couldn't you say that it, it provides an account for like a, like a, some sort of historical continuity for us?

[B]

Of course it does. That's why I said, even tonight, I said earlier, I said it was early Jewish belief that the saints and angels interceded, and this is an example of that.

[A]

Really? Okay, I guess, I guess I just never heard that argument being made on this stream.

[B]

No, it's, it's. And it was just earlier tonight. But the reason that it's. The process will just. I don't care what Tobit says. It's not the Bible.

[A]

So.

[B]

But no, you're absolutely right. No, it does say that. And this is again another reason why the Protestant reformers didn't want these texts considered to be part of the canon. Let's see. Zaino, Zano. What's up, dude? By the way, I have a lot of talks on Gladio. We covered it many, many times. You can start here with Vatican and intelligence agencies three years ago. This is another one here. Gladio, Modern Papal geopolitics, another one here. We just covered Gladio with Gerald Crowder's co host the other day. So what's up, Zano?

[A]

Hey, Jay, can you hear me?

[B]

Yes, sir.

[A]

Thank you for having me up, man. I really appreciate it. I just had one question and specifically was about meta ethics and a particular meta Ethic. How would you. How do you believe you would approach a debate against an atheist? Non cognitivist. So one who kind of claims morals have no truth aptness.

[B]

Fda, you are the expert on philosophy, sorcery and word salad. As Jimmy Kennedy said, sassery.

[A]

These are called moral nihilists. So they believe that there's no. I should put this. So propositions are sentence. Not all sentences are propositions. Propositions or sentences that have a possible truth value. Okay, so a moral nihilist. Cogniz. What you're. What you're saying. They're also known as expressivists. So they think they can get around this by saying that moral claims have no truth value. So you can't actually say something is morally wrong or morally right because that implies a truth value. And so they. They say what. What it really is is a kind of a linguistic error. You're simply expressing emotively or cognitively a distaste. So take for example, torture is wrong. They're saying there is no fact out there such that could be true or false. Because what torture is wrong means is simply, ugh, I don't like torture. Would you please stop torturing this?

[B]

You're gonna get my stream taken down.

[A]

So the great thing about that is they just forfeited debate. So if they do that, they think that they. So what they're trying to do is they're trying to escape the contradictoriness of subjectivism, relativism. And so they switched it into, well, those. Those statements are really just cognitive motive expressions. But if that's the case, then there's nothing actually debate, because debate implies that you're making propositions that your position's true. So, like, so who cares what they think? So they kind of undermine themselves. So in other words, there's no force to their arguments because they forfeited a whole position that actually entails their propositions have truth value. And also that you can put it. You can put them in camps.

[B]

Mr. Mustache Ninja. What's up?

[A]

Just for the record, Father, you can. Ananias just said you can put people in camps. So just. I want to get that out there. Yes, it's an ambiguous term.

[B]

Maybe he means fun camps, like Hillary talked about fun camps. Maybe that's what he means.

[A]

Yeah, like summer camps.

[B]

Yeah, exactly, Mr. Mustache. What's up, man? Mustache Pete. What's up?

[A]

Yes. Good evening, Jay. Father Bless. I pretty much just wanted to throw out one thing for I do want to do this laugh tonight. Alex was on the stream earlier. He had a Pretty good interaction on his debate. What is Debate Stream? I think it was like an hour 26. Some guy called in and decided to do the you're mean at Jay Dyer type of argument. So I figured you'd get a kick out of.

[B]

So wait, you're saying that a guy called into Alex arguing that you're mean or that Jay's mean?

[A]

Yeah, yeah, he did that to Alex. He didn't like the way that Alex didn't give the other Paul the complete advantage in their debate. He's like, oh, you use cross, like the way across should be done. And I didn't like how you asked him questions.

[B]

Oh, well, actually I saw a lot of comments underneath that debate saying that, you know, oh, another mean ortho bro. I mean, and I've only seen some clips, but I. I highly doubt Alex was mean. I've never actually seen Alex be mean to somebody.

[A]

I'm glad you brought this up, actually, because there's this, like, misconception out there that somehow lawyers or academics, that they have this, like, unreasonable level of scrutiny that they apply in debates. Like, look, I have done in the hundreds, if not at least like a thousand cross examinations in my career. So far, what I've done on YouTube is mild. There are people that have been litigating longer than I have, you know, 50, 60 years, that are much more masterful across it. This is like Jay's cross exams. My cross exams, they are mild. And there's even a higher level of scrutiny when you get into academia at the PhD level, like father Deacon, you would know very well that when you're presenting a PhD paper, every single punctuation, every single space, every single word you have to account for, it's the highest level of scrutiny out there. And if you're going to go and have like a debate on a complicated, important topic on YouTube, you should be prepared for some heat.

[B]

Great point.

[A]

This is not time to be friends. Everybody's trying to prove a point in the analytic area. So like the UK Anglo, UK philosophy. I mean, you go to conference and Q A, they rip each other apart. And when I was an undergraduate and I went to the Great Books program at Thomas Quintus College, we had to have these things called dawn racks with the professors of the Dawns, named after the Oxford dons. And your report card was basically called in by all your professors and they ragged on you like you didn't exist, like you weren't in the room. If you had a stupid position, I mean, you were ripped apart. And it. Nobody ever in those said, well, that's so mean. That's uncharitable. It's like man up and deal with the argument. Like it's a hard argument and they're gonna aggressively go after you. So it's as we talked before, it's just an effeminate reaction to be like, it's not even a feminine. It's the other word that I'm not supposed to say on YouTube.

[B]

We're on YouTube, man. You're trying to take away all my ad money, dog.

[A]

That's what I said. That's the other word. But my conclusion here is that either they are just losing so they need some excuse to make up for all the losing, or they're just really bad at cross exam and they complain after. They just don't know what it is. They don't understand.

[B]

Well, I think a lot of people don't know. Like I had multiple experience. Yeah, I'm having multiple experiences where people think that, you know, you're not supposed to interrupt in a cross examination now. I can do that if I'm cross examining you.

[A]

Yeah. That's so crazy because it's also like you have a set amount of time to make your points, right? 15, 20, 30 minutes. Why on earth are you going to let this person take up your time when it's your turn to make your points? It just, it doesn't make any sense, people. So I did a stream on this, but maybe Jay, if you went into it too a little bit, that probably reach a few more people. So people understand what are the rules of debate? Like what are we trying to do? Exactly. None of these people know what actual. Because, you know, Jay and I grew up and, and if, you know, you went through law school, you learned the rules of kind of like debate. I was brought up in debate, so none of this stuff is strange to me. But like, I don't, I don't know what these people are thinking.

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea after the Big Game. Like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials and there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who is Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself, but the impact is still huge. If you saw the Blue square spot during the big game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the blue square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one in four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock, LifeLock's US based restoration specialist, will fix it, backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with LifeLock Identity Theft Protection. For tax season and beyond, visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apply.

[B]

Okay, guts. What's up, man? And then we'll go to Brian. Guts. And then Brian. What's going on, Jay?

[A]

So I basically have like a paradox that pretty much proves that the Abrahamic conceptions of God are contradictions.

[B]

How would a paradox, how would a paradox prove a contradiction? First of all, it's, it's. That's not able to do that.

[A]

Okay, well, I can demonstrate to you. Do you want it formulated?

[B]

Well then it's not. If it's a contradiction, it's not a paradox. So there's two different things.

[A]

So do you want it formulated?

[B]

Yes or no? Well, do you. Not exactly. Do you not agree, first of all, that what you said.

[A]

Do you guys believe that omnipotence and omniscience are properties of the theistic God?

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Okay, so to start with the first step, do you guys believe that God can create a stone too heavy for him to lift?

[B]

Okay, this is too stupid to even. This is not a serious person.

[A]

Wait, so you're dodging the question?

[B]

You thought that a contradiction was a paradox?

[A]

It's. Yeah, it's a category error. So we don't answer questions. Remember when our grade school teachers said there's no such thing as a stupid question?

[B]

No, there are.

[A]

That's a stupid question because it's a category error. So there's no, there's nothing to actually answer in terms of the question.

[B]

Well, it's been a while since actually we've had two Redditors tonight, can God

[A]

create himself to have never been God?

[B]

Oh, Reddit mind blown, bro. Brian, what's up, dog?

[A]

No, no, no, no, no. I just have a question. I gotta put one point in. True or false. Does two smell faster running on Tuesday?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

See? Answer the question, Jay. Are you dodging the question?

[B]

I am defeated. I dodge. Officially. I quies. Brian, what's on your mind, dog?

[A]

Yeah, I just have a question. Like, how to respond with, like, this. It's almost like a script that the Protestants use where they kind of put you in a corner to ask to make a judgment on their salvations, and they kind of, like, try to fit the audience to, like, make you condemn them to hell. So, like, they can, like, win over the audience. Like, how do you guys. Like, I know you're not supposed to make judgments, obviously, if you're orthodox, well,

[B]

it's an emotional appeal. Right? That would be a fallacy, first of all. So.

[A]

So that would. You would just tell them that's an emotional feel that I would, like. Okay, yeah, because I see that's a lot of, like, script. Like, even need the God that mad will, like, try to be like, almost like piety signal. Like, oh, you got to be careful. Like, I think when even Cleave was a Protestant, he would kind of be like, you have to be careful becoming orthodox, because then you are. You're condemning your Protestant grandmother. Like, yeah, try to wind off.

[B]

I agree. Yeah, it's a. It's a kind of a cheap debate move, actually, because it's like when Sam Harris was debating, Jordan Peterson would cover that debate. And Sam Harris was like, right now there's a Muslim torturing a girl and stoning her to death. And how could God allow such a thing? It's like, well, that's an emotional appeal to the audience to get them to feel bad for somebody being stoned or whatever supposedly is happening. But that really has nothing to do with the argument.

[A]

If God doesn't down and answer me right now, why this poor girl with cancer decent, then I'm not gonna believe. And then what do we say, Dawkins? If you don't build me a quantum time machine science machine to go back and kill my grandfather. I don't believe in science.

[B]

Well, you laughed about the quantum time machine, but did you see that there's this Trump Department of Homeland Security guy who's claiming that he would. He was teleported to a Waffle House. Did you see this? So apparently FDA has been trolling us all this time with his joke of a quantum time machine. They actually built this, but it just. It just takes you to, like, greasy spoon restaurants. Apparently it doesn't take you anywhere cool. So I'm being serious. There's a. There's a DHS guy who is doubling down. I saw the story today that he was teleported to a Waffle House. John, do you want to say something? Junior, what's up? I'm you. White House official says. FEMA official says. I don't recall who teleported me, but I was teleported to a Waffle House. I'm not joking. It's all in the Australia and all these major stories. John Adams, you want to say something? John? Can y' all hear me?

[A]

Could God create, like, a universe where God didn't exist, man?

[B]

Exactly, dude. Mind blown.

[A]

Could God create a universe where my question about God doesn't make any sense.

[B]

Oh, it's getting meta, dude. But I want to know who.

[A]

Don't get me interested. And started down the rabbit hole of whether God could create a universe where the questions or God didn't exist, man.

[B]

So.

[A]

But was.

[B]

But was Greg Phillips teleported to the Waffle House? I don't understand why you guys are not more interested in this story.

[A]

Can you prove that he wasn't? I haven't heard a good argument.

[B]

Exactly this. I like that line of argument too.

[A]

Well, can you prove Jay's avoiding the Waffle House question?

[B]

The W. The whq,

[A]

but too quickly. Waffles.

[B]

I got a bummer. I got a Boomer joke. You ready? Waffle House. Is that another word for Trump's White House? Get it?

[A]

The.

[B]

Because he waffles. That's a Boomer joke right there. So John's the only person that left.

[A]

By the way, you should. Do you know how you did those. Those joke reels about courage ones about, like, protest. Like Boomer protests. Protest right here.

[B]

Well, the problem is that you can't even. You can't accurately mock the Boomer. No Kings people. Because they're actually way crazier than what you would mock. Like, the real thing is way crazier than any kind of comedy sketch.

[A]

You see the one where it was like this disabled fat lady with.

[B]

Yeah, they were calling. Yeah, they were calling her. There was a bunch of good, good jokes. Like, who's the guy in Mad Max?

[A]

Humongous.

[B]

No, no, no. The new one. What's his name? Not Lord. Not Lord Humongous. No, it was a really good joke. There was two. There was two good one liners. It was. And Morton Joe. And they called her Immortan Slow because she was in a wheelchair. And then somebody called her. Let me finish my jokes. Somebody called her Immortan Joe a slow and Immortan Joan cus of Immortan Joe. I thought that was a good one. Okay, you may go now.

[A]

I. It's such as. The world's so crazy. I actually thought it was AI.

[B]

No, I didn't realize it was a real. I thought at first it was a dude, and it turns out it was a girl. But technically she did look more like the new Mad Max villain than Lord Humongous. But there is Immortan Joe, if you remember him from the newer one. Let's see, where's that pastor? Oh, that pastor dude came back and then he left again. Dang it. I want the pastors dog. We had a freaking A Randy balls in here. And he left. Come back, dude.

[A]

Can God make a pastor so fat?

[B]

Can God make an Israel so Israel that he can't destroy it because it's Israel?

[A]

God make an Israel whose borders are so large there are no more borders to consume.

[B]

Exactly. And then there wouldn't be war.

[A]

Yes, and he will.

[B]

Let's see. I wish that pastor dude would come. Come back, Pastor. I want to talk about Israel. Let's see. Let's go to. Into the furnace.

[A]

God make a blood moon so big.

[B]

Can God make a moon pie that's so big that it's a blood moon pie? Go ahead, man. Into the furnace. What's up, dude?

[A]

What's going on, Jay? How you doing, brother? Good.

[B]

What's on your mind?

[A]

Got a couple things, man. You should make a. A new cringe core video of Trent Horn and bad, bad words. Something to that effect. That would be hilarious.

[B]

Somebody said they're making a Trent Horn cringe core video, but I don't know if it's from somebody else's streams or. Or where they're making it. I don't know if it's. I think it was Dr. Evo, but I don't know what they're making.

[A]

Either that or something about the alien disclosure. Should make a. Yeah, about that.

[B]

That'd be fun. Touching butts, dude. Is that all? Is that it got.

[A]

Got a quick thing for you.

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea after the Big Game. Like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials, and there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school. And another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who was Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself, but the impact is still huge. If you saw the blue square spot during the big game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the blue square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season, and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to hear. $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one. In four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialists will fix it, backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with LifeLock identity theft protection for tax season and beyond. Visit LifeLock.com iHeart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iHeart terms apparent.

[A]

I was looking at that post you made about the. I think it's edge. Edge to the. Or I think it's like, it's the one about the alien and the incarnation from the. I think it was.

[B]

Yeah. Brenda. Brenda Denzler's book.

[A]

Yep. Yes. I thought it was really interesting how it was that they're like attacking or looking to attack the incarnation. And I thought it was really interesting. And it made me think about how a lot of Protestants have like a really underdeveloped theology around the incarnation.

[B]

I mean, or just outright heretical.

[A]

But I think in general, like when I talk to people about the incarnation, it's really, really dumbed down.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And I feel like if this alien stuff that they're trying to put out or whatever, it's going to be pretty effective in kind of uprooting a lot of like, you know, like we.

[B]

Oh, I'm sorry I lost you there. I apologize. I did not mean to. I hit the wrong button because I was trying to bring the, the, the pastor up. Pastor Daniel, what's on your mind?

[A]

What's up, buddy? How are you tonight?

[B]

I'm here. Ready to talk about Israel. Are you a friend of Israel or are you enemy of God's chosen people?

[A]

Dude, I'm all. I'm all here for the blood moons, man.

[B]

Okay. I knew it. We got a John Hagee.

[A]

Build that third temple, man, so I can support Israel and usher in the Antichrist at the same time. Because that's not contradictory, friend.

[B]

I love the way you think. I love the way you think, friend.

[A]

Amen.

[B]

You mean. You mean hey, man.

[A]

Oh, yeah, sorry. Hey, man. I forgot Alex is in the hey, man. Anathema. Eh. Anyway, Jay, are you still good to talk about the atonement for a second? Sure. Psa, huh? So I'm a. A reformed pastor that's in the process of reforming back to Byzantium. And I wanted to give you a really good quote. I know a lot of Calvinists. Sorry, From a theologian. I know a lot of Calvinists use its gear Hardest boss. And I've got.

[B]

You've got. I've got one large gear Hardest Voss book. I think it's his eschatology book, but you cut out. What were you saying?

[A]

Okay, sorry. So you know redeem Zoomer. I heard you playing a clip from him earlier. Essentially doing the same thing Dr. Gavin Ortland's been doing, almost redefining PSA. Like, oh, we don't believe in damnation.

[B]

Yeah, right.

[A]

We don't. He doesn't do any of these things. So Gearhard is Voss, and it's. It's volume four of his systematic theology. Let me just read this quote to you. I'll send it to you after, but this would be good.

[B]

Yeah, this is. By the way, I'm gonna go get all of my systematic theologies of Calvinists that I have is a bunch of them. And I'm just gonna collect a bunch of damnation quotes out of it to put this to rest. But go ahead.

[A]

Well, so listen to this one, though. This is sneaky though, right? He doesn't use the word damnation. Right. And that's where we might have a goalpost shift. Like. Well, we don't believe he believes in that. He was damned. But here's the interesting thing. So this is just a quick quote I'll read for you.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

So Voss is describing three types of death. He's being super verbose. And the last one, he says, death is separation for the consciousness from any favor and a full awareness of the infinitely severe wrath of God. So there is your. Your wrath paradigm. Right. But then here's the final quote. This is eternal death. And we believe that this to be fell Christ.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

That's a super paradigmatic one. To. To hold like someone like redeemed Zimmer to. Because if that's. If that's the case at all, that's what their whole. That's what the whole paradigm. And this is my understanding as a reformed pastor. Right, of course that's the case.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Because the punishment for my.

[B]

Yeah, it's a. It's a equal transference. Right. It's a. It's an equal transference. Right. He has to take the punishment that was due to you.

[A]

Right, exactly right. And then you ask the question of what punishment am I actually owed? And then that's where things fall apart. They have to conclude, usually eternal death because of the total depravity of man.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

And then there's another fork in the road. Did he. Did he take on a totally depraved nature because total depravity is true. What does that do to the Trinity? Do we want to be an historian or is it something euphoric like a pre fallen perfect nature where maybe he didn't experience our temptations and, and stuff, so he can't empathize with our weaknesses. But I just wanted to share that with you. That's.

[B]

Well, that, by the way, would be the heresy of Julian of Halicarnassus. And that was the. The Julian is where a very minor unknown sort of sect for a while. But if you saw in that John Damascus.

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea, after the Big Game. Like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials. And there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who was Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself, but the impact is still huge. If you saw the blue square spot during the Big Game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the blue square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season, and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to hear. $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one. In four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialist will fix it, backed by another good number number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with Lifelock identity theft protection. For tax season and beyond. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apparent piece

[B]

that we had up and there's a reason why I'm bringing this up. It's, it's actually important. So in on the Orthodox faith, book three, when you come down to the bottom of it, when he's talking about what happened at the death of Christ, he notes the, the Julianists and he says that wherefore to say with the foolish Julianus and guy on us that our Lord's body was incorruptible in the first sense of the Word before his resurrection. It is impious. For if it were incorruptible, it was not really, but only apparently the same nature that we have.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And this is why Maximus talks about in the little blue book, the blameless and the blame full passions.

[A]

So I was just about to say that.

[B]

Yes, Christ. Yeah, go ahead.

[A]

Part of Christ, you know, another loaded term we can use is suffering. Right. But the suffering of Christ is not just limited to the cross, you know, or the, the quote unquote passion of Christ. There is just the fact of his condescension being into humanity.

[B]

Yeah, great point.

[A]

Think about all the suffering we experience daily. Right. Like I, I did a karate belt test today. I had a lot of suffering in that, you know, back pain because I'm getting to be an old man and I'm tall, right. And I'm hungry.

[B]

I mean, well, Christ fasting for 40 days, Christ, you know, weeping over Jerusalem, those are all sufferings.

[A]

Exactly. Right. It's such a broad, I mean that there's a beauty to that too obviously that I don't want to look past. Right. And it's a, it's a more beautiful contrast with Adam who ate but did not. He was not again before the fall. Adam was not tempted to overeat when he ate. Right. Saint Max just makes this point as well.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

But again, I think there's a cruciality to that too where it's no wonder that the modern Neo Calvinists, they're picking that Nestorian route. Correct most of the time. Because in that recent Ortland video, that's what he did, you know, redefining psa. We don't believe he was damned. But now how do we just for a second, separate the natures? Right? How do we dissolve them? Just briefly. What can't be dissolved. We need to do it just briefly for this to. For this to function together.

[B]

Yeah. Now let me pause you right there, because this is a really important chapter that I want. Let's just read this. What. Because John Damascus summarizes this very well about what happened with the sufferings and the death that he underwent. Observe that we say that God suffered in the flesh, but never that the divinity suffered, or that God suffered through the flesh. For example. For if when the sun is shining on a tree, the ax would cleave the tree and nevertheless the sun remains uncle. The sun remains uncleft and void of power. Passion much more with the passionless divinity of the word. United in subsistence. That's just the Latin term for the person or the hypostasis of the flesh. Excuse me, United in subsistence or hypothesis to the flesh remain void of passion. When the body undergoes passion. And should anyone pour water over flaming steel, it is that which naturally suffers by the. Suffers by the water. I mean the fire that is quenched, but the steel remains untouched. For it is not the nature of steel to be destroyed by water. Much more than when the flesh suffered, did his passionless divinity escape. And all passion, although abiding inseparably from the flesh. For one must not take the examples to be absolute. Absolutely and strictly. In these examples, once you consider that what is water and what is it like? Excuse me, what is like? What is unlike? And then he says, since our Lord was without sin, he committed no sin, and he took away the sin of the world. Nor was there any deceit found in his mouth. He was not subject to death, since death came in the world through sins. Sin. Romans 5:12. He dies, therefore, because he took on himself death on our behalf. And that and thus he makes himself an offering to the Father for our sakes. For if we had sinned against him, and it was meet, that he should ransom us, and that we should thus be delivered from condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord should have been offered to the tyrant, so it's not offered to the devil. Wherefore death approaches and swallowing up the body as bait, it is transfixed on the hook of divinity. So he's doing the ransom theory right here. And he's saying that after death tasted of the sinless life giving body, it perishes and it brings again all those who were swallowed up by it. For just as darkness disappears upon the introduction of light, so death is repulsed by the assault of life, bringing all to life and death to the destroyer. Therefore, although he died as man and his Holy Spirit was severed from his body, this is, by the way, is not the Holy Spirit. It's supposed to be, I think his soul. It's just the, the Latin translation of John Damascus's work. His divinity remain inseparable, right? Obviously he wouldn't be saying that the Holy Spirit is severed from the divinity, right? By both I mean his soul and his body. So here he's saying what was severed, right? His divinity remained inseparable from the body and the soul. And so thus the one hypostasis of the Word is not divided into two hypostases. That means that when the soul was severed from the body in his death, he still remained as the Divine Person of the Word, the Person to both of those components of his human nature, body and soul. For the body and the soul received simultaneously in the beginning of their being, in the subsistence of the Word. So it's the Word that created the human body and the human soul that he assumed, although they were severed from one another by the death. See that right there. So this is a key point for us in terms of what happened on the cross. The body and the soul were severed from one another, yet they continued both of them, to have as the one subsistence or one to be the subs to have the one subsistence of the Word. In other words, the Divine Person of the Word is the Person or the hypostasis to the body and the soul. So that the one subsistence of the Word is alike the subsistence of the of the Word of the soul and of the body. In other words, even in the death, there's no severing to have another hypostasis of a human person. Or is the human body severed from the words? This is exactly refuting what he's saying. Gavin Orland is arguing for at no time, at no time had either soul or body a separate subsistence of their own other than the Word, the Person of God, the Word. And thus the Person of the Word is forever one and at no time too. So Christ is always one. Although the soul was separated from the body topically, yet hypostatically they were united through the Word, who is the person to the body and the soul, even when he descends into Hades.

[A]

Can I Cut in real quick with a question, please. When you're talking about the separation that St. John is highlighting, is this where we can appropriately apply the term tropos? And, like, where separation occurred? It was in the tropos, or am I wrong there?

[B]

Well, it's. It's. It's. Tropos are just mode. But he's saying that the. Where did he put it? He said it. It was separated topically. So in other words, there's a. This. This quote. Separation is a real death, and thus the divine person of the word descends into Hades in the soul that is severed from the body. But because he's omniscient.

[A]

Huh? I'm sorry, Jay, go ahead.

[B]

No, but. Well, because I think John Damascus is arguing that because he's omniscient, he never ceases to be the divine person or agent to both the soul and the body, even when in order for him to go into Hades, there has to be a real death. And so the real death is the severing of the human soul. He descends into Hades as the person to the soul, even though he's still the person to the body in the tomb. And in Hades, he baits the devil and destroys the power of death in Hades by harrowing Hades and thus resurrecting all men.

[A]

That makes me think of that quote, death defeated by death.

[B]

That's why he said John Damascus actually said that. He says right here, he brought death to the destroyer.

[A]

Right. Well, and I was just. I just finished reading the Gospel of Mark, and at the end of it, it highlights two things. Pilate says that he is surprised Christ died so quickly, which is something I haven't noticed before, but it's also crucial to the crucifixion. At the very end, you know, he says, father, into your hands I commend my spirit. And then he breathes out and he is dead. And I'm. I'm thinking of that in the PSA terminology, right? The emphasis is always, what actions is the Father doing to the Son, Right. As, like, the primary cause of, I don't know, death, crushing harm. You know, insert some synonyms. Right. But there's. There's clearly Christus victor model there, right? Where the death that he experiences is by his literal. In the most literal sense, laying it down when he is ready. If you. If you're following me.

[B]

Yeah. So in the garden, when you have the prayer in Gethsemane, the whole book the Maximus has, in his dispute with Pyrrhus is about that text. Basically, the whole book ends up being a debate about let this cup pass for me. And Maximus argues that the blameless passions of our nature have a natural tendency to not want to die and that there's nothing inherently wrong with that. So Christ was not sinning when he didn't want to die because he says, let this cup pass from me, but thy will be done. And so Christ is submitting his human will to the divine will that he shares with the Father. So there's a submitting that occurs there. It's never an overcoming, because he was arguing with the person who was a monothelite. So he's arguing that there's never an overcoming. But the desire to not die is a blameless passion, not a blameful passion. And this is why we have to say, as John Damascus argues, that Christ has our nature, but it is the pre Adamic, not fallen nature. But it's still our nature because we share the same nature as Adam, even though and Christ, even though we're fallen. The only difference is that we have blameful passions. And Christ willingly took on the blame less passions, but because he's born of a virgin, it is the original Edenic nature and that's what he's restoring to us. That's why he doesn't assume a fallen or depraved quote unquote nature.

[A]

Final question for you, Jay, about the atonement, if you don't mind. This is more pinpointed.

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea, after the Big Game. Like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials. And there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who is Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself. But the impact is still huge. If you saw the blue square spot during the Big Game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the blue square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one in four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialist will fix it, backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with Lifelock identity theft protection. For tax season and beyond, visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apply

[A]

so in Colossians and forgive me, I don't have the correct the exact address, but I believe it's Colossians Chapter two, you get some favored language in the PSA model. And my question is going to regard what does this mean in the orthodox paradigm? So it talks about our sin being nailed to the cross with its legal demand and our debt being paid. And so the two parter here is, is that language used at all in orthodoxy with just a different paradigmatic understanding, or is it a question of, well, you know, Daniel, you're probably reading an ESV or an niv, something that has the presupposition of PSA already, you know.

[B]

No, actually Max, actually Maximus is really good on Colossians too here because he argues that if you look over here at John Damascus, if you go up a couple chapters to chapter 25, and we actually just covered this a minute ago, he says that when we read Galatians 3:15, for example, that he was made a curse. It's what we call appropriation, meaning that he was not actually cursed by the Father, but to human vantage point it appeared as if he was one curse, right? Because Deuteronomy says cursed is he who hangs on a tree. So to all the people witnessing it, it looks as if he is the one who is cursed. And in a sense, because death is the curse, he willingly takes on the curse of death. And so in that sense, by appropriation, yes, he is hanging on a tree and he has made a curse for our sakes. However, as John Damascus says, because he is the true, holy, pure Son of God, he could never be a curse. And you can never actually ontologically become a curse anyway because sin doesn't have any ontological status. So the answer is right here. The answer is right here that he becomes a curse by appropriation.

[A]

And I guess that's one way you should we should talk about Isaiah 53, which is part of the quotation you're laying out. It also quotes Deuteronomy as well, that the. When Isaiah says he became a curse or it pleased the Father to crush him. There's a premise in Isaiah 53 that the point of view is the point of view of man or Isaiah.

[B]

Correct.

[A]

Not just. It's not just divine ontological statements being leveled out.

[B]

Yeah, I think that's missed a lot. Yeah. Chapter 24 addresses this, is that he does these things for our sake,

[A]

Right.

[B]

It's not because he actually, you know, what does he say to Pilate? He says, you would have no power over me were it not permitted. And as the divine person of the Son, he is the one willfully permitting it, so his life is not taken from him. He willingly undertook these things. He's never severed from the Father. He is a, quote, curse by appropriation, not actually cursed in God's eyes. And he's not actually forsaken. But he is, as John Damascus says here when he says, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? He says, he says this making our personality his own. In other words, from the human vantage point, as you said.

[A]

Well, Even in Psalm 22, most people would just listen to Christ's quote and they're like, well, look, he was forsaken. But, you know, it's a call sign to read the psalm, Right. If I'm dying in my bed, right? And I look at my wife and I quote the lyrics to a song, she'll probably go listen to the whole darn song. So we should read the whole psalm at the end of it. There's not this perspective of true forsakenness like ontological forsakeness, like God has divided or left somebody. It's victory. Again, thinking back to Jesus saying, I and the Father are one again, it just does away with that, that paradigm of any type of triadic abandonment.

[B]

Correct. And that's what John Damascus says right above that. He says he's doing this for our sakes. And he says, for example, when Jesus asked the Father, let this cup pass from me, or if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Well, as the divine person of the Son, he would know what is and isn't possible because he's God. But John Damascus says he says these things for us and for our sake. So it's just the same as, like when he prays to the Father. Well, does he have to pray to the Father? Isn't he God? Well, he's giving us an example of how we ought to pray. It's not that he can't do these things or he has to. You know, it's not like he's a creature, it's. He's also setting us an example. But yes, the whole context of the prayer of the Psalm is also being fulfilled in the crucifixion. But at no point in any of this would we say, oh, well, I guess he is losing his divinity, or there's some separate subject. And this is something that you would also find interesting if you've not looked into the 11th century Byzantine disputes over what's happening in the offering of the Son to the Father. If you get the Pomazonski book, there's a whole section on this which is really good. There's a. The Mayendorf and the Meyendorf book also has a longer section on this. The one, the history book on the Middle Ages. I forget the name of the title at the moment, but the Papadakis Mindorf book has a longer section on this. But there's an 11th century Byzantine dispute over what happens at the crucifixion and the offering. Is it the Father is receiving the offering of the Son himself? Is it the human nature that's offered to the Father, or is the Son offering the human nature to the whole triad through the Son in the Spirit? And the problem is that even though they weren't dealing with a Reformation doctrine, this in a roundabout way actually refutes psa, because the Byzantine Synod condemns the deacon who has this radical view and says there is no offering of a creature that could pay God. Also, there's no offering of one person to the other that excludes the Holy Spirit. So you can't say, for example, like an Anselmian doctrine, that the Father is being paid off by the Son because Anselm's version leaves out the Holy Spirit. There's nothing that happens in the triad that's not all three.

[A]

Well, it's ironic too, Anselm just his whole introduction of PSA into the world happens so quickly after the date you're talking about, correct?

[B]

Yeah, it's after the schism.

[A]

And then checked out the Pomezanski book. But I did, I think I heard someone earlier ask, like, what's a good intro book and one I really liked. It's the Mystery of Faith by Metropolitan Hilarion and then a very Russian last name, Alfia Alfiev, but Alfia. Thank you. The North Carolina dialect doesn't really do well for Russian, but it, it dips a little bit into, you know, quote unquote, the atonement that starts opening your mind, but just you notice the paradigm in which he's riding in. You're not going to be led anywhere near psa. Like, you wouldn't even have the flirtation with it. Yeah, I think is the point, because that's the historical perspective. So reading the Fathers. Reading the Fathers, you have to redefine your presuppositions. If you have psa, because they don't talk like that. You know, even the words we use, like atonement. Right. How English it is. You. I just didn't realize how loaded with presuppositions the quote, unquote, reform terminology even is in and of itself. Right. It's not even historical. The terms we favor, like justification. Right. In a way, we mean it. So legally.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely. Well, I appreciate your questions. My mind is getting a little mush. But this is the controversy that I was mentioning around Satiricos. And this is a Byzantine cleric who is briefly Patriarch of Antioch, but he was condemned for the idea that the Son is offering the Eucharist to the Father alone. And what's condemned is the idea that you could pay God or that God receives a created thing as some sort of payment. That's part of what was condemned. And the solution is that the Son is offering the human nature to the Father in the Holy Spirit. So it's a triadic action, and it's an action that uplifts. It's not a payment model, so it is a deification model. And the text that solved this was the liturgical text, Thine own, of thine own we offer unto thee. So it's a triadic offering, and it's an offering of the human nature, and by extension, obviously, the Eucharist as well. So the liturgical text actually solved this dispute, which in a roundabout way also refutes psa. And Pomazonsky covers that in a few pages. And then the Papadakis Meyendorf book has a longer, more significant section covering this. I also did a video on this on my clips channel, TJ Vision. What's up, man? All right, we're gonna wind it up here with the last few questions because I'm getting really tired. But Andrew says about the Protestant debates on Twitter, many people seem so arrogant that they're unable to handle information they agree with that might, you know, I would just. If somebody immediately seems to be not worth talking to, move on. And I'm a big fan of the block button. I think that it's my own little personal excommunication, and I revel in that power and authority. So a lot of People at me about blocking. Too many people. I like it. I'm a big fan of blocking red ward. $5. Thank you for your work on Lutheran, but I'm. I find it unfortunate there's a trend of Lutherans trying to debunk eo, but they won't actually debate anybody. Exactly. I think Alex has had a recent sort of back and forth with Cooper, but none of these people will debate. Have you read the Book of Concord? I read. I had a Lutheran phase back when I was like 22 and I read like five Luther books and I read a book of Concord. I've not read Gerhard Johan Gerhard. We are not merely blanket Protestants. I recognize that Lutherans have some elements that are more amenable to Catholics and Orthodox, but again, from our perspective, it really doesn't matter if you're also going to have, you know, your own church that follows a man and you're going to have Reformation solas that are, we would say, heterodox. So I recognize and I appreciate the things that you, you know, share with us, but also, it's not. That's not enough. Tj. What's up,

[A]

AJ I actually just got my hands on a copy of the John Courtney Murray the American Proposition Book.

[B]

Awesome.

[A]

Something I found interesting was I had to order it from through my school and they ordered it from Harvard. And when I the copy that I got from Harvard, it looks untouched. So it. That kind of tells me that nobody at America's most quote unquote prestigious university is interested in no, of course not type of subject.

[B]

It seems pretty significant. You would think. And you know, when I checked out Tragedy and Hope from my university library, it had been checked out once in the 1980s. That's crazy. No, no one reads. No one cares. Except us nerds. So. Exactly. Stallion. What's up? And by the way, no Roman Catholic has read that book except for the guy who wrote it. I'm convinced zero Roman Catholics have actually read Wim Hof's book. Even though freaking Flanders interviewed him. I guarantee you Flanders didn't read it. And I don't think any Roman Catholics have actually read the book. I would love to actually interview or talk to a Roman Catholic who has actually read it. Maybe Tim Kelly. Tim Kelly is the one Roman Catholic that I believe probably, probably did read it. What's up, man? Stallion.

[A]

Hey, what's up, guys?

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea after the Big Game. Like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials, and there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who was Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself, but the impact is still huge. If you saw the blue square spot during the big game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the blue square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to hear. $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one. In four honest, hard working, tax paying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialists will fix it, backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with LifeLock Identity Theft Protection. For tax season and beyond. Visit LifeLock.com iHeart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iHeart terms app

[A]

what's up guys? I just got a quick question.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

When speaking about objective morality with an atheist, why is there, if they take the position of like selectively choosing what's for the good of the cause or so on and so forth? I mean, I'm sure you've answered something 1 million times, but why is that like incoherent?

[B]

Well, I mean, just on his face, it would be arbitrary. What, what was your statement again? Say it again.

[A]

Right. I'm saying why is it incoherent for an atheist to just take the position that what is morally good or objective morality is, is just subjective or selective to the greater good? Counsel?

[B]

Well, the why ought we choose? Just saying that it's quote, the greater good doesn't tell us what the greater good is or why we ought to choose that. So it would just be an assertion

[A]

and it's begging the question.

[B]

It's begging the question too. Yeah, right.

[A]

And then so when it comes to orthodoxy is how does the objective morality work? As in like, like are there core, like Tenants like, of course, there's a tank commander. So apart from that, are there core tenants that are never subject to change, or can things change over time? Like, such as slavery, so on and so forth, you know?

[B]

Well, there might be situations where

[A]

the

[B]

expression of law has to change because times and places and people change.

[A]

Ethical pluralism, so they're based on objective principles, so the status isn't subjective. But how a rule is applied, at what degree and where will vary.

[B]

Yeah, but that's not moral relativism. Right? Because somebody will hear that all. Then you think, yeah, people get confused.

[A]

So in ethics, there's ethical monism that basically says the rule or law has to be applied at the nth degree. So it has more to do with stringency and how it's applied. Ethical pluralism, that acknowledges the objective ontological status of it, so it's not dependent on us, will take into account that a moral rule might. Look, for example, I think Schaefer had said, honor thy mother and father. Now, if you're in a. Make a joke. But if you're in the. If you're an Arab in the desert, that might be, you know, giving your mother and father goats or something like that. Like, in the US it might look different. Do you see what I'm saying?

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Like how the.

[B]

How the principle is exercised can change. And it's the same way with canon law. Right. There has to be some flexibility. I mean, you know, you get these spurgs who are like 20, and they. They think that, like, you're violating canon law if you go to see a movie because it says to not go to the theaters. And it's like, dude, come on, you can't literally cannot keep all of the cannons because, I mean, there's rules about cities and places and things. Don't. Like clergy can't ride horses. Well, that was because clergy were supposed to be distinguished from the civil state and nobility. So if you don't understand the context and you're some sort of Spurg who's 20 years old, you're gonna go crazy trying to, quote, make all the cannons apply. And it's not your job to do that anyway. Daniel, what's up?

[A]

Hey, Jay. Nothing to debate about or nothing. I just wanted to.

[B]

To say thank you for assisting me through the journey.

[A]

My wife has charismated today, myself, my two sons, and my daughter were both baptized, and Chris made it into the church today. So big day for us, and thank

[B]

you for the help many years to you, Daniel. That's great to hear. Now we. We Got more and more people piling in right when I'm about to. I think the atheist tried to figure out, okay, he's getting tired now, so now we can can go get him. Let me raise a few super chats and we'll try to get through the rest of these calls. Paul says, Jay, I don't have Twitter. How can someone like me call in? My kids love your plump Booty song, by the way. Thank you. I hope hopefully you mean the voice of reason song, because I do have a plump booty and I'm sure that many of you would probably find it attractive. I don't want to tempt you guys to lust, but I am thick. I do have birthing hips. Can't help it if I'm a queen, a diva. Just how I'm made. But you know, haters gonna hate, people gonna be jealous. But right now the only way I have to call in is is Twitter. So mad Burn says Brian Shapiro was cloned because of James White and Galleons Queen Quandas told me that is a good theory. I don't know why I can't disprove it. Sean Patterson gives out five memberships. Appreciate that. Rui says for 20 bucks. Finally I quality content. Congratulations, Jay. Thank you. We're right at 200k guys. If you would hit like I share, I need you all to subscribe to me because I'm about to hit it. This is the pre party party. This is not the 200k party. This is the 200k pre party. Link says in my private interpretation. Is it anyway. What is is the notion of private interpretation anyway derived from Talmudic or kabbalistic influence? There probably is some indirect or so linkage there because there were kabbalistic influences on hermeticism. There were kabbalistic influences on the Enlightenment. So it's very possible that, you know, enlightenment thinkers and classical liberal thinkers thought if we could divorce one's textual interpretation from any sort of authoritative interpreter, then we could sort of subvert society. That's possible. I wouldn't be surprised. I have read mystical kabbalistic texts that that do think that you can individually that God speaks to the individual in some mystical way. That was in the Cambridge Companion to Esoterica that we read and there was a whole chapter on that from the kabbalist. So maybe ultra void $10. I'm confused from what you said about redeemed zoomer. With the Bible that came, would the Bible have to come from the church that Jesus established? Seems like it. If not, then could Webster's dictionary or anything else actually be the true Bible. Yeah, I don't know how he would answer this question, because he's of course going to go back to history, but then he's going to not have a lot of friends when it comes to history. Only you want to. Only. Are you there? Only. Last chance.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

Wombat, what's up? Wombat? I mean, Can you guys not hear me? Wombat, are you there? Requiem. I'm you.

[A]

Hello?

[B]

Yeah, what's up?

[A]

Hey, what's going on, Jay?

[B]

What's up?

[A]

So I guess my question was kind of answered before when you guys were talking with the pastor about what it really like, how that section with Jesus says, my God, my God, how? Why have you forsaken me? Like, how does that apply? I guess how does it necessarily apply in the orthodox way? So, like, what does that, like, really entail? So, like, obviously I don't think it

[B]

was damned, but, bro, I just literally covered that twice tonight for like, 30 minutes to an hour each time. So just refer. But I'm not trying to be mean, but I. Like, it's six hours in. I'm not gonna do this for the third time. Just scroll back and listen to him. We covered it with the previous guy. Scab. What's up, guys? Please, please spare me PSA questions, man. I. I've. I've done a kenosis to do it with you guys again for, like, we did, like, three hours tonight on psa. Please don't bring me PSA questions, man. What's up, man? Scab, A slow boy said as soon as PSA comes up, 200 people immediately leave Scab on mute. What's up? Are you there? I heard you for a second. You have to unmute, not mute. Dude, I just. I mean, I see people doing Twitter spaces all the time. I just don't understand why this is so hard for people. Luke, what's up? Contemporary? Congratulations, Jay, on 500K. I'm calling. I'm super chatting from the future, maybe. I mean, the way that we, you know, don't really progress in the algorithm, that's probably 10 years away, dude. Sincere hypocrite. $5. It's ironic that Redeem Zoomer is trying to argue Norman of authority, but he's making up his own version of Calvinism and Churchianity. Exactly. He's even more incoherent now than he was then. Exactly. Paul says are $5. Ignorant. Do you think only orthodox will be saved? I mean, only a person united to the mystical body of Christ in some way will be saved. I don't know who will not be saved though. Dre. God on an individual basis. $5. Jay, Martin Luther does not have the same PSA doctrine as Calvin. Okay, but so what do his five SOLAs fall apart without their doctrine of PSA? I think you could argue that the Reformation distinctives of Luther are all kind of bound up together. Yeah. Luke on you. What's up?

[A]

Hey Jake, I just have one question. How does the Strandy have one will at the same time? Christ has two wills because will is

[B]

a property of nature. And so the human nature that Christ has has a created will and the divine nature that the Trinity has has a divine will. So if Christ in a hypostatic union, there must be two wills because there's two natures.

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea. After the Big Game, like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials. And there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who was Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself. But the impact is still huge. If you saw the blue square spot during the big game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the Blue square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season, and by now I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one you need to hear. $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one. In four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, LifeLock's US based restoration specialist will fix it, backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with LifeLock identity theft protection for tax season and beyond. Visit LifeLock.com iHeart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iHeart terms, apparently.

[B]

Okay, good question. Appreciate that. By the way, I just noticed the other day reading Romans, that in the first few verses. Paul refers to the divine nature of the Son and the human nature of the assumes. I never even noticed a diophysite argument within the first few verses of the book of Romans. Mean Dean. Now I'm supposedly the meanest man on the Internet. Although some people are now saying that Andrew is the most mean man on the Internet. Which allows me to then say I'm not the meanest person anymore. But this is mean Dean. Mean Dean, what's on your mind?

[A]

Hey Jay, I just had a quick question about church community specifically. I come from a Lutheran background and I'm deciphering between Roman Catholicism and orthodoxy. But part of the problem with going to both liturgies at least that I found. I've been trying to go to groups, you know, young adults and the like, trying to gauge a sense of community but oftentimes I get kind of brushed aside simply because either a I don't really understand the the theology. So it's really hard to have discussions with people or just like chit chat about just general everyday life. What would you recommend for someone who's kind of discerning between any type of Christian denomination or just really just trying to find your group? What's your thoughts on that?

[B]

Well, I would say that the most important thing is to put what's true first, not, you know, who has the coolest friends. I mean it's great to have cool friends, but cool friends do not the true church make. I don't know what what I mean again, I think you just have to put what's true first and then in time God will bring you quality Ortho bros K V what's up?

[A]

You want to unmute Y hey Jay, just wanted to say thank you for everything and you know, if I don't get to that 200k stream wanted to say thank you, you've done a lot for me and yeah, just really appreciate you. I also wanted to ask you if you saw the bald tattoo guy that was yelling at you on stage, got

[B]

arrested again you mean? Well, he was yelling at you, talking about Wes Watson who was screaming at Andrew. But I didn't have any interactions with Wes Watson. But he was screaming at Andrew and Jim Bob. But yeah, I saw that he like beat a woman really bad and I think he's going back to jail. And I mean like most of these so called red pill dudes are just like a bunch of insane psycho grifter crypto lunatics. And my guess would be that dude's a roid head. He's always at the gym. I noticed there was, like, 10 videos the last year where people were confronting Wes Watson at the gym, and he would, like, just lose his mind, try to beat people up. So I was like, it's just a matter of time for that. Dude's back in jail.

[A]

Yeah, that's prime masculinity right there. So.

[B]

And he would charge you, like, $10,000 to scream you. It's like, that's an interesting. That's an interesting grift. Like, yes, I will scream at you. It is $10,000. So please, you can send me bitcoin, and I will scream and cuss at you, and you will be a man afterwards. So. Interesting.

[A]

Interesting.

[B]

Tristan, any thoughts on Wes Watson's prison screaming? Toxic masculinity boot camp. Tristana, are you there? Okay, we have lost Tristana. Or Devin. What's up, dude? Perhaps Tristana is mourning Wes Watson. Maybe they're bff. I don't know. And Tristan is in mourning. He doesn't. He doesn't want to discuss tough issues like Wes Watson going back to jail. I don't know. It could be, you know, touchy subject. Devin, what's up, man?

[A]

Hey, Jay. I'm. I'm reformed, and I. As I understand it, you were reformed, and it's. I. I come out of 23 years of Catholicism. It's. It's been a bit of a journey for me, and I'm really interested in your transition from being from man to woman.

[B]

My transition.

[A]

And I was wondering if you could answer a question for me.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

The. So much of the orthodox theological framework rests on the linchpin of church authority, and the same is true about Catholic theology as well. And I'm just curious how somebody who was sort of steeped in a reformed hermeneutic who would have not necessarily had the orthodox assumption. How did you become. How did you reframe your view of scripture from sola scriptura to being, you know, informed by Orthodoxy without first having different assumptions?

[B]

Yeah, we got. We got remixed. We got remixed babies on here.

[A]

Dude, where's that coming from?

[B]

Somebody else called in, and they weren't muted. So, I mean, my presuppositions were challenged, and they were changed. So that's the easiest answer to your question. I went. I went and read a bunch of Protestant. I. Let me finish. I went and read a bunch of Protestant scholars on how the canon of scripture came to be, and they all admitted the importance of liturgy and lectionaries informing the canon. They admitted the importance of tradition in terms of knowing apostolic authorship and the internal textual evidence for also tradition was another strong piece of evidence. The fact that the New Testament references to the Word of God do not only locate that in the written text, also the preaching of the apostles is called the Word of God. So all of these things over time contributed to the, the question of the canon of Scripture coming to be. And so that means, that meant for me that I couldn't hold two soul scripture anymore.

[A]

Would it be fair to say that you could. That you make your case for orthodox authority from Scripture?

[B]

I. You can make an internal and an external argument for the authority of the Church.

[A]

And that, and that's how you arrived at your orthodox assumptions was, was by sort of burrowing through scripture to get there.

[B]

Again, there were multiple lines of argumentation and questioning. It was not just the authority of the Scriptures or their canonicity. It was also the question of church history. It's also the question of typology prophecies in the Old Testament. I mean, there's tons of contributing arguments and evidences that you're, I think you're looking for some sort of line of argument that it was the Scriptures that convinced me of orthodoxy. So that's still somehow soul of Scripture or something. That's, that's a fallacious line of argument.

[A]

Actually, it was me. Jay met me.

[B]

He brainwashed me as my handler. So what. Get to your. What, what's your argument here? You're asking all these dancing around what's argument?

[A]

No, I don't have an argument. I, It. I'm. Because I'm reformed and I know what a reformed hermeneutic looks like. I'm. I was just curious how you. I assume that in order to make orthodox come to orthodox conclusions, you have to make orthodox assumptions with regard to church authority.

[B]

Again, it's not the whole argument was not, it's not the whole. It's not all a question of authority. So it's not like the only thing that was an issue that convinced me was authority. That's part of it. But that's not like the only. There's a whole bunch of things. I mean, getting into biblical theology, getting into the history of iconography, getting into the study of liturgy, how did the first century church worship where they liturgical. I mean, all of those questions over years contributed to what led me, you know, down the path I went. I mean, I was Catholic for 10 years.

[A]

Assumptions because, you know, Jay and I and a lot of people were not orthodox. So to see the truth of Orthodoxy, we didn't assume Orthodoxy. We were on the outside and began to see the truth of it. So, no, you don't have to assume Orthodoxy to prove worth it.

[B]

I mean, how about this? How about this? I want a Trinitarian in a biblical, anti patristic sense. And classical Reformation PSA doctrine forced me to not be trinitarian to be, to not be Protestant. How's that? Hello, Devin.

[A]

I mean, you, you'd have to explain that, but I, I, I take it for granted that that's, that you're being serious when you say that.

[B]

Why would I not be being serious? I mean, I'm being serious that there's a prob. How about there's 10, 10 arguments that would make me be orthodox and not reformed.

[A]

Okay, sounds, sounds like you don't particularly want to engage on this.

[B]

No, I'm engaging you by telling you that I could go to the formation of the canon, I could go to the apostolic churches and having liturgy. I could go to multiple, you know, the Trinity not working in the, the. How about this? The Orthodox Church is the only church that teaches that the filioque is wrong. And that is one easy proof that it's the true church. How's that?

[A]

Okay.

[B]

All right, thank you very much.

[A]

Answered my question. Like I said, I wasn't arguing. I was just asking you how you, How.

[B]

Okay, you made that move, that's fine. Well, again, you can go listen to the podcast. I'm not being mean. I'm saying there's, We've done a lot of longer, longer form podcasts addressing that as well. If you want deeper answers. Robert, what's up?

[D]

This is Chelsea Handler from Dear Chelsea after the Big Game. Like most people, I kept thinking about the commercials, and there was one that stayed with me. It was from the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. And it wasn't loud or flashy. It showed a Jewish kid being targeted at school and another student who chose not to ignore it. As someone who was Jewish, that moment felt very real to me. Not dramatic, just familiar. And what struck me was how clearly it showed that hate doesn't always announce itself, but the impact is still huge. If you saw the blue square spot during the big Game, it's worth thinking about. And if you want to show support, sharing the blue square is one small way to do that.

[C]

It's tax season, and by now, I know we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's an important one. You need to $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. Here's another one in four honest, hard working, taxpaying Americans has been a victim of identity theft. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second for your personal information and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, Lifelong LifeLock's US based restoration specialist will fix it, backed by another good number, the million dollar protection package. In fact, restoration is guaranteed or your money back. Don't face identity theft and financial losses alone. There's strength in numbers with Lifelock Identity theft protection for tax season and beyond. Visit lifelock.com iheart and save up to 40% your first year. That's 40% [e-mail] iheart terms apply.

[B]

Let's talk God $10 if God if God laughs at the wicked and the PSA believe that Jesus became wicked, then the Father must laugh at the death of his son. God bless my bipoc brother J. Dyer. Interesting line of argument. Yeah Robert, what's up?

[A]

Hey, what's up Jay? Good to be on here man. So I got a couple things, couple questions. So what. What do you think about this trip to the moon we plan on doing soon? I've been telling my wife they're gonna bring out the alien soon from this probably.

[B]

I mean again, I think what we began this stream tonight. We're talking about the so called disclosure that that's all a bunch of fake and gay nonsense. If they're saying that there's going to be some new moon trip, I just want to meet Ryan Gosling. That's all I'm saying. If I'm going to the moon, it's going to be to me, Ryan Gosling. I don't even know if he went to the moon. I'm just whatever the stupid movie is everybody. So you gotta watch Project Hill Mirror. You gotta. I'm like if this is the person that made the Martian, which is basically the same gay ass movie with Matt Damon on Mars, I don't see how this could be good. Oh it's so good dude. You gotta watch it. How could this be good? Because Matt Damon eating poop potatoes on Mars was just so stupid. I hated that movie. It was so dumb. But apparently Ryan Gosling in space is awesome. But how many a listers can we shoot into space and make a movie? I mean this is like first of all, Sandra Bullock did it, Chris Pratt and JLAW did it. Matt Damon did it. But now and all those suck. But no, Ryan Gosling is awesome and he's so awesome in space Dude Marcos, $20. Thank you so much, Kirol, $5. I appreciate the threat about feminism being a top down conspiracy. What do you think about Nick Rockefeller fraud? It described. It's described the Aaron Russo interview.

[A]

It's.

[B]

Why would it be a fraud when, I mean, the Rockefellers in their biography brag about supporting feminism? So even if the Nick Rockefeller interview was some sort of fake thing, which, I mean, Alex was there doing the interview, I don't see. I mean, even. Even if he were a fraud, well, they brag in the biography that they funded feminism, so. Ryan Ellis, $5. Isn't it wild? There's a lot of overlapping debates with the early church fathers. Yes, because heresies always repeat. It's the same demons behind all the heresies. So you're going to have Montanus and his charismatic lunatic prophets and prophetesses and Paula White today. Dude, it's the same spirit. You got Arius and Michael cervitis. You know, 1300 years later. I just finished reading Justin Martyr and Trifo because you recommended it. Yeah, what's funny about that is that think about how Justin Martyr argues the Trinity in the Old Testament. Compare that to the way that Roman Catholics and Trent Horn deny the turn in the Old Testament and you'll see how divorced from patristics they are. Okay, I'm trying to get through the last ones here.

[A]

American.

[B]

What's up? I'm starting to get a headache because we're six hours in. You guys, I'm starting to get. That means. That means it's.

[A]

It's.

[B]

It's winding down. Go ahead,

[A]

bro.

[B]

Come on, dude,

[A]

What?

[B]

If your life depended on a Twitter space, you guys would not make it. You wouldn't make it. Russian name? I. I can't read Russian. I'm a KGB agent, by the way, the cat. The TR. Cats say I'm a FSB operative even though I can't read Russian. What's up, man? Russian dude. Come on.

[A]

Ah, yeah. Thank you for having me. I'm trying to make my mind about the last Redeem Zoomer video. And I'm thinking, even if we grant him his theory that the mainline Protestantism was the one true church.

[B]

I can't believe he went. He went far. Tart, dude. Never go full tart. What? Go ahead. I can't explain. I can't explain. I can't explain my Ben Stiller jokes to a Russian person.

[A]

Yeah, probably. Yeah. Well, so the point is that I'm thinking, and I might be wrong here, that even if we grant the canon thing, it doesn't make the decisions of the mainline Protestant church in any way infallible. And so they basically cannot bind you to sola scriptora, as I understand it, even if like they are the one to church, but they have no such authority. And so how do we know if it is a fallible binding?

[B]

Yeah, I think you could still ask the original question that I asked him and just apply it to his made up communion of the Protestant churches. I think that's a fair way to. You could just. Yeah. Restate the argument. And by the way, I'm not making fun of Russians. I go to Russian church. I love Russian people. It's just, I'm just making a dumb joke that he didn't get the full tar joke, which is from Tropic Thunder. But yeah, I think, I think you get asked that question. 900 Foot, Brigham Young. Okay, I'm gonna have to stop because I'm like, I'm actually getting a straight up headache. Last question. Great Scott. Thank you for leading me Orthodoxy. Appreciate you.

[A]

Dude.

[B]

21. Pat Stack Saint Pax $2. What do you think about the Papal States? Faking Gay. Clarity, $10. What's the best book on the Bolsheviks? I. I don't know, man. That's a tough question. I mean I've read like. My publisher has a book on the Bolsheviks. Dr. Richard Spence has a book on that. My mind is turning mush, dude. I can't, I can't do it. Kirk, $5. There's a debate channel channel called Christian King. He's all. I don't. But just if you give these people attention, it's not worth it. 2000 channel weirdos that are obsessively clipping you and want. They just want the attention. So no, I'm not going to give them. They're all about once saved, always saved. Yeah, it's fine. I'm not gonna debate that guy. Clarity. No, Steve, $5. Sorry if this off topic. What's your understanding of application of shepherd of Hermes? Again? It's. It has some tradition but also has a couple heterodox statements. It's not part of the canon. So you know, Book of Enoch, you can have Proto Evangelium of James, you can have tradition that's true and relevant and those things are still not canonical. So I think shepherd of Hermas is an interesting early attestation, but I would not try to make doctrinal arguments from it or consider it canonical. Sergius, $5. Redeem Zimmer, if you are listening, quit goofing off. Just become Orthodox Quit finding it. Go to liturgy.

[A]

I agree.

[B]

Sergius says $10. Welcome back, dude. Good to see the crew doing live streams again. My wife and I are becoming catechumens. Thank you, Marilyn. $5. Thank you, Henry. I left Protestantism for Rome, but I mentioned Orthodoxy. I've been doing research. What's a good place to start? Read Michael Welton's book Two Paths. Alvin. $10. Thank you for the content. I'm a caddy. Human nail Hyperpasca. Thank you, cc. Evan became a member. What's up? Patrick Hayes, $20. What kind of church is the St. Peter United Church of Christ? It's like a gay Protestant denomination, I think. And I mean, like, literally gay, I think. But I. It's been a long time since I. I mean, we have a United Church of Christ in my hometown, and they're like, just a gay church. Well, Emmanuel sends 50 Mexican pesos. Thank you, dude. Appreciate that. So I can go buy one

[A]

order

[B]

of chips and salsa with your Mexican peso pittance that you threw me? Thank you, guys. Hit like and share. We're almost at 200k. Thank you so much. Looking forward to the party stream. Thank you to FDA and everybody who came. I cannot do any more. My mind is mush. Thank you. Shout out to Tristan. Shout out to Alex. Shout out to Cleave. Shout out to everybody in the chat. I love you guys. 200k party probably coming up next. Ben says, how do you deal with intellectual doubt? Dude, I can't even think. And you ask me, like, life questions and you send me $1. Dude, send me a bitcoin. I'll answer your question. By the way, if you do want to support us via bitcoin, that's what this little. This thing here is my bitcoin wallet, dog. Send the bitcoins here, and then we can up the quality of everything we did. Get the diva cam working. Shout out to diva cam. Y' all like these other angles? I apologize for looking so ugly on the UBI stream. We were exhausted after days of driving. But look, I'm back to being pretty on this stream. That was called looksmaxing. What I just did. MOG maxing.

[C]

It's tax season, and by now we're all a bit tired of numbers. But here's an important one. You need to $16 billion. That's how much money in refunds the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud. But it's not all grim news. LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second and alerts you to threats you could easily miss on your own. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com iheart Terms apply this week

[A]

with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons. Get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound member price, with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction. Exclusions apply. See Store for details and broccoli, cauliflower,

[C]

flour or russet potatoes are $0.97 per pound member price limit £6 plus selected

[A]

sizes and varieties of Lucerne butter cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are 197 each member price. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.