The author skillfully uses classical metaphysics to frame the Trinity as a logical structure rather than a contradiction, though the argument relies heavily on specific semantic distinctions. It is a sophisticated piece of apologetics that challenges critics to engage with theology on a deeper philosophical level.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Christianity And The Trinity Are Logical... Prove Me Wrong! (Live Debates)Añadido:
All things are possible.
What's up? What's up everybody? How's y'all doing, man? How you guys doing on the, you know, long weekend?
Hope you guys had a good uh hope you guys had a good uh Memorial Day.
If y'all did anything, man, it was a little bit a little bit gloomy here, man. Didn't didn't do too much over this way.
Didn't do too much over this way. So, nope. Same mic as usual. What's up, Aaron? What's up, everybody? What's up?
What's up, guys?
Good to see y'all back again, man. Feels like been forever as usual as it always does over the weekend.
Missed the intro. Oh man.
You can't be missing the intro, bro.
That's the best part. That's the best part of the whole live.
It's the best part, man.
Christianity and the Trinity are logical today. Prove me wrong.
We'll see what happen, man. Aaron with super chat. God bless you, Nick. Keep preaching the gospel. I appreciate you, man. I appreciate you. Thank you very much. God bless you, Aaron. And I will keep doing that, bro.
For real. I'm glad you agreed. Are they not logical on other days? On other days, we ask why Muslims ain't Christian.
Thankfully, it's logical every day.
Think about the new Backs movie. Haven't watched it.
Matter of fact, I don't even All I All I I literally saw The only reason I know what you're talking about is because I saw a Tik Tok about it like literally 20 minutes ago where someone was like, "Imagine you leave the movie and there's no the exit's gone."
Have you thought about doing a demographic of your viewers? Because if it comes up most of the time in Europe starting live earlier, I know it's mostly in the US. YouTube shows me.
I'mma log into my PC for Thursday stream and send some members. W Mass Mass Wre Chats are always just as appreciated though. I appreciate you, bro.
I lowkey love the concept. I'm so excited for when it comes out. For when it comes out. Wait, didn't you just ask me what I think about the movie? But if it ain't come out yet, what you talking about, man? What you What you talking about, man?
Watching from Lebanon. W asking about the trailer. Oh yeah, I definitely haven't seen that.
Definitely have not seen that.
You Lebanese. No, no, I am Italian.
I'm Italian.
All right, guys. Go ahead and get the uh let's go and get the Tik Tok live started, too, so we can get some guests up in here. Although, if you do want to join on the YouTube, guest requests are open. Click the pin link in the chat.
You ever been to Colorado? No, but I might be going to Colorado actually later this year for a uh conference.
Come on, man. I just had to leave Jamream to come here. Based base. No, I love the J base though. Coming here first W Catholic Sam. W Mass Nicki. Yes, sir.
Uh, if you need a place to stay, bro, hit me up. You're welcome or home. I appreciate you, man. Thank you. Means a lot, bro.
Might need to talk to you about something if you can in DMs. Yeah, Kathy. Uh, you just DM me now. I'll uh respond to it as soon as I get off the live, bro.
God bless you too, bro.
Pasta and stuff. Heck yeah. Yo, appreciate the gift. Uh, who was that?
Greek Pete.
Appreciate you, bro.
Chico to awesome chat. Appreciate you, bro. God bless you, my man. God bless you. Good to see you in here, my dude.
Good to see you in here.
Dang that boy. Is that boy sharing the live a lot or is it just me? Dear God boy sharing the live to everyone in his mom.
Appreciate the heart me Marie.
Appreciate the heart me peace. What's up guys? Gazelle with the final super chat family. What's popping? What's up my boy? What's up bro? Good to see you Gazique.
Yo poetry score. Appreciate you. W gift Marie. W gift.
Uh Nick A was talking about there's no good arguments for orthodoxy. Like you didn't do him dirty. That's funny.
That's funny.
I'm supporting. I appreciate you, Bonnie. Thank you, bro. Thank you for supporting, dude.
Thank you, bro.
Guest requests are open, please. If y'all disagree only. If y'all disagree only. cold train with a $10 super chat.
I find myself unsubscribing to some of these Protestant Christian apologists, all of whom used the early church followers, apologetics and pyics from Orthodox and Catholic churches yet deny its teachings. Yeah. I mean um for me, you know, when I when I started looking into the early church, I was like, I mean, at this point, listen, if I'm going to be taken from them, I might as well just believe what they believe.
So, I just became Orthodox. You know what I mean? So, I I can understand that, Cold Train. I can definitely understand that, bro.
Raise the final super chat. Y'all be careful with this Nick guy. Dude was my si man. Beat me so bad and stole my last honey bun. I can't stand this dude for real. I stole his honey buns and his Kefi. Bro, that's cooked. Sorry, Reds. My bad, bro.
I'll make it OT, bro. My bad. I forgot you was Marceli, bro. What's up, Kirk?
Greek with a $20 super chat. God bless.
Greek Orthodox Christian here from Detroit. Protoos. Hey, you know, I bet I've been to your church then. If you're a Greek Orthodox in Detroit, Greek Pete, I actually went uh was it like a year ago? I went to a uh the church, the Orthodox church over in Greek Town. So, I bet I bet I actually went to your church, Greek Peak, thank you for the super chat, bro. All right, let's try to take up some guests.
>> Hello.
>> Hey, how are you?
>> I'm good. What's going on?
Yeah, I'm chilling, man. So, um I I just have some questions, bro, about uh your god.
>> Okay.
>> Right. So, why is it why are you so specific that you say you have one god, right? When there's three persons. Why must there be one?
I think that there has to be one God because there's only one being. There's only one nature. So there would be no reason there be multiple gods.
>> It's one being.
>> Yes.
>> It's Jesus's father and holy spirit are one being.
>> Yes.
>> Oh, therefore the father died on the cross.
>> No, you're mixing up being and personhood. Personhood is who does actions. Being is going to refer to the ontology or the actual substance of a thing.
So when I what so human being right what does a human being mean >> refers to the fact that we are a human have a human nature we have existence and our existence is different from another human being.
>> So what does two human beings mean?
>> Yeah it means that there is two a persons and two beings that are distinct spatially temporally uh in their nature etc. >> Not true. We can be two. Me and you are two human beings, but we are the same.
We we we have the same being, right?
>> No, we don't. So me and you are the same being.
>> No, I mean I mean the the same essence, right? So uh being means just person, right?
>> What? Being means what? Being does not mean person, bro? What are you talking about?
>> All right. Anyway, let me get to my point.
>> Wait, wait, wait. Being means person. Is a rock a being?
>> Uh is a rock a being? Yeah.
>> It doesn't have consciousness.
>> Okay. Okay. But a horse is a horse a being.
>> Yes.
>> So a horse is a person.
>> One horse.
It's a a person. Sure. One horse is a person. What's your point?
A horse is a someone, right? It's a not a human. It's a being, person, whatever.
Anyway, I'm not too too good in English person.
>> I don't know.
>> You know the the craziest thing is guys that's already in my blue book. Another Muslim already said that >> it's an animal. I mean, it's an animal.
Animal is a is a being. It's a It could be a person, not necessarily a human person or a god person. It's a sort of person.
>> Yeah, bro. Appreciate you coming up, man.
That's the the craziest part is that's literally already, bro, that's literally already in my blue book cuz a Muslim said that last week. Bro, last week a Muslim was sitting there saying a horse is a person. What's up with these dudes?
Bro, what's up with these dudes?
Cohat starts looking like a griff when Protestants use church fathers and saints they don't believe in. They hate the tree yet love the fruit. It's crazy analogy. Yeah. Um, yeah, man. I think if you're going to hold to them, man, you got to hold to all of them. I agree with you, Cole Train. I get it, bro. It just depends on the person, man. If they're authentic, it's really looking into it. You know what I mean? It depends. If you know, maybe if someone's not, you know, just depends.
>> Hello.
>> Hello.
>> What's up?
>> Um, I had a contention against the biblical preservation of the Bible.
>> Okay.
>> Um, yeah. So, do you know St. John of Chrysum?
>> Of Chris Austin? I know St. John Chrism.
>> Yeah. I don't know who Chris is, but >> Yeah. So, >> is not a place.
>> Yeah. So, I think he says in one of his chapters that the Bible, some parts of the Bible and the Old Testament were were lost.
I mean, uh, it depends what you're referring to. If you're referring to like it refers to the book of wars, for instance. Yeah. Like the book of wars was lost. We know that.
>> I mean, I'm pretty sure he I think he says parts of Jeremiah. I think Jeremiah scroll is lost. So, how do you guys reconcile with the >> the Jeremiah scroll wasn't just the book of Jeremiah. The Jeremiah scroll also had um books that were non-cononical.
So, that would be fine if parts of the Jeremiah scroll were lost because not every book in the Jeremiah scroll was canonical.
So then you're okay with parts of the Old Testament then going listen then >> if they weren't canonical. Yeah.
>> So that means that God can't preserve his word then you're saying >> brother they weren't canonical. That means they were not God's word. Jer the Jeremiah scroll what was included in the Jeremiah scroll was not only books that were of God's word. There were also other historical books in the Jeremiah scroll >> such as >> the book of wars.
just the book of wars or was it is there any more?
>> There's more. Yeah, there's multiple >> such as Bro, go look at I just gave you one example. How many examples you want me to give, bro? Got to do research on this stuff.
>> Oh, okay. And I think um what's it called? Justin Martin says the same thing about how the Jews like tried to corrupt the Old Testament. So, what didn't that make them Muslim?
>> They tried. When does it say they were successful?
Were they successful or not?
>> No. Was there no ev there's no evidence for it?
>> Cuz I'm pretty sure Justin says that I think the Jews tried to like, you know, temple the Old Testament. So, >> we're trying to and actually being successful are two different things. You have to prove that they were successful.
>> Um, and what about Psalms 110?
>> What about it?
Um, the original Hebrew I think is some >> brother. What?
>> Wait, hold on. Hold on. Sorry. Hold on.
>> Sorry. It was First John 5:7.
>> What about it?
>> Um, apparently it was an addition by the church. How do you >> prove it was an addition?
>> Well, it wasn't in the oldest manuscripts that you have.
>> Well, the oldest manuscripts uh aren't for John. 1 John 5:7. The oldest manuscripts we have are typically going to date back to uh portions of John, not first John, just John and then the epistles of Paul. So, what's the relevancy?
So you're saying that it doesn't matter if does it appear in the codeex maticus and codexus?
>> That that would be irrelevant because that's only one manuscript tradition. We have multiple manuscript traditions.
>> So I'm confused then. Is it corrupted or is it not corrupted?
>> No, it's not corrupted, dude.
>> Cuz I I don't know.
>> I can literally show you people that quoted it before the Kodak saticus even existed. Like a 100 years before the Codex Anaticus, people were quoting first John 5:7. So it clearly existed.
It just wasn't in that manuscript tradition.
>> Yeah. But how do you know it's like specifically first John 5:7? Not like a summary of the Christian doctrine >> because people quote it verbatim.
>> And how do you know that? Does it do they say specifically first John 5:7?
>> No, they said and John says and then they say verbatim exactly what was said.
>> Okay. Okay. If you show me then I can see model.
>> Fantastic.
>> It's going to be Sabrina Carthage.
All right.
All right. Uh his fathers of the third third century he says uh the Lord warns saying he who is not with me scatterth. He who breaks the peace and the peace and the concord of Christ does so in opposition to Christ. He who gathers elsewhere in the church scatters the church of Christ.
The Lord says, quote, you put this in quotations, I and the father are one.
And again, it is written of the father and the son and the holy spirit in quotations, and these three are one. So he's very clear.
>> Yeah, I know. But why does it say like John specifically, >> bro? He literally Okay, do you realize everything he said there, he's quoting from John, right?
He who is not with me scatterth. That's from John. He's quoting from John this entire time.
>> Okay. Wait, hold on. Let me read myself cuz I'm going >> You do what?
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. You can have this one. But I need one more though.
>> What do you mean you need one more? One more. What?
>> Cuz one is just isn't just like enough.
We need like multiple. Brother, >> if you even have one, it clearly existed.
Yeah, but we need if we need at least like many church fathers who who attest to it.
>> What says who? Why would you need why would you need more than one quoting something to know it existed?
>> Because because the what's it called?
The this verse clearly proves the trinity and if you can you if you can show like multiple church fathers.
>> Why do I need to show why does one person quoting it not enough? If it didn't exist, how is he quoting it?
>> But we need more though. Why?
>> Because the trinity is like the uh the main doctrine for Christianity, right?
>> That's a real I'm asking how many people do you need to know that a verse exists?
>> Maybe I don't know. Maybe more than three cuz one isn't enough.
>> Why is one not enough?
>> Come on.
>> Yeah. Watch your head, bro.
Show me. Show me the church father that says it. Okay, I show them. Oh, but we actually need more than one.
Oh my gosh, bro. This is corny.
Cog production super chat. Appreciate you. God bless you. Thank you very much.
All right, let's see.
Hello.
>> Hello. Hi. How you doing?
>> I'm good. What's going on?
>> Not bad. I just have a question. Um, do you believe Jesus is a God?
He's God.
>> He is the God.
>> Yes.
>> So, what's the proof? Did he say like he's a god? I haven't omega, the first and the last.
>> That's in Revelation, right?
>> Yep.
>> Okay.
Do you know about Mechazedc?
>> Yep.
So when he said without without beginning without ending without father without mother >> did you see how that saying because we don't have a lineage of his father and mother >> who says so >> did you read the context of it >> yes I did that's why I'm asking >> so why do they say he had no father and mother according to the context >> why I'm asking you said you read it >> yes I read it >> so according to context Why do they say he didn't have a father and mother?
>> Well, accordingly the most of those Christian scholars, they said this text actually they couldn't uh like explain why >> okay what does the context say about it?
>> Just tell me please.
>> Bro, you said you've read it. So what does the context say?
Some of the Christian scholars, they mentioned that they cannot explain.
>> Dude, I'm not asking about the what the Christian scholars that say they can't explain it. You said you've read it. I'm asking you what is the context.
>> Okay, maybe I I didn't. I just read the explanation.
>> Okay, then stop coming up and saying you read something, bro. Dang. Freak y'all.
Y'all so weird, bro. Why are we coming up saying we read something that we haven't read? Why are we lying? Like what what are we what are we what are we doing right now, guys?
Uh Andrew, hello.
>> Hello. How are you? Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. What's up?
>> Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah, I can hear you.
>> Okay. Sorry about that. Um so you're a trinitarian. You believe that Jesus is fully God on earth, right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So being fully God would be would mean that he was all knowing at the same time. Correct?
>> Yep.
>> Okay. But then also you believe he uh was human, right?
>> Yeah.
>> So then being a human means that he would not know all things at any given time. Is that correct?
>> No, that's not true.
>> Okay. So, so you think so as his human nature, he knew all things also?
>> Yeah. And in disposition of his divine nature. Yes.
>> Okay. So, his human nature and his god nature while on earth he knew everything. Correct?
>> Yes.
>> So, in Mark 13:32 where it says that no one knows the hour, not even the angels nor the son except for God. God only or the father only knows the hour.
>> How do you reconcile your previous statements that go Jesus knew everything when in Mark 13:32 he's saying he does not know the day or the hour?
>> Yeah. The word there in the Greek is oid day. O day can just mean to make known or to reveal. So what he's saying there when he says the word know is no one reveals it. Only the father reveals it.
It has nothing to do with knowledge.
>> No, that's not correct. So, ida, it's not just the word ida, but it's perida concerning those things, right?
Concerning knowledge, like something that is known, like a fact. Um, so here it says the son does not know, but yet you said that Jesus while being on earth knows everything 100% of the time, but he's saying he does not know the day or the hour. Mhm.
So, uh, where do you see Perida?
>> This goes against your point. This goes against your point that Jesus knew everything when he's telling us. He's telling us, >> brother, brother, brother, what what does what does Perry mean?
>> He does not know this.
>> What does Perry mean?
>> What's that? Concerning. It's a It's a preposition. It's a Greek preposition, right?
>> So, concerning what?
>> No. See, no, no, no. See, what you have to do is you have to go to a Greek lexicon. Okay, great. You have to look up the various usages of oida. Okay, which lexicon do you have?
>> I have Bible hubs open.
>> Well, I mean I So, if you look at Bower, Danker, Ard and Gingrich, you know, BDAG concerning ODA, there's a number of usages, right?
>> Is one of those to review? It's you have to look at the usage that they cite for Mark 13:32.
When you do that, it's specifically concerning Perry. Whenever the preposition Perry, like concerning these things or or or to know something about Oida, it's not it's not >> brother. How does concerning it mean?
It's not refer it's referring to knowledge.
>> Well, that's the point. It's no, it's to know something, right? And here Jesus is saying he does not know the day or the hour. Therefore, Jesus does not know all things.
>> I'm asking how does it having the word parry mean that it's has to be referring to knowledge and not revelation.
>> Because it has to do with Greek grammar.
>> Okay. So tell me the Greek grammar as to why the word perry means that it necessitates knowledge and it doesn't necessitate anything else >> be because when you look at the Greek text okay and when you have the usages of ida there can be a semantic range based upon that usage and based upon observation whenever you have perry whenever you have this preposition Right. Do you agree that Perry is a Greek preposition?
>> Yeah, bro. Yeah, dude. You're not going to answer my question, bro. I'm asking you what.
>> Okay, so let me finish. So, whenever you have Perry witha, it references Mark 13 and also Matthew because this same passage is related in Matthew. They say the exact same thing.
>> Okay. Can you You said whenever this is used with it always means knowledge. Can you show me another example?
>> I'm sorry. What? You said whenever Perry is used before oi day that it always refers to knowledge. So can you show me another example because that's what your argument hinges on.
>> Yeah, I just told you. I just told you in Matthew.
>> Okay. Matthew what >> you have with Matthew what?
>> Well, Matthew, it's Matthew 24. It's the other it's a it's a related passage.
>> So the same exact verse just in another passage.
>> Okay. So the same exact verse just another passage. So you're begging the question. Do you actually have any other verses? I'm asking not for the same verse in a different gospel.
>> It's not the same exact verse. It's two different authors. It's not the No, this is what you're getting.
>> Oh my gosh. They're saying the same thing, dude.
>> It's two different authors. It's two different >> Do you have any other verses that are not Oh my gosh. Do you have any other verses that are not this verse?
>> I just told you I And what's funny is what's funny is you want me to site another verse when you just told the previous caller that one example was good enough. So why don't you stick to your >> Oh my Wait, one example of what was good enough. What was the context? Wait. One example of what was good enough.
>> Yeah.
>> What? What did I say? One example was good enough about Hello.
Did he leave?
He left. He left.
Y'all are so embarrassing, bro.
Genuinely so embarrassing, bro.
You said one example is good enough.
That was talking about to prove something existed in history. What are we talking about?
Oh my gosh, bro. You people slow as freak. Silence is deafening. Yeah, the silence is crazy.
>> Hello. What's going on?
>> I'm good. I'm good. So, I just have a question. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, I just want to ask you, where do you see anywhere in the Old Testament or even New Testament where Jesus is sitting in the in the Most High?
>> Where that he's what?
>> Where Jesus sitting in the most high?
>> That he's sitting in the most high.
>> Yes.
>> I don't even know what does that even mean to sit in the most high.
>> Sitting in the same position as God the Father.
Uh he sits in the position of God when obviously it says that he's the creator of all things.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So what I'm asking is where does he where does he have the same authority same same position as God the father >> because he's the creator of all things.
So he has the same position as God being the creator of all things. Okay. Can you can you show me can you show me that verse like in the Old Testament?
>> In the what?
>> The Old Testament.
>> You don't take it from the New Testament or what?
>> No, I feel like New Testament is corrupted. So, let's just look at New >> You got any evidence for that?
>> It's just written by the different like writers. Like it's not even the same writers, >> bro. How how is it being written by different writers mean it's corrupted?
>> Go to Old Testament, bro. Simple, >> bro. You're asking me about Jesus. Why would I go to the Old Testament for that? What are you talking about?
>> If you were to say, okay, just just so you're saying there's no there's no verse or indicate or any prophecy about him that he's sitting in the most high.
>> There is, but it calls him God and you're not going to take that as the son. So, I'm showing you from the New Testament that he is.
>> But what I'm asking is there any any old testament, bro?
>> Yes. But it calls him God there.
Okay, let's go there then. Let's go there.
>> Isaiah 44:24. I, Yahweh, create the heavens and the earth by myself.
>> That wasn't talk about.
>> Exactly. That's why I wasn't Dude, oh my gosh, you're so The reason I didn't bring that up is because I said anytime I show you a verse that just says God, you're going to say it's not Jesus.
>> So, how are you going to indicate that it is Jesus that Isaiah 43 is talking about?
>> Isaiah 40? What? Isaiah 43? What are you talking about? Whoever you quote right now. Just right now.
>> What?
>> Do you quote Isaiah 48?
>> What? Bro, I said Isaiah 44.
>> Okay. 44. Where do we see >> that? It's literally indicated to Jesus, bro.
>> Brother, because of the New Testament.
>> So, are you saying what code in Isaiah 44?
It's been the same thing in the New Testament.
>> It's talking about the same thing that Colossians is talking about. Yeah.
Okay. So, we don't see the God the Father >> in Colossians 1:16. No.
>> So, what's the point of bringing Jesus if God the Father? He's not sitting at the same position as God the Father.
>> Oh my gosh. What, bro? Oh. Oh my goodness, dude.
>> Like, are you not hearing my question?
>> I don't know what the freak you're talking about. This is crazy. I Colossians 1:16 says that Jesus created all things. That we're doing that and coinciding with Isaiah 44.
Where do we see Jesus sitting the same authority as God the father having the same authority 16?
>> So does it say that he he does it say that he has the same authority as the god the father >> because he is the creator of all things.
Yes. It calls him the creator of all things.
>> Like I'm just going to like like I have to repeat myself again and again again.
Is the is the creator of all things not on the same authority as the father?
>> Show me that. Show me that in the Old Testament will indicate Jesus is the one.
>> Prove give me a reason why I can't use the New Testament. If you're going to say it's corrupted, then prove it.
>> Dude, we don't even know who wrote the the New Testament.
>> Yes, we do. John, >> who wrote Listen, listen. Who wrote Who wrote who wrote uh Timothy?
>> Paul.
>> Okay. Who wrote uh Okay. Paul Did Paul ever met Jesus >> on the road to Damascus? Yes.
>> That's literally a dream. A freaking dream.
>> If it was a dream, then why did the other people go blind?
>> Why did all the people go Well, Paul was the only one who go blind. What are you talking about?
>> No, the other people either was blind or they couldn't hear.
>> What are you talking about? You said blind and all the people couldn't hear.
>> Dear God, do I not Do I need to show you? Bro, this is Oh my gosh. Okay.
>> Are you asking the other people that literally was hearing, >> bro? I just I'll show you the verse, bro. I don't I mean, this is this is crazy.
>> People were blind.
>> So Jesus literally blind.
>> Oh my goodness. I'll show you the verse, dude.
>> You're just baking yourself at this point, bro.
>> They They all literally said they heard it from heaven, dude.
>> At the same time, four people were blind.
>> I'm going to I'm going to show you that they literally heard it, dude. Dear God, >> I'm not talking about. What are you talking about? I'm You just said people were blind at the same time. I'm asking.
>> So at the same time was Paul.
>> Was Paul what?
>> At the same time Paul was not He didn't see any vision at all. At the same time, were the other people the same time?
>> No, he was blinded after.
>> Okay. So I'm asking you, you just said the the other people also were blind.
So, I'm asking you, did Jesus blinded three people at the same time?
>> Where do you get it from that it was only three people?
>> You just said right now. You just said, "Bro, >> where did you get three?" Dude, where are you getting three people from?
>> Because wasn't he walking to Demarcus like with three people?
>> Demarcus. Who the freak is Demarcus, bro? Oh my gosh, bro. Get the freak out of here, bro. Yo, this is crazy. We are getting the slowest guest I've ever seen in my life, bro. said, "Wouldn't there three people walking to Demarcus, bro?"
Yo, where the freak is Demarcus?
What? Where the freak is Demarcus at?
Yo, Demarcus, let me know.
Oh my goodness, bro. We was walking to Demarcus.
C can I not just get like Can I genuinely just not get like guests that actually like like have any sort of like mental faculties? That's all I ask, bro. Just for a couple guests that have mental faculties. That's all that I ask.
We all We all going to Demarcus this week.
We all going to Dem the markets this week, man.
I love your lives. Appreciate you. I serve Jesus.
Let's see.
That person's not connecting. Uh, >> hello.
>> Hello. What's up?
>> Hey, Ju just want to run idea, pass you.
I didn't expect to get through. I won't take up much of your time, but I was just wondering I've listened on a lot of these debates and it seems like there's a lot of chasing rabbits going on. Um, but here here's what it all boils down to to me, and maybe you can enlight me on this. There seems to be a belief in Islam that between Jesus and Muhammad there were not any prophets.
But uh according to the Bible like there were like thousands of prophets in between Jesus and Muhammad.
>> Where you get that from?
>> The gift of prophecy.
>> Thousands of prophets >> with the people with a gift of prophecy.
>> Where you get thousands of them from?
Well, there were thousands in the church and people could speak in tongues.
>> Where you get that from in the tongues isn't prophecy.
>> Well, it was one of the gifts. Prophecy though speaking in tongues don't make you a prophet.
>> So where you get it from in the Bible, there was thousands of prophets.
>> What I'm saying is I think there were thousands of people with the gift of prophecy received from the Holy Spirit uh through the laying on on the h through the laying on of the hands of the apostles. The gift of prophecy was given.
>> Where do you get that? Thousands of people had this gift though.
>> Well, throughout the book of first Corinthians, uh, >> can you show me?
>> Paul said prophecy was a greater gift.
Uh, >> yeah. Greater >> chapter.
>> Yeah. That means that means it's greater because it's greater in like power, not because he's talking about how it's greater than tongues.
>> Right. Right. So where is >> maybe I'm exaggerating? Maybe maybe I'm I don't know the exact number, but uh would you agree that the gift of prophecy was prevalent in the church?
>> Prevalent? No. No.
>> Well, there there had to be several at Corenth, the church at Corenth and other churches. But but but the point I I'm getting at is that you know if the church and I'm pro-Christian but I am a Christian by the way but I just haven't seen in these debates I have not heard this argument come up the fact that if Christianity was wrong about the death bound resurrection of Christ if Christianity was wrong about Jesus being the son of God it would have been revealed to the prophets In the early church, for instance, Philillip had four daughters who who prophesied, you know, and God would not have waited till five or 600 years later to reveal all the errors to Muhammad when he could have revealed it to say, Philip's four daughters who had the gift of prophecy and they could have told everybody where we were wrong, where they were wrong, >> and they would just reject that they were actually given that of prophecy.
>> Yeah, I guess so. But one other quick point I've got to go. Uh according to Christianity, now you may disagree. I don't know what part of Christianity you fall under, but uh the part of Christianity that I believe in doesn't even believe the gift of prophecy or any nobody could claim to be a prophet after the year say two or 300 uh AD because prophecy the gift of prophecy had ceased. So after about the year 200 or 300 AD at the most >> Christian after 200 AD >> uh well for for this reason but I I do want to say that no Christian, no Jew, no Muslim can claim to be a prophet because of 1 Corinthians chapter 13 which points out the it says tongues will cease, prophecy will fail, knowledge will vanish away. Miraculous knowledge.
>> Where you get it from that it ended in 200 though.
>> Well, um, in 1 Corinthians chapter 13, after you get past those wonderful verses on love, Paul talks about we we know in part, we're learning in part.
But there's a key verse there in the latter part of 1 Corinthians 13 that says it tells you when prophecy will cease and speaking in tongues will cease. and miraculous knowledge being revealed will cease.
>> Where does it say that be in 200 AD?
>> Well, when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will vanish away. Uh that which is perfect, never refer to Jesus Christ. The the word perfect means complete. So what was being revealed part by part in the first century? It was a new testament. A part here, a part there. But once it was complete, this is why I say roughly second, third century at the most because the new the canon of the New Testament scripture was completed by the end of the first century. And so that which is perfect had already come.
>> So it was completed at the end of the first century. So where you get 200 AD from then? Well, even earlier I was being generous, but but after that which is perfect has come, prophecy ceased.
So, what I'm saying is Muhammad is about 500 years too late. You see what I'm saying?
>> Yeah. I don't know. You have to use that one against Muslims, man. I'm not too sure.
>> But, uh, okay.
>> Yeah. Thanks for coming, man.
Uh, please, nobody ever take any teachings from that man ever. Please. decent with a final super chat. I think that guy was actually for real mentally challenged.
God bless.
Appreciate you, bro. Dun super chat. I own a Demarcus steel knife. Y'all bacon this man. Demarcus Ryan with a super chat. My favorite Bible story is Paulo on the ramp to Dequavius where Josephus appeared to him and he was deaf. He was deaf and I love Larvik, bro. Y'all baking this man, bro.
Come on.
Oh, what's up, Modern Bray?
That's wicked.
That is wicked. All right, let's see what we got.
>> Hello.
>> Hello.
>> Hey, how are you?
>> Hey, what's going on?
>> Um, I have like two things I want to talk about. I think this I think the first one might be shorter, but it might not be. Um, I'm just curious. Do you take a real distinction? Like a distinction of reality, right?
>> Between what?
>> Between two different things.
>> Do I think two different things are distinct than reality?
>> No. I'm asking you for like when we say something is really distinct because people have different definitions of a real distinction. Do you take a real distinction to be a distinction of reality?
>> Uh distinction in reality. Yeah.
>> Okay. And that in reality is right.
These would be two things in reality that are different in what?
>> Yeah, they're different in some way.
Yeah.
>> In any way.
>> Yeah. As long as it's in reality. Yeah.
>> Okay. And um in what way do you hold the persons of the trinity are distinct?
>> By their relations.
>> Uh what are their relations? That's kind of what confuses me.
>> Uh the son comes forth and the father for example and the father does not come forth from anybody.
Okay. Okay. So, this is kind of what my issue is then. Um, you're trinitarian, right?
>> Yep.
>> Of course you are. So, when you say that the distinctions are from what they come forth from, you take that the Holy Spirit comes forth from the the father as well, right?
>> Yeah. He's inspiring from the father.
Yeah.
>> Okay. You say that the son also comes forth from the father, right?
>> Yes. In a different manner.
>> Okay. And what does that manner?
>> Begotten.
>> Okay. And what does it mean to be?
>> It just means to come forth from. Okay.
Does the spirit come forth from the father >> in a different manner which is spiration. We don't say what the we don't say what the difference is between begetting and spiration. We just pause that there is one via divine revelation.
>> Is there any sort of um for example when you're talking about why the son and the uh the father are different. Right? You said that it's because they're going to have a different thing in reality >> different property.
>> So is there any property difference between the son and the spirit?
>> Yes. The fathers denote that spiration is different than begetting, >> right? But what's the property?
>> The begetting inspiration. That's that's the property.
>> The property of the spirit is beetting.
>> No, spiration is the property.
>> The property of the spirit is spiration.
>> Yes. That's the fact that he's spirated.
That's his hypothetical property. Wait a minute. The property is spiration.
>> Yeah. The fact that he's spirated. Yes.
Being spirated is a is a hypothetic property.
>> Okay. Spirated. Yeah. But um all we're saying is that when something is spirated um that property which is given to the spirit is just off of like what?
>> All you mean off of what?
>> Yeah. When we're saying spirated um in what way is spiration distinct from being begotten?
>> We don't make the what the distinction is. We just say that the fathers say that via divine revelation that there is one.
>> Of course. Yeah. The fathers can say that, right? What we're already saying is that something is really distinct when it has um a different property in reality.
Yeah, when there's some sort of difference in reality and so since the fathers posit that there is a difference in reality between spiration and beetting that we take that that is different >> of course but they do that in different ways. So for example um Augustine talks about why um begotten inspiration is different because he says that in the spirit uh spirates it comes from the father and the son.
>> Yeah. Uh if you're talking about tract 899 it's because he's speaking about the fact that um he's speaking about specifically John 16. He's referencing John 16:13.
>> Yeah, of course that's that's fine, right? But these are different ways in which they have a different uh property.
>> Yeah.
Dustin isn't talking about inner trinitarian life in trackctate 999. He's talking about the fact that the son sends the spirit into economy.
>> Yeah. But he's also talking about um when he's saying and what way we can speak of how the son and the spirit and the father are distinct. Another example is when um track curious you don't wait where you quoting from in Augustine.
>> From Augustine.
>> Yeah. You say that was from Augustine.
Where you quoting from for him? Let's see it.
>> I don't have the exact quote, but I can get it if you >> Yeah, I would I would love that. Yeah.
Where it says, "This is the reason why the distinct." Yeah, I would love to see that.
>> Okay.
And we'll wait, guys. If you guys can't tell yet, he is trying to basically prove the Philly way true if you guys can't tell.
So, we shall wait for that quote.
But, uh, make sure if y'all ain't here, guys, you like the live.
Guest requests are open. If y'all disagree, we'll wait for him though.
We shall wait.
>> I think so. I have something here. Um my notes could be wrong. You can go I think this probably find this on New Advent too. Um book four, obviously on the Trinity. Book four, chapter 19, section 29.
>> Okay. Book four. What chapter?
>> Chapter 19, I think.
>> Okay. Chapter 19.
>> That could be wrong. I could have this wrong in my notes.
It's either 19 or 20. Sorry.
Okay. Well, I'm in chapter 19 here. So, uh, where exactly in chapter 19 does it say this is the reason why >> 29?
>> 29, you think?
>> Cool. Yeah. Let's go to 29. There is no such chapter as 29.
>> Okay. Go to chapter 20 then.
>> Okay. Here's chapter 20.
>> Then section 29.
>> Section 29. Okay. So, we're at here in section 29. Does it say that that's the reason they're different?
>> Uh, here. Let me pull out so you can look at the same thing.
Just let me know where Nick Flex's water bottle, bro. No, I just my normal Fiji I get off Amazon, they ain't like sell it no more or something. So, I had to get a these big ass core water bottles.
Make sure y'all like the live. Y'all in here, chat. Make sure we get the membership go up if y'all are on YouTube cuz y'all slacking. Michael, thank God.
No fees had to downgrade. I know they only had it on Amazon Fresh, which I don't even know how that works. I think it's like a different thing. So, uh, I can't find the quote here where he specifically talks about it.
>> I can come back up if you want.
>> Yeah, sure. You can go find it. There's something else I want to talk about then as well cuz I can't find this quote.
>> Yeah, you can go find it. Let me know when you figure it out.
>> There's something else you can talk about. It doesn't have to do with like church fathers.
>> Huh?
>> Is there something else you can talk about? It's not like a church father thing.
>> Okay. What else do you want to talk about since you can't prove that?
>> Well, I can come back for that later.
But um yeah, I just wanted to talk about um yeah, I just don't know if there's any evidence for beer theism in general.
>> For what? And if there's for bear theism >> for bare theism.
>> Yeah.
>> What do you define bare theism as?
>> Yeah. Just like the belief in God at all.
>> You can't find any evidence for the belief in God.
>> Well, yeah, but what I'm saying is that um typically when people try to prove their religion.
>> Are you do you Wait, are you Catholic?
>> No.
>> So, you don't believe Jesus is God?
>> No.
>> What are you?
>> Atheist. So, what the freak were you just trying to prove?
>> Well, yeah, because the nice cre doesn't have the filioquay, which would be an error.
>> What?
>> Yeah. What I'm saying is that like without the filioquay, there is no way that the persons are distinct.
>> Could you do us a favor if I just say Jesus isn't God for us or fast so I can make sure you're not actually Catholic?
>> Yeah, Jesus isn't God. I'm not Catholic.
>> I don't know, man. This is weird cuz I've never seen an atheist try to sit there and getting a weird vibe from you, bro. Why did you try to Why did you try to argue fully okay with me if you don't even believe in God?
>> Did you not hear what I just told you?
>> But what is Yeah, you said nine and creep. What does that have to do with >> Well, yeah, >> you don't even think God exists.
>> Yeah, the air would be like inside of the church then. And then if the church is false, like Christianity would also be false.
And because the why does the filio have to be true?
>> Yeah, there's no way that the sun and the spirit are distinct >> and you'd be worshiping two persons.
>> Yeah, we worship three.
>> Well, of course it feel what, bro? How can you How can you not Is it possible for beetting inspiration to be distinct if we don't know what the distinction is?
Well, I don't know if like appealing to my street because you can >> I'm just saying is it possible? No, you said you said it's not possible. M is it possible?
>> Uh logically, no. I don't think so.
>> Okay. What's a logical contradiction with saying it's possible that beetting is inspiration have some sort of distinction?
>> Because when we're talking about how like what it means to be get all that's just going to be is just a principal cause and there's no distinction of the principal cause of beetting inspiration.
>> Okay. There not being a distinction in the principal cause doesn't mean there's not a distinction in the way that principal cause brings them forth. How do you know it's a logical contradiction that there's there's there cannot be a distinction in the way the principal cause brings them forth.
>> You said that a real distinction is something that's in reality. But if they both get their existence from the same principal cause and they would be the same person because there's no way that they're really distinct. Then >> you say pause.
>> No.
>> What did you just say?
>> What part did you not hear? I'm confused.
>> Did you say pause?
>> No, I I didn't say pause.
>> How do you know it's a logical contradiction? That >> I'm trying to figure out what you said.
Hold on cuz I missed something.
>> I can just I can just say it again.
>> Oh, you said cause.
>> I said that's >> Yeah. What the Okay. So, uh, can one principal cause, uh, bring two people forth in two different ways?
>> Um, the thing is though, well, it it they can, but the issue is that I'm confused how that would work.
>> Regardless of how it can work, if it can happen, then you admit that there can be a distinction between getting inspiration.
>> Of course, the reason why I think it can though is if it's a shared Hold on.
Don't do that. I'm actually like, I'm not trying to troll. The reason the reason why I said they can is if that principal cause is shared.
They can if the principal cause is shared, right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And they share a principal cause.
So they can >> No, no. What I'm saying when I'm saying that the two persons that are brought forth, I'm talking about second person here would obviously be actually the third person because the son the the sorry the father wouldn't be caused in any way. So of course >> so the second and third person even though they come from the same cause that they can still have a distinction in the way they come from that cause.
same cause. The same cause would be a shared between the father and the son.
>> Okay. So they would have a shared cause but they can have a different way that they come from that cause right?
>> No. In that way they would no way be distinct to them.
>> How how can you how can one person or two people coming from the same cause not have a different way of coming from them >> because the same cause is shared between the first person which the third person gets their cause.
>> Do you think would you say like a mother giving birth is a cause?
>> A mother giving birth.
>> Yeah. It's like the cause of their child. Like that's the cause.
It's a cause. It's not a principal cause in any way.
>> What what do you define a principal cause as >> uh like the sole thing this? Well, in this we talk about principal causes for creation and in the trinity it would be different because you guys don't say that it's of a creation.
>> Okay. Can you define just like a cause?
>> Can you define principal cause for me though?
>> How? In this context it would just be any sort of causal.
>> Okay. What would be the context in creation?
>> In creation it's something getting its ontology.
It's being.
>> Does a child get their being from their parent?
>> No.
>> Child doesn't get their being from their parent.
>> No. Not Not if you're a Christian. No.
>> According to you, According to you, where does your child get their according to you? Where does your child get their being?
>> I don't think that beings exist under my worldview.
>> Beings don't exist. So, you're not a you don't exist. You're not a being.
>> I don't have a being. No. But I have like a personhood.
>> What is a being?
A being.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I think that I think that being like we can define being for creation, but typically being is defined as like something that is absolutely simple.
>> Because I don't think that there's like a being. There's things that make up a thing.
>> Who says a being? Where do you get your definition from? That being means abs something's absolutely simple. Where do you get that from?
>> That's that's your church fathers, >> brother. That's Oh, please show me our Okay. Then then please show me our church fathers where they say to be a being means to be absolutely simple. Please show me.
>> No, they don't say it in that sense cuz I'm already talking. I'm saying in the sense of >> show any sense the church fathers say that any sense.
>> You guys don't hold that God is absolutely.
>> No, no. Show me in any sense that they say beings are absolutely simple.
>> I already said it would be different for creation.
>> Oh, so I asked you about why you're not a being, dude. So why'd you bring up the church fathers?
>> Cuz I'm composed of parts.
>> Okay. What does it mean to be a being?
But what is your definition of being?
You said it is to be absolutely simple.
Where did you get that from?
>> Yeah, that's just I brought up your church father because they say that God's being is absolutely >> Do they say that beings in general all be do they say created beings are absolutely simple?
>> They talk Yeah. Yeah. They talk about being differently for creation and God.
>> Okay. Do they say created beings need to be absolutely simple?
>> No.
>> Okay, great. So, we're talking about created beings. So, once again, I ask you where do you get your definition from that created beings are absolutely simple?
I wouldn't hold that then if I said that I misspoke.
>> Dude, bro, go study, bro. Go study, dude. You don't know what the freak you're talking about.
Dear lord, these people don't know what they're talking about. They just make stuff up.
This is absurd.
This is so absurd. Dude, Dude doesn't even know what a freak of being is and he's trying to debate. Bro, go figure out what a being is, man.
OG with a five. I feel you get the memberships W man. Let me go ahead and uh and uh put five on it.
Put five on it. Let me see. Membership goat.
Appreciate you OG. Thank you very much, bro. Hopefully you got a membership. Say thank you to my boy Adam with a 10 super chat. Ironically, uh the filioquay is what creates a binity and worshiping of two persons instead of three. It literally destroys a relational distinction between the father and the son. Yeah, you don't need the filio to distinguish between the father and son. It's just like if you think that it's just like embarrassing.
I'm not going to lie. It's so It's so bad. F to the father and son. It's just like if you think that that's just like embarrassing. I'm not going to lie. It's so It's so bad. Fail to soup chats.
Clearly from the church of Aristotle.
Yeah, it's from the church of Demarcus.
That's where he got that from. Church of Demarcus.
Hello.
>> Hello. How's going on?
>> What's up? Uh, >> I'm doing good. How about you?
>> I'm good. What you got?
>> All right. So, I was going to ask, uh, what's what's the deal with, uh, God logic? Because I heard that he, uh, recommended people to go see a debate on, um, someone flaming a Eastern Orthodox inquirer.
>> He recommended Oh, no. That was that was his backup channel. That's what you're talking about. It wasn't him. It was his backup channel. life runs. He didn't send anybody anywhere.
>> Okay. Okay. But uh on another point, I was going to say uh you should talk to uh or have you been talking to God logic about the uh early church.
>> Yes, we talk about it.
>> Yes. Okay. Okay. I'd love to see you guys um talk about it publicly maybe another time because I know you guys talk about the Eucharist.
>> Probably not. We just talk about it privately, speak about things. So, yeah.
>> All right. Well, uh, that was it.
>> Cool. All right.
>> Yep. Take care, man.
>> All right. All right. All right. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see.
>> Hello.
>> Yo, what's up?
>> I would I would not say that the trendy is logical in your in your orthodox paradigm because you guys rejected the fear of clay. I'm sold to St. Aquinus's position.
>> We reject who?
Uh because you guys reject the Furioquay.
>> The Furio.
>> No, the Filioquay.
>> The Filioquay. Okay. Why is the Filioquay true?
>> Why is it true?
>> Mhm.
>> Wait. No, I was I was just looking to see if you could give an argument for why the Fioquay is not true.
>> But you just gave me an argument saying that our ch our view is illogical because we don't believe in the Filio.
So you have to prove that the filioquay way not believing in it makes our view not true. What's the argument for that?
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. Nick. So question. Do you So question do you agree to this line of reasoning? Real quick.
Okay.
So if so if the theory is true is true it is in the Catholics Trinity model and the Orthodox reject that. So they would make a trinitarian error.
>> Yeah. If the Latin felio way is true then yeah.
>> So so if somebody makes a trinitarian error then they do do not have the true model of of of the trinity. Right.
>> Yeah.
>> I just wanted to see if you had any type of argument.
>> You're making a claim that is true, bro.
I'm just going to say it wasn't taught.
>> It just wasn't taught. Um, uh, can you show me? And do you have a >> What do you mean, bro? I'm saying it wasn't taught. That means What do you mean show you? I'm saying I don't believe it was ever taught.
>> Um, in in the church fathers.
>> Yeah.
>> Um, can you like show me epistemic justification for your interpretation of um of of the text?
>> Oh, what kind of epistemic justification would you need to interpret a text?
No, no. I'm I'm saying >> I'm asking what kind would you need?
>> What the epis what I'm saying is can you give me a argument for for how do you know the words that you are reading on these papers and scholars etc. How do you know what what you're reading what you think you are reading? How do you know that that is actually what you are looking at?
>> Uh how do you know when you hear my words right now you're interpreting them correctly?
Wait, what? No. No.
>> What's your epistemic justification that the words that I'm saying you can interpret correctly?
>> So, how would that how would that correlate? I I that's not a good reductio.
>> I didn't give a reductio. Oh my god.
Nobody gave a reductio.
>> Questions aren't reductios.
>> Hey, wait, wait. Uh, yes, they are.
>> Some questions.
>> Some questions aren't. Some questions are reductio.
>> What is a reductio?
>> What is a reductio? And which model?
>> Yeah, take care, bro. Watch your head.
In which model, bro. In which model are you talking about for reduct, bro? Oh my. Yo, this is what happens. This is what happens. Yeah, Chad GB. This is what happens when you Chad GBT a philosophy course. Hey, Chad GBT, make me a philosophy course so I can be a I can be a smart philosopher.
And then they come in here and just say random stuff. Yeah, holy Lar. Yeah, literally a definition of a LAR, bro.
Matt with the five get the memberships.
God bless you, Matt. God bless you, my man. Once again, make sure y'all say thank you to my guy if you got one, man.
God bless you. Thank you very much, dude. Thanks for the five get the memberships.
I always got to manually update it every time if y'all see me doing it. That's what I'm doing.
Oh, this is crazy, man. This is crazy.
Chad GBD, pray for us. Yes.
Hey, didn't the Pope just put out a letter yesterday and he said that he said something about uh the uh what's it called?
That the the AI needs to be a part of the nuclear family or something like that.
I don't know, bro. That's what I heard.
That's what streets was saying.
That's what streets was saying.
Christ offers notified super chat. If God lo became EO, I don't believe he would tell anybody. So stop asking uh YouTube. Mind your business, YouTube.
Yeah.
Yeah. Uh it's like, you know what I mean? And it's like ask him, not me. You know what I mean?
He wrote something that was against AI.
The quote I read sound like he was for it.
So square on super chat. Words words.
Know you. Yes.
Agreed. Square.
Uh, truth. Hello.
Truth. Hello.
You are on the stage. Truth. Hello.
>> Oh, hello.
>> Yeah. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah. What's up?
>> Hey, bro. actually uh uh I had a something similar to Well, first of all, I want to say that the Pope actually said AI uh can destroy families. So, and I'm not even Catholic.
>> Well, I'll read you the quote I read.
Hold on.
Now, haven't looked into this. So, listen guys, if it's false news, it's false news. I didn't say no. Okay, this is what I read. He said, "The project for a civilization of love therefore must undertake the task of transforming this imposed interdependence into a willed and chosen solidarity. This is the guiding principle for technological processes. It is not enough for artificial intelligence to make us more efficient or connected. It must also serve to build a universal human family with shared rights and duties where digital proximity becomes a real opportunity for encounter and mutual care." That's what I read.
>> I I I mean I read something different.
So I I don't know, brother.
>> Maybe bro contradicted himself, man. I don't know.
>> I mean, maybe he did. I mean, I'm not a Catholic, bro. The Pope ain't Jack Bleet to me. You know what I'm saying?
>> Yeah. I don't know.
>> I'm I'm actually a Protestant. I was uh this is actually why I was uh reaching out to you. I was actually looking into the Orthodox church, but maybe you can clear some stuff some stuff up. Sorry, I have of a list, but uh maybe you can clear some stuff up for me, brother, because uh I'm actually a huge fan of David Wood.
>> Mhm.
>> And um I mean, just yesterday they they had a like a talk on Eastern Orthodoxy about how that church believe the church uh believes that only through the Eastern Orthodoxy church you can reach salvation and that every other church is basically heretical.
Well, we don't we don't make uh salvational claims typically outside the church in general. So, we we can make like um more exclusive. So, we don't typically make general claims, but you can make exclusive claims about things. So, we don't say that everyone else that's not orthodox is automatically going to hell.
>> I I mean, see that that's the way I was looking at it. But they were citing like an early um priest that I guess you know for like orthodoxy and you know that just got me thinking because like my mom she's a diehard Protestant she doesn't you know and she's a hardcore believer of the trinity >> so it's like it kind of got me thinking like can I really be a part of you know this church that cuz I I do like the structure of it I'm not going to lie to you like I like the structure like >> the the form of worship the legacy that it has but that kind of got me that if you know if this church in specific like it's saying that every other church is heretical. I'm like I don't know that that kind of goes against the teachings of Christ. No >> how Christ says there's one church. So that means anything that's not the church is heretical.
>> Yes. But he didn't Jesus didn't say the Orthodox church, the Eastern Orthodox Church is is my church. I mean >> who's the one who's the one church then?
See, if anything, I I'm not a Catholic, but if you look at the Catholic church, they can trace their lineage all the way to Peter, >> brother. The Orthodox can trace their lineage all the way back to Mark, all the way back to Matthew.
Like we we literally like we we can do this to like all the disciples.
>> I mean, didn't the didn't the Orthodox Church break off from the Catholic church into the great schism, though?
Okay, there was five jurisdictions.
Okay, four out of the five jurisdictions literally broke off and went to the Orthodox side. So it was the Catholics over here and every other jurisdiction of the church over here. So the Catholics broke off, not the other way around.
>> Well, I mean even if we go that route though, which you know like Christ says, you know, the church, but he didn't give a specific church. So my question is, >> so which one? How do we know which one then?
>> That's exactly my point.
>> We know which one by looking at the early church's teachings and seeing which church today lines up with them.
It can't be the any of the Protestant churches because they don't teach what the apostles were teaching or the church fathers are teaching. There's only two options either Catholic or Orthodox and it's Orthodox because every other church went with Orthodoxy while only one jurisdiction Rome left.
>> Now let let me ask you a thing. Do you believe that the church father, the early church fathers are infallible?
>> No. We believe that the the ecumenical councils that the church fathers hold are infallible.
>> How so?
>> Because we believe that they were divinely inspired and protected.
My my thing is with with that claim, there wasn't any apostle that walked with Jesus at that point in time. So my my my and even I've read uh one of the quotes of the early church fathers that says that you know our writings are infallible and everything we could be writing >> could be wrong. Yes, I can look. You said the church fathers calling themselves infallible.
>> I'm sorry. Sorry. I I say it again.
>> You said the church fathers wrote and said they were infallible.
>> One church father. Yes.
>> Who?
>> Give me a moment here.
>> Sorry. I'm going have to look it up.
Church father that said that they were not in Uh, origin. Origin, >> bro. Origin's a heretic, >> but he was an early church father. No.
>> No, he's not a church father, bro. He was a condemned heretic.
>> Oh, okay. Uh >> uh well I mean that that's that's who when I was checking out a video they actually cited him.
>> Where did the origins say that he's infallible?
>> Um I didn't actually look at the quote.
I looked at the video, brother. I'm not going to lie to you. Um >> you got to fact check these things.
>> They probably lied to you.
>> No, you're right. I mean, I do got to fact check these things cuz maybe, you know, like I said, I I I am a fan of the people that I that I be watching, you know, so I, you know, kind of don't uh don't meet your heroes or whatever, you know, the quote goes, but um I don't know. Uh and then another another thing that I had um that they they showed a video of Eastern Orthodoxy um and there was a a priest using a mummified foot. Uh >> that video was Oriental Orthodox. It wasn't Eastern Orthodox.
>> What's the difference, brother?
>> Uh oriental Orthodox uh broke off at the Council of Kanon and rejected every other. They were actually the first split in the church. Oriental Orthodox split off from the Orthodox Catholic Church at the Council of Calcedon.
>> And they don't follow the same doctrine.
They don't follow the same doctrines as the Eastern Orthodox Church.
>> No.
>> Okay. Um, but you you would consider that practice pagan, right?
>> It's pagan. No, I don't know any pagans that did that.
No, I mean there were >> I'm just saying I know what video you're talking about because it went viral. But yeah, it was the Oriental Orthodox Church.
>> Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. And then I saw that and I'm just like I don't know, man.
Because like what I mean whether it's paganism or idolatry, you can take your pick. But uh I mean if you're saying it's not Eastern Orthodox. Okay. And then um the final thing that the final thing that like was stopping me from like actually like reaching out to an Orthodox priest is uh or actually going to an Orthodox church is one I'm having trouble finding one. And two, um I kind of have a I don't know how to word it, but I guess like church anxiety.
>> You know what I'm saying?
>> Well, number one, uh if you go to my website, orthodoxworldwide.com, it's in my bio. you can put your zip code in there and you can find all the churches near you. Um, and you can make sure they're actual proper canonical churches. Second of all, on my website, I also have something that says what to expect at the liturgy. Now, I presume, I know when I first went to the church, I was a little bit scared, too, because I was like, I don't know what to expect.
So, that might help you, too. If you if you read the article that I have on there about uh the what a liturgy is, like what happens during a liturgy, it might help your anxiety a little bit.
So, you like you walk in knowing what's going to happen.
>> Gotcha. Okay. And um okay and and like I have a really bad past experiences uh with I mean granted they were Protestant >> but I do have like bad experiences with churches and that's also kind of like a thing that's like stopping me like I guess you know I mean how how friendly am I expecting you know the and and I mean I guess this is subjective you know it's every church but >> uh you know I mean like how >> everybody's very friendly there. So when first of all in the middle of service uh one of the things they do is basically like you you greet each other like in the middle of service um they'll say like to greet each other pretty much right um and you'll like kind of just like shake hands with the people around you for like 10 seconds and meet the people around you. Also after liturgies uh there's always coffee hour. So coffee hour is like where the whole church goes and they just hang out together and have fun and everyone's super nice. So that's a really nice thing. saying the Orthodox church is like very in tune with like community and everyone there like knowing each other and being involved.
So, >> gotcha. All right. Thank you, brother. I I appreciate your time and thank you for clearing up these questions. Like I said, you know, I I was looking in at Eastern Orthodoxy because I've been watching you and I've been watching other people and I was like, "Oh, you know that, you know, it looks like." But >> yeah, go go to my website, put in your zip code and go find one near you and go to it.
>> Uh, okay. Gotcha.
>> And if you got any questions or anything like that, feel free to either shoot me a message on Discord or shoot me a message on my email, too. Got you. All right. I appreciate you, brother. Thank you.
>> Take care, man.
Pray for that, man. Hopefully, he gets over that church anxiety.
Did he say fro yo yo? I think so. That was weird. I think so, man. Straight line theology. I disagree for the Philly way, but I am genuinely scared to debate you, man.
That's okay, bro. Um, I mean, we don't have to debate. You know what I mean?
Like, we can just chat, bro. It's no problem, dude.
It's okay, my man. Thank you for the super chat though, bro. It's okay to disagree to a straight line.
Let's see if connects.
Uh, AdMo, you're not connecting. You're going to have to reerequest.
What was the O video about the like the dead saint and the like the relics which I would say relics are pagan anyways.
So but yeah that was like a video went around a lot. People thought it's Easter cuz the thing is people see Orthodox church and they'll assume it's Eastern but oriental Orthodox church will sometimes just call themselves Orthodox church. So someone might go to that and you know what I mean like be led astray.
Uh, same thing with true Orthodox or genuine Orthodox churches. They're also fake Orthodox. That's why that's why that's one of the reasons why I made my website with the zip code finder on it because uh it's it's very important that people know where they're going and like they know what they're getting themselves into.
Hello.
>> Yo, what's up?
>> What's going on?
>> Nothing much.
>> What you got, man?
So I just want to understand this. Um like if someone is actually in reality worshiping the true God, it would necessitate that that true God is always going to be the father, son, holy spirit, right? Like you can't worship like for example the holy spirit only.
Uh, yeah. I mean, I think that when we worship like the son, we're also worshiping the father because he says, "You must honor me the same way as you honor God."
>> So, I think that when uh, you know, when he's when we're worshiping the son, even if we direct it to specifically the son, it's ultimately still going to the father and holy spirit. So, yeah.
>> And so, does that apply to the father as well? For example, if we're going to be worshiping the father, I'm going to be worshiping the son technically.
>> Okay. So, would you say that applies to Jesus as well? Like if he's going to be worshiping the father, is he also worshiping the son?
>> Well, yeah. I mean, it depends what you define as worship. If you're defining worship as the highest form of honor, then yeah, I think that he's also giving himself the highest form of honor. But it just depends how you define worship, though.
>> Okay. So I define worship um as like the like like actually there's many definitions but like just the biblical one that it's used only for God I guess like in the Greek. Um I believe it's uh I think it starts with a P. Um or no it starts with L. I think it's Latrea. I think that's like >> Latria.
>> Latria or something like that.
>> Latria and dullia.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And I know there's like procana as well, but like I'm mainly talking about like the L1 I guess.
>> Mhm.
>> So when that word's used, >> how do you define that though?
>> How do I define worship?
>> How do you define latch? Yeah.
>> I mean, I just go based on how the church fathers would look at it.
>> How do they define it?
>> Well, the church fathers say that worship could mean prayer. Um, that's a form of worship.
>> I wouldn't say so because you can pray to the saints and that ain't worship.
>> Well, the church fathers say you can pray to the saints.
>> Yes.
>> I thought they I thought they say you ask the saints to pray for you. I didn't know you guys actually pray to the saints.
>> You pray to the saints for them to pray for you.
>> In the same way, >> prayer is communication. So, we're communicating with the saints >> to pray to us to the father. So we're not we're not praying to them in the sense that we ask them to to you know heal us do all this etc. We're praying to them to ask them to pray for us.
>> But the the type of prayer that you're doing is that the same type of prayer you do for God >> because it's the same thing. We're not asking the same thing though. It's the same prayer but we're not asking the same thing in the prayer.
>> So would it be wrong for me to ask Mary to have mercy on me?
>> No.
>> You really I can literally show you church followers that say that verbatim.
I know that's why that's why I said that because I've seen church fathers say Mary like >> but you understand what they mean when they're asking that right they don't mean that Mary is the all powerful one that can do that what they mean by that is to pray to the father for them like if I ask my priest have mercy on me I it's cuz I'm like listen I know I've sinned a lot I've done a lot of bad things and I'm asking that even though I continue to do these bad things please still pray for me >> so they're not asking Mary specifically in the same way they ask God to have the power over It's just asking them to pray for her.
>> So wait, you've you've have you be honest. Have you ever told your priest have mercy on them?
>> Have I told my priest have mercy? Uh I don't think specifically. No.
>> Okay. Cuz I've never heard anyone say that to a priest like when I was >> I mean that I know people have because if you look at like uh some of the writings of like St. Sarah Rose or uh St. Picios especially actually people ask him to have mercy on them.
Okay. I mean, when I was Christian, I didn't really take those, so maybe that's just out of my ignorance, but forgive me for that. Um, but I I wanted to kind of go back on the the topic. I feel like we kind of left it out. Um, >> yeah. So, I'm just defining worship as the highest form of honor. And that's how you're defining it, too. You can either reject it or accept it.
>> Well, then he also gives himself the highest form of honor as well.
>> So, so you think worship just mean the highest form of honor? giving the highest form of honor. Yeah.
>> Which which church fathers like like >> I'm using that because if you read the context of right before he says to worship, he says, "Honor me the same as you honor the father."
>> Honor me the same as you honor the father.
>> Yeah.
>> So that that's but that like again that definition is not like going to be applied in every single case.
>> What do you mean? Cuz like for example, right? Like when I said my definition is prayer, right? Technically, I'm like if I said, okay, I don't actually want to say this, but like if I said Christ have mercy on me, right? You know, and then I would say St. Mary have mercy on me, right? I'm still saying the exact same words. So wouldn't wouldn't that be me honoring Mary the same as I do Christ?
>> No. No. So >> why does that not just because you say the same thing to two people doesn't mean you're honoring them the same?
Okay. So then >> because every Christian would bow down before Christ obviously more before they would bow down to Mary because Christ is our God.
>> So that's why the honor definition is kind of ambiguous.
>> I don't think I don't think it's ambiguous. We we give a higher form of honor to God than we do to Mary or any of the saints.
>> How do you Yeah. I'm saying what what how do you guys honor God more? Can you tell me like what type of things do you guys do that proves that you guys honor God more than Mary for example?
I mean yeah because we for example we know that there is no one that is above him we put no one above him in the sense that uh we don't say that you know God pray to someone else to do this for me to help me save me etc. We know that he is the highest form so we put him at the highest form while the saints for example we we say hey I know there's someone above you you know ask him to to help me.
>> Yeah but not in every instance are you doing that when you're praying to the saints. Well, I am literally in every instance you pray to the saints, it's always because the only reason they're able to do anything is because God grants them the power, but there's nobody above God. So, >> I'm not speaking about you. Like, I meant like uh and the you like the plural like I I don't know how because like I speak crunch, too, so it's like kind of confusing, but like um I'm talking about like church fathers like you like like you said when they're saying it like they don't always mention the father. They don't always mention Christ when they're invoking some of these things, right? You don't have to mention them for that to be your for that to be your goal though.
>> Okay. Um I mean Yeah. So So you're saying that what makes you like would you guys do sacrifices for someone other than God or is that not acceptable >> for sacrifices? Not not that type of sacrifice? No.
>> Okay. Is prayer a type of sacrifice?
>> Can be. It depends how you like if you're if you're sacrificing something to pray maybe, but I don't think inherently it's a sacrifice. No.
>> Okay. Well, I thought I thought that the Eastern Orthodox Church would have said that sacrifices of praise or giving thanks and glory to God, which would be like some type of um >> I don't see how giving thanks is a sacrifice.
>> Um I think I have a quote on it, but >> Sure, you can show me. But I don't I don't think it's really relevant. It doesn't really prove anything. Um like if I even were to bring it to you. Um but I I also did have a problem with what you told someone earlier. Not earlier today, but like a while ago.
>> What What did I say?
>> It was regarding your um interpretation of um you know the whole thing with the sacrificed um idol meat.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So you So they brought up a verse. Um I believe it was first Corinthians. No, no, it was chapter 8 something. It was chapter 8 or something. Uh I think 1 Corinthians chapter 8 might have been. Um yeah, 1 Corinthians chapter 8, I think it is right.
Do you remember this conversation?
>> No, don't remember anyone having a conversation with anyone about this, but I'd love to hear what my answer was.
But your answer was that this isn't even talking about food sacrifice idols, right? And it was a specific verse. And you said when when Paul brings this up, you said this has this is not even regarding the same thing.
>> What verse?
>> What verse?
>> Uh 1 Corinthians chapter 8. Uh if you go to I think verse dude, if I um Oh, uh verse eight. That's what it was.
Yeah. You said, "But food does not bring You said when it says, "But food does not bring us near to God. We are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do." You said, "This has nothing to do with sacrifice items." Correct.
>> Verse eight.
>> Yeah.
>> No, it's later on when it talks about the washing of hands.
>> Okay. So, I'm talking about ver 1 Corinthians chapter 8 verse 8.
>> No, verse 8. No. All verse eight is speaking about is uh the fact that that >> What?
>> You said it it's to do with gluttony.
>> Huh?
>> Didn't you say it was to do with >> just in general?
>> No, bro. Okay. No. Okay. Verse 8 is referencing the fact that he's saying that it doesn't actually do anything to you. Like it's not if you eat some sort of like sacrifice food, it's not going to technically harm you. That's what he's saying. Okay. Now, what he's not saying, he's not saying it's okay to do it, but he's saying it's not going to actually like harm you if you do it.
>> Okay. So, so would you say that sin harms you?
>> Uh, it can. It depends. I don't think that all sin is going to like harm your body, for instance.
>> Okay. Where Well, this is obviously not going to be talking about a physical harm, right? When he says their conscience is weak, right? He's talking about like >> in a different verse. Yeah.
>> That's that's before the verse. That's literally the verse before it.
>> He says in verse 9, too. Verse 9 and 10.
Verse 10 specifically.
>> Yeah. Verse 10. He also talks about conscious. Yeah, that's true.
>> Yeah, that's talking about what's being offered to them. He said only thing he's mentioned about is consciousness because their conscious is weak.
>> So he's not talking about a physical thing here. Like obviously the me is >> one of the things he's talking about is that his their consciousness is weak. He dude their he the whole reason for them bringing their consciousness up is because he's saying they're doing it because their consciousness is weak.
>> Yeah. But but look what he says. when you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Like he's talking about a spiritual thing here.
>> I believe that's verse um uh that's at the bottom of first. I I don't know the exact number. It's at the really bottom of 1 Corinthians chapter 8.
>> Verse 12. But when you thus sin against the brethren, wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. What about it?
So, no, I'm saying uh like he's talking about like spirit like he's talking about spiritual means in this in this case.
>> Yeah, that's one of the things he's talking about. Yeah.
>> So, so if you if you're sinning against people, right, in the in the sense that like you know you're like do you know what he's condemning them for here by the way? Like is that what you just read?
>> Yeah. For having a weak conscience and leading people away.
>> Yeah. Okay. But you're saying that like there's a case where sin won't harm you spiritually or are you talking about physically?
>> Talking about physically.
>> Okay. So in would you say would you agree that in every sense sin is going to be harmful? In every sense.
Spiritually.
>> You're talking about spiritually. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. Good. So would you say that when he's saying that it's not going to be worse if you do not eat it, is that saying physically or is that saying spiritually?
>> That's what the church fathers said.
Talk about physically.
So the church fathers take 1 Corinthians chapter 8 physically. That's >> what Cle comment of Alexandria says.
>> What does he say?
>> Uh he talks about how specifically that he talks about your your stomach, right?
When you eat the food. So we know he's talking physically. I can pull up the quote. Uh he says basically uh how it's not the food in the belly that is good to be situated. So I can show you where he literally mentions the stomach. So he's clearly talking about physical things. Uh let me see of Alexandria.
Yeah. He says the natural use of food is then indifferent. For neither if we eat are we the better. It is said nor if we eat are we the worst. For it is not the food of the belly that we have heard good to be situated but he has heard that meat will not commend us. So he's clearly talking about something physical.
>> Okay. So he he he's not talking about something spiritual. Is that like your claim?
>> That's not I'm saying that's not the only thing. He's not only speaking about spiritual.
>> I didn't say that. No, that's okay. But like I I thought your claim was that verse 8 is only talking about physical.
It's not talking about >> No, I don't think it's only physical. I don't think that I'm saying that physically it doesn't harm you.
Spiritually it can. I have no problem with that.
>> Okay. So, so you're what I'm trying to say is that what is what Paul's saying that we are no worse physically or we are no worse spiritually?
>> Yeah, it would be physically. That's what Clement is talking about. So, we would be worse spiritually if we were to eat food, sacrifice, meat, right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, then if that's the case, then how come uh wait, what's the verse? Um, bro, I forgot the verse, man. It was um it's not 1 Corinthians chapter 8. I think it might be Romans.
Um, one sec.
Hold on.
Okay, >> y'all like the live >> I think it's do not destroy the work of God >> for the sake of >> Yeah, Romans chapter 14. I don't know which verse, bro. I'm going to be honest.
>> Um, but it's like along the lines of do not destroy the work of God or the sake of food or something like that. And then then he says, "All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble." So someone else to stumble here. This is going to be talking about sin and spirituality, right? Like like it's this is a spiritual this is not a physical verse. Yeah.
>> Which verse? You haven't told me the verse yet.
>> Um it's you should know it. It's like when he says, "Do not destroy the work of God."
>> I don't know. I don't have a verse memorized, bro. Which verse?
>> Okay. Uh all right. I'll just search it up, bro. One second. Hold on, bro.
You have a whole like setup, bro.
>> Does that mean I'm going to memorize the Bible?
>> Just No, I'm saying just search it up.
Like, you can just search up do not destroy the >> I'm in Romans 8. I don't know which verse you're talking about.
>> It's not Roman. It's Romans 14. It's Romans 14. I >> Or I'm in Romans 14. Yeah, I don't see anything here about it.
>> Okay, it's verse 20. It's verse 20. It's verse 20.
>> Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things are indeed pure, but is evil for the man who eats with offense.
What about it?
>> Yeah. So, like is this is this going to be like um Wait, what was that verse 20?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. So, is this verse going to be referencing like when he says all food is clean, is that going to be like a physical thing or when he says all food is clean in the sense that like spiritually it doesn't harm you?
>> Yeah. Obviously he's not speaking about the fact of uh he's not talking about like if you mean like physical like like the wiping off of things etc. Um he agrees that all food is clean in terms of the spiritual practice of it.
Obviously that's a general claim though not an exclusive claim.
>> Okay. So it's not an exclusive claim.
That's what you're saying.
>> It's a general claim. Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, so when he says, "But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat." What does he mean by that?
>> Which verse?
>> It's the last verse.
>> But he who has doubts eats because he does not eat from faith. For whatever is not from faith is from sin. Oh, he literally explains if you keep reading the verse. He literally says why.
>> Yeah. I'm saying what what does he mean by everything that does not come from faith is sin because their eating is not from faith. So it is everything in life.
Meaning if you do things in life but you do them out of your own spite or out of your own will and not from the will of God and that's not a good thing.
>> I'm asking you what are they doubting exactly?
>> They're doubting everything of God that this came from God. Like literally everything of God because they don't have faith.
>> So they have doubts in their mind as they're eating. Is that what you're saying? And that becomes a sin.
>> Doubt in their doubt in their in their mind in general in life of God. If you have doubt in your mind of God, oh, this might not have come from God, etc., then well, obviously it's going to be bad.
You're supposed to know everything comes from God.
>> Okay. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. All right. All right. Okay. Can I ask one last thing before I like like leave?
>> Sure.
>> Okay. Um, I also had a problem with what you told someone regarding Matthew um uh 13. No, Mark. I think it was Mark 13:32 or like Matthew 24:36.
>> Okay. What's your problem with it?
>> So, you said maybe like, okay, I'm quoting this, but like it's not verbatim, but you said that this is like going to be to make it known. I think that was your response, correct?
>> Yep.
>> Okay. So, like I I just have a like a a problem with this, right? So, let me when you read the text, right, Matthew 24:36, if we're going to go off what you said to make it known, then this would also be applied to the I guess the angels and the um >> Sure. Yeah.
>> And the Okay. And the father too, right?
So, only the father.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> And he is the only person who makes this note. Correct.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. So like if that's the case then how do you deal with revelation like >> what when the angel trumpets the horn?
>> Yeah. Like is he not making it known?
>> No. I think the father makes it known to the angels and then the angels are the one who does that but the father is the one who ultimately makes it known.
>> So so then but yes or no the angels are making it known still because >> they're not the primary cause of making it known. But that's again now now you have a different interpretation of of 243 >> brother. If Christ comes back and I go okay if Christ comes back and I go in my basement and I tell my friend like am I the one that made it known in that sense that he's talking about? No.
>> I see what you're saying. So you're saying that like okay he's the one who initiates the knowledge of it.
>> Yeah. We don't think that there's like because obviously God is the one who reveals it. That doesn't mean that if I go to my basement and reveal it, when I see Christ descending, that I'm the one that I'm the I am the revealer of it.
No.
>> Okay. So, you're telling me that the So, Christ does have the knowledge of it or no.
>> Yes. Because if you read Acts one, he says that it's simply that the reason why he didn't tell them is because it's not for them to know.
>> And was this was this knowledge like gained in his humanity? Like in the same way that he grew in knowledge? Like was this one of these things that were added onto his like >> instrument? Well, no, I think we're like he always had it in his divine nature, but his divine nature communicates it with the human nature.
>> Okay. I mean, I'm going to be honest like I don't know where in the verse it says the father gives it to them, though. That's the thing.
>> The father gives what to them?
>> The knowledge of the hour.
>> Oh, considering they would have to because God knows when he's going to come back. The angels can't read the mind of God. So, he'd have to. That's just like a logical progression.
>> Okay. Wait, but h how do you know it's not the angels just like knowing when it's going to happen? Just like >> cuz the angels aren't all knowing. They can't read the mind of God.
>> Just because they know something doesn't mean they're all knowing.
>> Okay. How would they know this without God telling them?
>> Okay, perfect. They could have been shown a vision by another angel. Like hypothetically, >> bro yourself right now.
>> Okay, but like I'm just saying like how do you explain, >> bro? No, just bro, you're even you realize that what you're doing right now is not No, it doesn't make any sense.
Another angel showed him [ __ ] bro. No, bro. That's not how this works.
>> I just don't know how you read make it known in the context. Like even Matthew, >> the same way if you read Deuteronomy 13:3, he says, "Oi day." But we still say it's make it known because Yahweh says, "Oh, I have tested you to oy to know whether or not you have loved me."
Well, that has nothing to do with knowledge. Obviously, God is all knowing. So he's saying I've tested you to reveal it.
>> Okay. Do you think like church like other than St. Augustine is there anyone that interprets like this like make it known or do they usually >> does too? You can look at criticism. He probably does.
>> John Chris Awesome interprets this as um as make it known.
>> Is that a statement or a question?
>> It's a question.
>> He might. I'm saying you could go and look at him.
Yeah, that's what I was gonna Yeah, someone just typed what I was going to say. I was going to say like even the context of like like especially like Mark too, like the way that they're using these words and the par the like the parallels that the stories are giving that Jesus gives >> have everything to do with knowing it like cognitively. That's what my that's what >> No, that's that's not true. Okay. It has to do with the people knowing it cognitively. And how does the people know something cognitively? It's because someone reveals the information to them.
That's how you know something cognitively. So we can say that the context is cognitive knowledge is fine but how do they gain that cognitive knowledge? The only way they would be able to gain that is God reveals it to them. That's the only way.
>> Okay. Okay. That's fine. But like did God like why did God reveal it uh why didn't God reveal it to Christ in that moment? Like what's the issue with this if he revealed it to the angels?
>> Why didn't Christ reveal it to the people right there?
>> No. Okay. So you're saying that it's the father's job to make it known, right?
And no one else makes it known, right?
Yeah, >> but how does like what's the point of making it known to Christ if Christ already knows?
I don't get that. Or are you talking about making it known just to the people?
>> Yeah, obviously to the people if Christ already knows.
>> So, okay. So, would the angels be a like put in that box of people?
>> The angels might know, they might not.
We don't know if they actually have the knowledge of it.
>> Okay, thank you for concinged that.
Okay, perfect. So, my point is that the angels could know like that that is a possibility that the angels know.
>> Yes, the angels could have knowledge of it. How does that what does that have to do with my point?
>> Okay, so I'm saying where in the verse do you get that the angels like didn't know it before they made it known?
>> Because the angels can't read the mind of God. Meaning that God would have to tell them for them to know.
>> God would have to tell them. Okay. So you're telling me any any knowledge that you even me or you get, God is telling us this knowledge. No, I'm saying knowledge of the hour specifically because it's something that God is specifically going to do. How on earth could you gain the knowledge of something God's going to do without him telling you?
>> That that's circular because you're assuming that that verse in Matthew is talking about making it known.
>> Okay. No, not even just No, I'm saying if God is going to do something, is there any way you could know that unless he tells you?
>> If God was going to do something, is there any way you would have known unless he tell Yeah, obviously he's going to tell you if he's going to do something. So the only way that you can know if God is going to do something he tells you. So in that same way you would admit then that the angels the only way that they would be able to know is if God reveals it to them, right?
>> The only way that these angels would know is that God reveal No, I'm saying that there's another way that they could know.
>> How that's how you just said nobody can know the works of God unless he tells you. So how >> no well it doesn't have to be God directly telling you. That's >> who else would tell them.
>> Okay, I got you. I can give you a perfect example. Ready? So we can just say that God made it known to one angel, right? And then that that angel like made it known to another angel and like they just know this pre like before >> and that would still mean the primary cause of making it known.
>> But again, this is not talking about primary cause. We're not >> So it's talking about everything any sort of anything.
>> No, we're talking about we're talking about the revealing of an hour, right?
That's how you interpret it, right?
>> So why did he say later on then that it's not for you to know the times of the seasons that the father is put in authority?
Because he's talking to human beings.
>> So it's not for you to know. When they asked him again, >> he's not for human beings to know.
Exactly. Including Jesus.
>> So well, Jesus is human.
>> Yeah.
>> So he's just wait. He's just a human.
>> No, I'm not I'm not saying that he's only a human according to the Eastern Orthodox position. What I am saying though is that >> that's irrelevant then. If you agree that he's not just a human, that's irrelevant then to what we said here.
Wait, wait. But he's still a human.
>> Oh, okay. But I'm saying it's because that they are just humans. Why? They can't know. God is able to know everything.
>> Okay. Can humans know everything?
>> Can they? They I don't think I don't think humans would ever know everything.
>> Okay, perfect. So, anyone that has a human nature, it would necessitate that they're not going to be all knowing.
>> No, I said if they're only humans, Jesus is God.
>> Okay, so if they're only humans, they can't be all knowing, right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. But if they also have a divine nature then they can be knowing and all knowing at the same time.
>> Yes.
>> What if it does it negate each other or does it still >> No. Do you think Wait, do you think negating properties means it's a contradiction? Just curious.
>> No, I don't that.
>> Okay. So, great. So, yes. So, then yeah, that'll have no issue with that.
>> So, it cancels out now. He's no longer not like knowing because he has a divine nature. Yeah.
>> Yeah. We believe that the divine nature permeates all things to the human nature.
>> Permeates. Okay. So, he's not actually fully human then.
>> Yes, he is. Dude, that's like saying because he doesn't have sin, he's not fully human, bro.
>> What? Wait, he doesn't have sin?
>> No. What?
>> Wait, you guys don't believe he has like even the the like inclination to sin or like even like the thought of to sin?
>> No.
>> So, like he wasn't truly tempted then.
>> No, he didn't have inner temptation. No, he only had outward temptation.
>> What the heck? What does that even mean?
Outer temptation.
>> Tempt you with something. It doesn't mean you going to feel tempted by it.
Then that's not temptation because you're not tempted, brother. Bro, there's a difference between trying to tempt somebody outwardly and them feeling tempted by what you said.
>> Okay. Okay. So what?
>> For example, if I tempt you and say, "I got some boys over here." And they want to kiss you, you feel tempted?
>> Okay. Wait. So hold on. When the devil sayed by that?
>> Wait, what? When I when you say, "Oh, what? Say that again."
>> If I say I got some boys over here and they want to kiss you. If you give me 10 bucks, I'll let you come over.
>> Do you feel tempted by that?
>> No, I I don't feel Yeah, I don't feel tempted. But you are trying though.
>> Perfect. You're trying to tempt me, but you didn't tempt me. That's the whole point of >> Jesus. They tried to tempt Jesus.
>> He was never inwardly tempted though.
>> They tried to tempt Jesus, but he didn't get tempted, right?
>> Yeah. He was never inwardly tempted.
>> Okay, so when when Okay, hold on. When it says when tempted, no one should say God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone. What does that mean?
>> Yeah, it means he's never inwardly tempted.
>> Is that okay? Perfect. So God is not internally tempted, but we can still tempt God. Technically, I can like I would be out >> Yes.
>> Okay. So clearly when we're talking about temptation, we're not talking about some outer temptation BS. We're talking about inner temptation.
>> We are ex Exactly. We're talking about inward temptation. So you asked me if Christ is ever tempted. Amen. That's talking about inward temptation. The answer is no. Oh, he was never inwardly tempted.
>> Okay. So, can you explain the verse that literally says that Jesus was led by the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil?
>> Yeah. To be tempted. Meaning that he was going to that was what was going to occur was that Satan was going to try to tempt him.
If I lead you somewhere to do something, that doesn't mean it's going to end up prevailing.
>> How about this? Okay, I'll ask you maybe a a clarifying thing. Is it necessary that human beings have inner temptors?
>> No.
>> No.
>> No.
>> So there there is >> Adam and Eve didn't Bro, I wouldn't say Adam and Eve when they were first created had inward temptation of anything.
>> What?
>> When Adam and Eve were first created, I wouldn't say they had inward temptation of anything.
>> Of any evil?
>> No. Not in the beginning. No. Not until after the tree of good the tree of good and evil was there. No, it was before the if it's before they did the action that they were tempted.
>> Yeah, but I'm saying not until the tree was there did they have any inward temptation. Before they had no inward temptation.
>> So in their Okay, so in that state that they were in before they even ate it, they still could be tempted internally.
>> Dude, I'm saying before the tree was there, >> they didn't have any inward temptation for anything. So it's possible to not have inward temptation.
>> So God just made people like be tempted to sin once he spawned the tree. Is that what you think? I I think that once they saw something that they wanted, then they were inwardly tempted. Before that, they didn't see anything they wanted that was against God cuz there was nothing that was against God.
>> Okay. Oh, okay. So, you mean after like he told them not to eat it is what you're saying.
>> Yeah. Yeah. After it was considered to be a sin. Oh, >> okay. They they Okay, I get what you're saying now. Okay. So, then in this case that after that moment, every single human from there has this inclination to sin.
>> Yeah. We have an innate inclination to sin. Yes.
>> Okay. Now, would you say that someone who doesn't have the inclination to sin is like inhumane?
>> No, I would say they reach theosis if that's the case.
>> All of them.
>> I would say they reach theosis then.
>> So you you're okay. That means that person doesn't need Jesus. So hypothetically, there is a person.
>> That's not what that means, dude. If you if you don't have the inclination of sin, doesn't mean you don't need Jesus, bro. We still have a corrupted nature.
We still got to go through death. Who's going to save us from death?
>> Okay. Wait. Wait. You still die. Even though you believe in Christ, you still actually die. I hope you know that.
>> Yes. So, who's the person that So, who do we need to save us from death?
Christ. Whether or not we have an inclination of sin or not, guess what?
We're still going to die.
>> Okay. That that that's that's fine. But that doesn't has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
>> Yes, it does. Because you said they would not need Christ if they had no inclination to sin. That's wrong.
Because even if somebody went their whole life without sinning, they still would need Christ.
>> Okay. The reason why I said that is because the church describes this thing of like a second nature that you get after you are, you know, in the church and you you've been baptized nature. I don't know where you got that from.
>> Second nature in a sense. I'm not saying it's actually a second nature, but you get like >> literally glorified. You're your nature glorified. That's all it is.
>> It's your nature glorified. But the way the church describes it is that there's still this old you that exists, right?
And that's the battle. Is that not true?
>> The old you after glorified.
>> Yes. After you're glorified, you still battling a little bit. Okay, I got you.
I got you. I got you. Here, let me just pull this.
>> I would love to see where they say after glorified, you still have the old you there.
>> Okay. You guys obviously take the same fathers that the Oriental Orthodox Church take, right? Like the early before >> the early fathers. Yeah.
>> One sec.
I think it say I haven't ate all day, man. I need to get some food.
Okay. Um, I think it's I think it's Augustine, but I'm uh >> Okay, we're at >> I think it's in his um It might be in his um one of his confessions. Oh, no. It might be um No, not his confessions. Um Okay, I remember.
If you go to the city of God, I think it's the city of God. City of God.
>> I got the full city of God physical book if we need it over there.
>> Good. Good. Have you read it?
>> Yes. Not all of it. It's a freaking like thousand pages.
>> Okay. All right. All right. Okay. I think it might be when he talks about he literally talks about Adam and Eve. Like it literally sounds like exactly the conversation we had. You go to book 14.
>> Book 14.
>> Okay. Book 14. That's page 344.
>> Okay. Um, look what he says here. This is actually insane.
>> Page 344.
>> Uh, page 344. No.
>> Um, >> I said page four or I said page I said page 344.
>> Yes.
>> I thought I said chapter 14.
That's page 344.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. Sorry. My bad. No, go to chapter one. Go to chapter one.
>> That's page 344.
>> Okay. Okay. My bad. I didn't I I don't know what you mean by page 34. I don't have the physical book. I just go on new admin. So, I don't know what you mean by 344. Um but on new admin, it says that um this is like not to do with it, but it's to do with the first thing I brought up and then I'm going to show you where he talks about the two nature type of thing. But look, he says, "Derive all men from one individual and created man with such a nature that the members of the race should not have died. Had not the two first of whom the one was created out of nothing and the other out of him, merited this by their disobedience. For by them so great a sin was committed that by the human nature was altered for the worst and was transmitted also to their posterity, liable to sin and subject to death." So what does liable to sin mean? means that you have the ability to sin.
>> Okay.
>> Where on earth does that say what you were saying where you said that they have the the worst nature is still there.
>> No, no, no. I I I just I just clarified you before that I'm talking about the first thing I brought up and then I'm going to bring up what I'm talking about.
>> I want to talk about the second thing you said he was going to bring this up for. Where does he say that specific that >> that we still have our our worst second nature, our bad nature >> after we're glorified.
>> This is when he this is when he talks about the glorification. So, let me just one second. Let me just scroll down.
Okay.
One sec.
I think it might be the Yeah, I think it might be the chapter 28. Yeah, like the very last chapter. I'm I'm going just read it to you. Okay.
>> Wait, I'll just go to read along.
Chapter >> this is what he talks about the nature of the two cities, the earthly and the heavenly fact he quotes. It's chapter 20.
Chapter 28. Which section?
Chapter 28. Uh there there's really I mean on new admin I only see like a small amount of writing. I'm not going to lie. So I don't know if this is like a summary.
Like I can show you what I'm looking at.
But it's at the really bottom of >> uh Yeah, I see chapter 28.
>> Okay. And remember I I said that it's two natures in a sense.
>> Yeah. And you said that you have the pre you have still have the inclinations of the previous nature after you're glorified. Sometimes >> which which St. Augustine calls the self. Yes.
>> St. Augustine calls it what?
>> He calls it the self.
>> The cell.
>> The self.
>> I'm just going to go so I can see which part.
>> Can I just read it to you what he says?
>> Sure. Go ahead.
>> So accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves. He says, "The earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God." So that literally proves that there's like still existing even though the heavenly by the love of God even to the contempt of self. The former in a word glories in itself, the latter in the Lord, for the one seeks glory from men, but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. The one lifts up its head in its own glory. The other says to its God, "You are my glory and the lifter up of mine head." In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues and ruled by the love of ruling. In the other the princes and subjects serve one another in love, the latter obeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength represented in the persons of its rulers. The other says to his God, "I will love you, oh Lord, my strength."
>> Right? So obviously, >> where does that say what you said?
>> What do you mean?
>> Where does that say after we're glorified that we're still going to to be looking towards our previous nature?
>> If there's someone that's going to be saying, "I will love you, oh Lord, my strength." And there's going to be people who lift up their head and, you know, say, "You are my glory and the lifter up of my head." Right?
>> Where does that where is this after we're glorified, dude?
>> Well, obviously this is going to be regarding someone who has the Holy Spirit, right?
>> What you think we're glorified and we have the Holy Spirit?
>> Well, you get that. That's that's the whole point I'm trying to make.
>> What?
>> Well, I think you maybe you misunderstood me. Do you think I'm talking about after we un alive or before we unive?
>> When do we receive glory? According to the church fathers, when are we glorified?
>> Uh, you're glorified when you when you resurrect. No.
>> Oh, okay. So, you said when we're glorified, we still look at the previous nature. So, >> are we glorified here in Augustine?
>> Do you not receive the glor do you not receive the glory nature beforehand?
>> No, we're not glor No, our nature is not glorified till resurrection. No, >> I'm not saying that you have it, but do you not have like some type of like like for example, there's like a side of you that you've been given? Cuz you get a new nature in the back.
>> We get a new nature about what?
>> No, we don't.
>> I thought it was man became God so or God became man so man can become like God.
>> That's theosis. That's after death.
>> Okay. But isn't theosis like a continual thing in Earth?
>> Yeah. You you don't reach it at Earth.
>> Okay. So, you're telling me that there's not technically like a second nature that you're battling with.
>> No.
>> Okay. I mean, I'm not going to lie. I I don't know where I read this, bro, but it's I know that there's a church father that talks about it.
>> No, they don't, bro.
>> Okay. Listen, bro. I'm gonna give you a follow. I'll I'll bring it to you because this is what this is what I was taught when I was Christian.
>> All right. Just let me know, man.
>> All right. Peace out, bro.
>> Oh, Lord have mercy. Okay. Mason super chat asked for a friend. Why is a filio wrong? Because the church fathers didn't teach it. And if you look at the council of Florence, it clearly wasn't an ecumenical council. So I would look into the council of Florence.
And Mason with the fire feels get a membership. Appreciate you, Mason. God bless you, bro. And God bless you too, Eric. Appreciate you for the fire get memberships as well. Uh we can move this up to Wait, what are we at now? Are we at We're at 20, right? Isn't it? We're at 20, I think.
cuz the other ones. Yeah, I don't I think we're at 20 20 gifted memberships.
W man. Appreciate y Go. Appreciate you, man. God bless y'all.
And then Michael Hendricks with $5.
Appreciate you, Michael. God bless you, man. God bless you, brother. Appreciate that.
Appreciate it. All right, let's see what we got, man.
Hello.
>> Yo, >> what's up?
>> What's up? So, uh, just want to touch on the topic of the last guy. You said, um, every human is inclined to sin or every human has an inclination to sin >> generally speaking. Yeah.
Does Jesus fall under the every human category under his human nature?
>> No. That's why I said generally.
>> Oh, so it's like special like for Jesus.
He doesn't he doesn't have that.
>> God. Yeah. Special.
>> Yeah. But he's not God in his human nature.
>> That does not matter because the person who has the human nature is also God. So >> So the person who has the human nature is also God. But the person is is not two persons. It's one person. Correct.
>> It's one person. That's the point. Since it's one person, that one person is God.
Then he doesn't have access >> and human.
>> Yeah, >> but he's human also.
>> Yes. But I'm saying but it's not a human person. He's a divine person.
>> Okay. So he's human. The human nature of Jesus is not actually human.
>> Is actually human. I don't think you need inclination of sin to be actually human.
>> But you just said every human has an inclination to sin >> because we're corrupted right now. We'll still be human even after we reach grace in heaven. We'll still be human in heaven, but we won't have the inclination to sin anymore.
>> Yeah, I understand. But I'm saying the the the the statement, every human has an inclination to sin. How can you not tie that to Jesus in his human nature while Jesus is the same way according to you?
>> The same way he said everyone must be baptized. Now, what about somebody that is on a remote island who doesn't even know about Jesus? Can they are they condemned to hell now? No, not necessarily. So, everyone's a general claim.
>> Mhm. Okay. So, so the human nature of Jesus is not so it doesn't So, like for example, when Jesus died according to to to you, right? So, the human nature didn't die.
>> No, the person died.
>> Is that what you're saying?
>> The person died.
>> Qua humanity.
>> The person just died. Qua the humanity and divinity. We believe that the divine nature participated in the death >> because the divine nature also ascended with Christ. Still permeated the body in the tomb. the divine nature didn't leave him when he died.
>> So, so it's a theandric act is what you're saying.
>> So, so the the the humanity of Jesus and the divinity, sorry, the humanity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus died.
>> No, nature nor the human nature.
>> The person of Jesus, hold on, hold on.
Natures don't do actions. Persons do.
But the person of Jesus is a human.
>> He's a human. He's not a human person.
He's a divine person.
>> So what does it mean to be a human, Nick?
>> It means to have a human nature.
>> And Jesus has that, correct?
>> Yes.
>> So he's a human, Nick, right?
>> I bro, please try.
>> You just said human nature. He's not a human person, meaning he doesn't have a second personhood that's human.
>> So what died on the cross? His person the person of the humanity or the person of the >> the person died?
>> It's the same person. Yeah. It's only one.
>> So So divinity also died on the cross.
Is that what you said?
>> Oh my gosh, bro. Natures don't die, persons do.
>> So what? So what? So what person died on the cross of Jesus? The person of >> Yeah, but hold on. That person Hold on.
Hold on. Relax. Calm down. The person of Jesus.
>> Take care, bro. You slow as freak, bro.
I'm not even going to I can't even, bro.
I can't. Listen, bro. Listen, bro.
There's no way. Sometimes you just got to just chalk it and just say, "Yep.
Yeah, you're not going to understand a word that I say clearly." Yep.
You ain't going to stand not a word that I say. That's clear.
Nick, you ran. Okay, Johanna, I don't know what you're talking about. I I don't know why the Johanna dude still be in my chat, bro. Johanna, you're you're not you need to go study instead of being on my lives, bro. Red final super chat. Nick DM me demanding this. Five bucks. Thanks a lot, dude. Now my family can't eat tonight, you grifter. Buy some grills for real. Much love. Well, listen, bro. You might as well send me the rest of your money your bank account now, too. For real, man. Send me the send me the rest of the 32 cents, bro.
Since you you're not going to eat anyways, man. Let me upgrade my drink to a large. You know what I'm saying? You know what I'm saying?
Nathan, I appreciate the $20 on Give Butter. Nathan, God bless you, man.
Thank you for the Give Butter donation.
If y'all want to give on the Give Butter, link is in the bio. We much appreciate all donos there, man.
>> Hello.
>> Hello.
>> Also, we need one more person to join the Patreon. I just posted an early access post today. Someone go join the Patreon. What's up?
>> What's up, bro? How are you?
>> I'm good. What's going on?
>> I'm good. Look, I'm going to talk very slowly so you can track and keep up with me, okay? I don't want you to, you know, change the topic. I don't want you to ask me about semantics. Please just try to track.
>> Okay.
I have a premise for you is that a genuine agent is an entity that is subject of its own acts. Will you agree or disagree?
An agent is an entity that's subject to his own acts. What do you mean subject to your own acts?
>> Subjects of its own acts.
>> That are subjects of their own acts.
>> Yes.
>> Sure.
>> Okay. You agree with that? Perfect. Now, genuine subjects of action, they're individuated by their wills. You know what that means?
>> Meaning that to be a different subject, you have to have a different will.
>> Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. You're tracking perfectly. That's good.
>> Yeah. I would say that nature individuates nature, not persons. So, I disagree.
>> What do you mean individuates nature?
I'm going to give you an example.
>> I think having different will individuates two natures, not two wheels or not two persons.
>> Are you sure?
>> Yeah, I'm sure.
>> Okay. If me and my friend are both holding a hammer >> and he wants to lift it up and I want to keep on the floor, is that not two wheels?
>> Yes, that is.
>> Are we two different natures?
>> You have different particular instantiations of the nature. Yeah.
No. Are we two different natures?
>> Yeah. You guys, your guys nature isn't absolutely identical.
>> But are we two different natures? Are we two different?
>> Do you think you and your friend have an absolutely identical nature?
>> No. No. I'm talking in a general sense.
>> Okay. So, great. So, you guys don't have absolutely identical nature. So, no.
>> So, you do you think that will is part of your nature?
>> Yep.
>> Correct. Okay. So, in the Trinity, is there three centers of consciousness?
>> No. There's one mind.
>> One mind. So one will.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. Perfect. So what makes them three distinct uh individuations?
>> Their relation to one another is why they're three distinct persons.
>> Yes. Three distinct persons but one will.
>> Yep. So I just told you the difference is the relation.
>> So okay, in the incarnation of Jesus, the will came through one center of consciousness, right?
>> Through one mind. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm going to call it center of consciousness. One center of consciousness.
>> Cool.
>> Chose Jesus to get incarnated. Correct.
>> Yeah. The person, one person with a mind chose that. Yeah.
>> Okay. One person with a Oh, perfect.
Perfect. One person with the mind. Who's the person with the mind?
>> The father is one of the three persons with the mind.
>> Perfect. So, it means Jesus doesn't have a mind.
>> What? How does that mean that? I said he's one of the persons with the mind. I say he's the only one.
>> So, Jesus has his mind. Yes.
>> And the mind has a will.
>> The nature. Yeah. Comes from the nature.
Yeah.
>> Okay. The mind of Jesus has a will.
>> His nature does.
>> Okay. But the mind of Jesus has a will.
Yes, I understand. His nature does, but his mind.
>> Okay. Perfect. So that does not does that not make two wills because of the mind of the father and the mind of Jesus has.
>> Same mind, dude. I just said they have one mind.
>> Perfect. Perfect. Okay. It's the same mind. Perfect. So you would you would disagree that agents are or subjects are separated by their um by their wills? You would you would disagree >> considering that's what I said 5 minutes ago. Yeah. I don't think I've changed my position in five minutes.
>> Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. Nice. So one will is modalism.
>> Prove it.
>> What do you mean prove it? Define modalism. Modalism means the father, son, and holy spirit of the same person.
>> The same person. Okay. And you disagreed or that wills can be used to make distinctions. Correct.
>> Between personhood. Yeah.
>> You disagree. Wills can't be used to make distinctions. Right.
>> Not between personhood. Between nature.
>> Yes. Between nature. Okay. So, one one will for the father, the god and father, the son and the holy spirit.
>> Yep. makes one nature, right?
>> It's one nature. Yeah.
>> Okay. And one god. Correct.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. So, what makes them distinct again? What makes it just not three parts of one good?
>> The relation to one another.
>> What relation?
>> Son is begotten. Spirit is spirated.
>> Okay. And what does that mean internally?
It means they come forth from him.
>> Okay. How do we know that the son is just not an attribute of God?
>> Because he is distinct from him in personhood.
>> Well, what does that mean? You said the will is the same.
>> Why do I care?
>> That he can participate in actions in distinct ways.
>> Yeah, he can participate but the will is the same.
>> Yes. So what what about it?
>> If the will is the same, that means that Jesus is just part of God on earth.
Correct?
>> No. Oh, God doesn't have parts.
>> So Jesus has his own will.
>> Oh my. He has the same will as the father, dude.
>> Bro, do you hear yourself? Do you hear yourself, Nick?
>> Okay, you're not tracking that. I mean, I don't I mean, it's like pretty much once his argument went off script.
Once his argument went off script, pretty much he had no clue where to go.
Every time he said perfect, he was like, "Oh, let me think. I got to go a different way, man. This ain't this ain't working the way I thought it would. This ain't working the way I thought it would.
Yo, my boy Eric with the 20 Fearless True. Get the memberships. W E Eric, man. W man. He helped us reach our goal.
We are now all the way to our goal of 40. If you say, hey, if you got one for my man, say thank you, bro. God bless you, Eric.
Thank you for keeping the channel running, bro. Thank you to everyone else who donated. Appreciate y'all. Also, thank y'all for the gifts on TikTok as well. But heck yeah, bro. All right, we'll take the next guys. God bless you.
Thank you, bro. Appreciate that big time.
All right. Uh, let's see.
40 memberships and I still ain't got one. It'd be like that. Okay, perfect.
He's not Kora. That's funny.
Person's not connecting.
Great name, Eric. Yeah.
Europeans have hijacked the scriptures, man. What me and Eric carrying this channel? Yeah, right.
Two personally, the same decisions, everything. It means their wills the same. Yeah. I don't I mean I don't know.
It's just it's pretty weird. I don't know. People just, like I said, people have like this preconceived notion of a script and uh once they, you know, deviate from that script, it's cooked.
Rids, you did not get one, unfortunately, man. Hey, y'all got to y'all got to um y'all got to become a member, though, if you're not one, man, because Oh, wait. No, we're still waiting on one new Patreon member.
That's what I need. We need one more Patreon member.
Chat, we need one new Patreon member.
Where y'all at, man?
Where are y'all at? Did you live in purgatory? No.
How'd you learn to defend the Trinity?
Study and read a lot of books.
Stop with the allegations against the Europeans. I I don't know who said that.
That wasn't me, bro.
It was not me.
Are you Am I What?
Oh, postmillennial.
Uh, bro, honestly, I I reserve to hold my views of Revelation, man. I reserve those views from talking about them, cuz I don't freaking know. Revelation is the hardest book to interpret in the Bible.
I promise you it is.
So, I reserve my views. That junk is crazy, bro. I'm telling you, Revelation is insane. I always forget which one I am.
Like basically I believe that what's going to happen is judgment day will come. Christ will come back and everyone will be raised to judgment. So that's what I believe. I just I forget what it's called.
What is that called? Wait, what is that called? Is that postmillennialism? That might be uh what is that called?
I don't remember, bro.
I forget who wrote Revelation. Revelation. Who said it? Was it Jesus? John wrote Revelation. But yeah, Jesus is the one who gave him the like the understanding of it and whatnot. Premillennial. I'm definitely not premillennial. Premillennial means that you believe that it already happened.
Where's that pre-trip? See, I don't want to talk about this stuff.
Oh, am a millennial. Yes, I think that's what I am. I think I'm a millennialism.
Wait.
I think I'm a millennial. That sounds familiar. That interprets a thousand year right figurative spiritual rather than literal earth. The kingdom teach that Christ is currently reigning in heaven and present age.
million is not a future entire period.
Christ centered they believe Satan was spiritually bound during Christ's earthly ministry. The two relation instead of being spirit I think that's it. I'm pretty sure a millennial sounds familiar. I think I'm a millennial. I'm pretty sure.
But hey bro, don't don't quote me on that though. I could be wrong. I could be very wrong. As a matter of fact, >> Swerve, first and foremost, it's a great honor. I'm a huge fan. Subscribe to all your channels and watch all of your work intently.
>> Sweet.
>> But I do have a question about Islam that I notice you guys, you apologists don't necessarily address and I would like some, I don't know, clarity about that. Okay.
>> Okay. So the the the thing that I noticed is that obviously when when the apologists are engaging with Islam or you know da bros or whatever the case may be it's usually about the age of Aisha or you know the fact that God is not relational in Islam and things of that nature.
>> But all I did was I simply opened up the Quran and it took me to uh chapter 40 verse 65. Are you familiar with that?
not off.
>> Yeah. So, pretty much the whole Quran is permeated with certain kinds of language. It's like um you know obviously given the fact that you know Allah is the author of the Quran and he's the one that is responsible and these are his words that is in there and he's pretty much addressing all of humanity. So I open up the chapter and the chapter is telling me things like he is the almighty. He is forever loving.
He is this and he is that. And I'm thinking to myself, hang on a second. Am I reading this wrong? Isn't this supposed to be some kind of a autobiography or something like that where someone is, you know, if I go to a job interview and some the my my employer asks me, "Tell me about yourself." I'm not going to say he he is this and he likes fishing and he likes going out with his friends and you know what I'm saying. It's usually I like doing this and I like doing >> I'm sorry. What is your question?
>> So this language that >> Yeah. The question that I'm I'm saying is that it seems to me that apologists are missing a very crucial thing when they are examining Islam. And this is that it appears to me that in the Quran, it's not Allah that speaks directly about himself, but it's somebody else that is speaking about Allah.
Right? When they say he is this and he is that, he's almighty, he's merciful, he is whatever the case may be. Now in Christianity obviously you usually have like a prophet you know uh in the Psalms but I don't understand just to like to be clear what is your question to me that I can help with.
>> Okay the question to you is you are a Christian apologist correct.
>> Yeah.
>> And you debate Muslims a lot of the time.
>> Yeah.
So why don't you ever address the fact that in the Quran it seems to me that there is somebody that is writing on behalf of Allah when the Muslim will tell us that this is Allah's words directly.
>> I just have better arguments than that.
I like better to be honest.
But don't you think that that is a good enough argument in terms of if we can demonstrate that the Quran that you say is authored and directed by Allah himself very clearly appears that somebody else is writing on behalf. We have to ask the question who is this person right?
>> Yeah man ask him bro if you can prove that Allah is not the author of the Quran then that's game over right.
>> Yeah I mean hey ask them man let me know what they say bro I appreciate you letting us know man. Thank you for coming up, dude.
>> All right, Nick. Take it easy, man.
>> All right, bro. Take care, man.
All right, Gustav. Hello.
>> All right. How are you doing?
>> I'm good. What's going on?
>> Good. Good.
So, um I I can have a very kind of focused argument on one verse of the Bible if that's okay.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. So the verse I want to bring up is Isaiah 45:55.
>> Okay. What about it?
>> Uh that it just proves that there is no trinity.
>> Okay. How >> the claim I'm making, right? So how so it's saying I am Yahwa and there is none else beside me. There is no God. So I'm I'm trying to understand from a trinitarian perspective. How do you read this verse and still believe in the trinity?
There's no other god besides God. We believe the father, son, and the holy spirit are one god. So we don't have any issue with that.
>> So when he says I am Yahwa, whom do you think is speaking here?
>> I think it's the being of God. All three persons speaking in unity.
>> Okay. So I and am are no longer personal pronouns.
>> No, they're personal but personal attached to the being because there's only one being >> but three persons, right?
>> Yes. But they're one being. So alone is referring to the fact there's only one being.
>> So when they say I am, do you're saying here the three are talking together?
>> Yeah. In unity. Yes.
>> In unity. But why they are not saying we are?
>> Because they're still one being.
>> But again, it's not just singular pronouns. It's singular personal pronouns.
>> Yeah. I don't I don't have an issue with that. Again, it's it's still referring to the being.
>> Okay. So the second part of the verse when it says beside me there is no God whom do you take as me?
>> So it's talking about God. So since there's only one God since the father and holy spirit are the same God. So besides me the one God the father and holy spirit are the same god. There is no other god.
>> Yeah but me uh it refers to god.
>> Yeah because nature basically refers to the nature. So he's clearly referring to godhood there cuz besides me and God there's no other god and the fathers and holy spirit are one god.
>> Understood. But me is the nature not the person. Beside me there is no god. Me here is the nature.
>> Me is going to refer to the being.
>> Being or nature I think these are like him being any any one of these words can be used right.
>> So me is not a so but you guys taught us that the persons are the answer to who?
The nature is the answer to what? Yes, >> me is an answer to who?
>> And God is a reference to nature. So when he says besides me there's no God, he's referencing the fact that there is only one God, only one nature, only one being.
>> I'm talking about me here, not about God. I understand that you understand that God is a nature, but I'm talking about me. Who who is me?
>> Me is God.
>> Yeah. Like is it is it a person or the nature of God?
>> It can be any of you could say it's the persons, one person, the you could say anything.
>> So let's just say it's one person. Let's say it's Jesus saying, "Besides me, there is no God."
>> That's fine. Besides me, so besides Jesus, there is no God. That's not an issue, though, because the father isn't a different God than Jesus.
>> But if he if Jesus said, "Beside me, there is no God. He's he's very clearly in any grammatical sense excluding the father."
>> Not if the father is the same God as him.
>> No, they have to be the same person.
>> No, they don't.
>> Because me is a personal pronoun. He's not He didn't say besides me there's no other person. He said besides me there's no other god. God is going to be referencing the nature.
>> Yeah. But me is a person.
>> Yeah. Besides me there's no other god.
Meaning no other being. Cuz God again is referring to >> adding. You're adding. You're adding.
Let's read it.
>> Is God referring to being or is it referring to personhood?
>> Well that that these definitions only came from you guys. So I'm I'm >> so I'm asking according to the text according to the context of the verse.
Is God referring to being or personhood?
>> Person and and being are numerically ex the same. So for me the verse is very clear.
>> They're the same.
>> For you because you believe in a trinity.
>> Okay. How do you define?
>> How do you find being then?
>> No, you're you're trying to change the topic. So I want to say >> dude, we're asking how we define. You said you define them the same. So I'm saying how do you define being?
>> I'm saying they're numerically the same.
>> So how do you define being?
>> Again, I don't want to change the topic.
>> Okay. So, you don't want to actually have a conversation, bro. Take care.
Yeah.
>> I sit there and say, "Oh, he's talking about being at least." Oh, well, actually, I disagree. Being in person are are numerically identical.
>> But then you don't want to talk about what that means for them to be numerically identical. Okay. Okay. Sure.
Sure, buddy. Sure, man. Whatever you say, brother.
Hello.
>> Yo, what's up, Nick?
>> What's going on?
>> Um, nothing man. I just had a quick question. Um, I'm Christian. and love the channel by the way. I just have a quick question. Um, so what um, so I want to get into like me metaphysics, understanding like morality, objective, subjective stuff like that and like um, like the Bible and the cannon of it, how it was put together, things of that nature. Like what books, teachers or like videos would you like recommend to learn about that?
>> I recommend books. Uh there's a good book called uh metaphysics by metaphysics commentary by rutler rutler standard.
>> That's a good one.
>> Yeah, I'd recommend that.
>> Okay. Um >> also you can join my Patreon for real. I do I do uh you know talks on there, man.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. Shameless plug right there. Yeah.
>> Shameless as a matter of fact.
>> Okay. Um Okay. I'll look into that.
Thank you. I I'll get off now. Thank you. Yeah. Bro, if >> you got any other book book recommendations, DM me. try to help.
>> All right.
>> All right, bro.
Shameless as hell, y'all. We still waiting on one new Patreon member that's live. What are y'all What are y'all doing, man? One of y'all need to come through, bro.
Hey, dodge that a rock is a person.
Yeah. Also, uh I seen bro said he was having twins. Who was it? Christopher, I think it was. Uh God bless you and your twins, man. Oh, what's up? Hello.
Oh, not twins, just a baby. God bless you for the baby. M, what's up?
>> Oh, shoot. I didn't see you accepted. My bad. Uh, I don't mean to waste your time. I know you're trying to do debates, but I I actually had uh some similar questions. I was going to join us the same thing.
>> You ended up answering that. My bad. Uh, but I had another question. Um, what do you think about uh you think we're in the end times?
>> I think only God knows.
>> Yeah.
Well, then shoot. That's the only question I had.
>> Yeah. We don't know, bro. There's no there's no like you could say we maybe we are like the signs seem like they might be but like also the signs seem they might be few hund years ago too. So >> yeah I know what you mean. Yeah. I was just in my opinion I found you and you seem pretty wise to me. You seem like you know what you're talking about. So figured I'd try to give it a shot. See if you the wisest people admit they don't know things. That's one of the things you should admit you don't know is when we when the time is coming.
>> Hey that's valid. God bless my friend.
Keep doing your thing.
>> God bless you bro. All right, y'all. With that being said, man, we're gonna go ahead end off the live. I appreciate all y'all coming in, man.
Appreciate y'all. We'll be live again on Thursday. You guys know the drill. You guys know the drill. God bless y'all.
Appreciate y'all for all hopping on, man. But listen, one of y'all still I'm in the live. One of y'all need to join Patreon, man. None of y'all join my Patreon. Y'all slacking. We used to get one new Patreon member per live.
So, whoever joined the Patreon, just know I appreciate you. If you join after I end the live, just know I'm saying thank you ahead of time. Also, we just posted a early access post on there today.
We just posted a early access post on there today. When is the next member live? Definitely by this weekend.
Definitely by this weekend for sure.
Definitely. definitely by this weekend for sure. So yeah, man, we'll do that for sure. So, um, appreciate y'all for coming on, man.
God bless you guys. I pray that you guys have a great rest of your day. I'm going to go get some food. I'm hungry, dude. I haven't ate all day. So, God bless y'all. Thank y'all very much. If y'all want to donate, donate to the gift button link in chat. We appreciate all donations. All donations help out the ministry. God bless you guys. I will see y'all next time.
Videos Relacionados
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
don't put shein's responsibility onto individuals #shein #neoliberalism
ScintillaePod
231 views•2026-05-30
I Cringed Watching These Protestants Critique Catholicism
jaynijackson
458 views•2026-06-05
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Why Allah Created Marriage? The True Purpose of Marriage in Islam | By Hamza Yusuf
Noblelessons
471 views•2026-06-05
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
