0:00

When you make decisions for your company, you

0:02

always look for the no-brainers. And

0:04

if you have a lot of mailing and

0:06

shipping to do, stamps.com is the ultimate no-brainer.

0:08

It streamlines your process to make your business

0:11

more efficient, which makes you less busy.

0:13

Mail checks, invoices, legal documents, books, and

0:16

everything you need to keep your business

0:18

running with stamps.com. Schedule

0:24

package pickups through the dashboard and automatically see

0:26

your cheapest and fastest shipping options from different

0:28

carriers, with rates up to 89% off USPS

0:31

and UPS rates. And

0:35

with the stamps.com mobile app, you can take care

0:37

of mailing and shipping wherever you are. Make

0:40

the same no-brainer decision as over one

0:43

million other business decision makers with stamps.com.

0:46

Sign up at stamps.com with code PROGRAM

0:48

for a special offer that includes a

0:50

four-week trial, plus free postage and a

0:52

free digital scale. No long-term

0:54

commitments or contracts. That's

0:57

stamps.com code PROGRAM.

1:00

For nearly four decades, J&K Security Solutions

1:02

has provided protection for homes and businesses.

1:05

I know firsthand, I'm Jeff Beckman, and

1:07

with my wife, Kim, we started J&K

1:09

Security Solutions. Our attention to detail, service

1:11

after the sale, and product knowledge are

1:14

the foundation of our success. J&K Security

1:16

has routinely been recognized as the best

1:18

of Madison for security companies. We expect

1:20

that trend to continue as the next

1:23

generation, our son, Jeffrey, takes over as

1:25

president. Let us protect what is valuable

1:27

to you. jksecurity.com. ["Jingle

1:32

Bells"] ["Jingle

1:57

Bells"] You

2:30

You You

3:31

You You

4:30

You You

5:30

You You

6:30

You Oh

7:02

Hmm Baby

7:32

Oh I

8:02

say it's a bit JJ.

8:07

That reminds me of Jake. He

8:18

beat me to the face. Not

8:21

jellimocke. Not

8:26

jellimocke. Not

8:34

jellimocke. What happened to you, baby? I

8:37

thought you was all about reason, and

8:39

you was all about time. But

8:42

now you're saying, I'm kind

8:44

of, what's a nonsense? No.

8:53

No. No.

9:03

For nearly four decades, JMK Security

9:05

Solutions has provided protection for homes

9:07

and businesses. I know

9:09

firsthand. I'm Jeff Beckman, and with my wife,

9:11

Kim, we started JMK Security Solutions. Our

9:14

attention to detail, service after the sale,

9:16

and product knowledge are the foundation of

9:18

our success. JMK Security has routinely been

9:20

recognized as the best of Madison for

9:22

security companies. We expect that trend to

9:25

continue as the next generation. Our son,

9:27

Jeffrey, takes over as president. Let us

9:29

protect what is valuable to you. jksecurity.com.

9:34

Some people just know the best rate for you is a rate

9:36

based on you. With Austin. That

9:39

one based on the driver who treats the highway like

9:41

a racetrack. And the shoulder like a

9:43

passing lane. Why pay

9:45

a rate based on anyone else? Get one

9:47

based on you, this drive-wise from Austin. At

10:00

least safer drivers will stay with driveways. Allstate Baron Casualty Insurance

10:02

Company in the Philly, North Park, Illinois. I'll

11:01

let down a monkey, what

11:03

you doin' you mean? We

11:05

could do a monkey. Do

11:08

a monkey. Do

11:32

a monkey. Do

11:49

a monkey. Do a

11:52

monkey. Do

11:55

a monkey. Do a monkey. Do

11:59

a monkey. For

12:09

nearly four decades, JMK Security Solutions has

12:11

provided protection for homes and businesses. I

12:14

know firsthand. I'm Jeff Beckman and with

12:16

my wife Kim, we started JMK Security

12:18

Solutions. Our attention to detail, service after

12:20

the sale and product knowledge are the

12:23

foundation of our success. JMK

12:25

Security has routinely been recognized as the

12:27

best of Madison for security companies. We

12:29

expect that trend to continue as the

12:31

next generation. Our son, Jeffrey, takes over

12:33

as president. Let us project what is

12:35

valuable to you. jksecurity.com. Some

12:40

people just know the best rate for you is

12:42

a rate based on you with Allstate. Not

12:45

one based on the driver who treats the highway

12:47

like a racetrack and the shoulder like a passing

12:49

lane. Why pay a

12:51

rate based on anyone else? Get one based

12:53

on you with DriveWise from Allstate. Not

12:56

available in Alaska or California. Subject to terms and conditions. States

12:58

are determined by several factors which vary by state. In some

13:00

states, participation in drive-wise allows all states to use their driving

13:02

data for purposes of rating. While in some states, your rate

13:04

could increase with huzzers driving, generally safer drivers will save

13:06

the drive-wise. All state, fair and casually, insurance-coming and affiliate

13:08

service, Peculonii. Whoa!

13:11

What's y'all doing? How y'all doing? No,

13:16

we can't play that song. I

13:22

feel like a prosperity preacher today. I

13:25

feel like I need to name it, Claim It,

13:27

Blab it, Grab it. Because

13:30

they had a pimped out Bugatti

13:32

that they got from Name It,

13:34

Claim It, bro. Name

13:37

it, Claim It, Blab it, Grab it. Name

13:42

it, Claim It, Blab it, Grab it, baby.

13:46

What's up everybody? Welcome to Open Forum. Today

13:48

we're going to be returning to

13:51

the topic of debate. Open

13:54

Forum, that means all the

13:56

haters, all the player haters, all the

13:59

dissers. All the

14:01

dismisses, all the

14:03

misters turned to misses can

14:06

call in and set me straight. That

14:08

means you get the microphone to tell

14:10

me where I'm wrong, you

14:12

get to demolish me, you

14:14

get to humble me. Before

14:18

we do that, I'm gonna give a little

14:20

bit of an intro discussion. So

14:23

I've been rereading Isaiah again for the

14:26

many a time through. I'm

14:29

not bragging to be a piety signal, I'm just pointing

14:31

out that it's the fifth

14:33

gospel and everyone forgets it. And

14:36

they don't realize how much prophetic

14:39

material is there and prophecy

14:41

functions oftentimes as an apologetic

14:44

that we overlook. It's

14:47

one of the strongest evidences. I'm not an

14:49

evidentialist, but I definitely believe in

14:52

the necessity of using evidences

14:54

when it's appropriate. And

14:57

the prophetic nature of so many texts, I

14:59

think speaks to the

15:02

inspiration. So

15:04

when we look at Isaiah 49, what we see is a

15:07

very famous messianic prophecy, it's pretty well known.

15:09

We're gonna go through some of this though,

15:11

because we need to understand how this vindicates

15:15

a lot of our

15:17

position over against Protestants,

15:21

over against secularists, over

15:23

against cults, sex, evangelicals.

15:28

For example, everybody's debating and talking

15:30

about, quote, Christ is king. What does this

15:32

mean? That's controversial. And many evangelicals have a

15:34

problem with this term because they

15:37

think Jesus is

15:39

super pious and their

15:41

Gnostic Jesus has nothing to do with

15:43

the civil sphere. The

15:47

domain of piety and religion is

15:49

something private to you. It

15:51

has nothing to do with the

15:53

public sphere, with

15:56

government, with legacy. You can't legislate

15:58

morality. You can't. legislate morality

16:02

By the way, allow me to legislate Satanism

16:04

everywhere. You see that's how it works Of

16:07

course, you can't of course you

16:09

must legislate morality because every area

16:11

of life is in

16:13

some way related back to the

16:16

principles of origin causation

16:18

the notion of meaning

16:21

and purpose T. Los Intentionality,

16:23

etc. All of those things relate

16:25

to reality So

16:27

in a world where there is no purpose to

16:29

lowest causation meaning etc

16:33

certainly the Atheists the

16:35

seculars they want to have the

16:38

ability to dictate meaning And

16:40

so they need a world where there is no deity

16:42

because it would limit their

16:44

ability to determine

16:47

reality to determine meaning and

16:50

that's why they see it as such an important

16:52

thing to make sure that Religion

16:54

theology has no influence in the

16:57

public sphere. Otherwise, they would lose

17:00

their precious Vices

17:03

that they worship because they don't realize

17:05

it but they're actually controlled by their

17:07

vices, which they think is liberation But

17:09

is in fact just slavery Watched

17:13

a great video the other day from Slowboy

17:16

who put up a clip forget the guy's name,

17:19

but he had done a 20-minute video explaining the

17:22

actual philosophy of Wilhelm Reich out

17:24

of the Frankfurt School talking about

17:27

how in order to enslave the

17:29

West in the sense of destroying the

17:32

capitalist structure what

17:35

you would need to do is to destroy the family because the

17:37

fascist structure he believed really

17:40

is located in the family and he Talked

17:43

with Freud about this. They had a bit of a

17:45

disagreement over this But the basic idea was that no

17:47

it is true that to have a

17:49

real revolution in society You would need to get rid of the

17:52

boundaries that patriarchal

17:54

ideology sets so patriarchy masculinity

17:57

it sets boundaries And

18:00

if you brought in

18:02

goddess worship Gaia, returned to

18:04

the primordial feminist religions

18:07

of the earth, this is what Reich said,

18:10

literally. He said, then you could promote total

18:14

SEX revolution, even

18:16

down to the positions of

18:18

PEDO stuff. And then

18:21

that would revolutionize society. Society would become

18:24

unstable and it would reorganize

18:27

itself into this quote,

18:31

natural structure, the ancient

18:33

primordial goddess structure, which

18:35

would be communistic, it would be

18:37

feminist, and it would be fair, and

18:42

it's all premised on complete and

18:44

total sexual liberation. That's Reich's

18:46

philosophy. And that's what was

18:48

eventually adopted, not by the

18:51

Marxist revolutionaries. It started as

18:53

their idea, but actually

18:55

it became the technology and the technique

18:57

of the corporate elite. So

19:00

you might say, what does that have to do

19:02

with what we're talking about in Isaiah? Well, ironically,

19:05

the temptation of the Israelites throughout much

19:07

of the Old Testament, particular things

19:09

like the book of Numbers, when they're tempted with

19:12

worshiping at

19:14

Baal-Pior, the Lord of open holes,

19:17

and that means exactly what you think it means.

19:19

It means booty holes. It

19:21

means seminal secretions. It means

19:24

fluids. That crolian-ish,

19:27

weird degeneracy religion at

19:29

that time in

19:32

the ancient context of

19:34

Numbers is the same

19:36

principle of weakening and destroying the

19:40

church of the Old Testament, aka Israel, that's

19:43

now done in today's society,

19:45

exact same, so the methodologies

19:47

never change. You get the

19:49

exact same attempt to

19:51

destroy the

19:54

vibrant, organic life

19:57

force of a civilization, of a

19:59

society. of a state, of

20:02

an Imperium, it doesn't matter at any point, it's

20:04

the same principles that are going to be pushed

20:06

to weaken, undermine and destroy

20:08

to then bring in whatever the

20:11

new emerging power structure wants. The

20:13

revolutionary force, the technocrats, whoever you

20:16

want to talk about, they

20:19

will use the same patterns and the same strategies.

20:23

And ultimately, as we would say, it's kind of demonic because

20:27

it inverts things, but inversion has

20:29

an actual sort of demonic

20:31

cunning behind it. And this is, of

20:34

course, the big critique I had this

20:36

last week of the couple

20:38

tweets that went viral critiquing Matt

20:40

Walsh because the

20:43

Neocon, Con Inc. They're

20:46

so under the delusion that there's not

20:49

cunning in terms of evil. Oh,

20:51

we're all, we're all ruled by a

20:53

bunch of boobs. We gotta throw the

20:56

boobs in Washington out. Get out there

20:58

and vote and throw the boobs out.

21:00

Right. This is a total boomer idea,

21:02

ideology, right? As if there aren't cunning,

21:04

mad scientific, technocratic, elite

21:07

dictators in

21:09

the background. Now,

21:12

there are, we're not

21:14

ruled by total tards. There's

21:16

a layer of strata of total tards and above

21:18

them is a layer of strata of cunning,

21:22

psychopathic technocrats. I'm

21:25

talking about people like Brzezinski and Kissinger. And when I

21:28

said that, people

21:30

are in the comments like, oh, Brzezinski

21:33

and Kissinger have died. Like,

21:35

I didn't know that. Like, I haven't

21:37

read their books and lectured on those books

21:39

for years. I did

21:41

multiple books, talks when Kissinger

21:43

died. I'm well aware Kissinger died. And

21:46

like, what are we supposed to, oh, well, they died. And

21:48

so now we're not, oh, so we're all free now. Is

21:52

that what, is that what I'm supposed to think? Or

21:54

not under the same system? The

21:57

system is structured such that when

21:59

a Kissinger arrives, or a Brzezinski dies, the

22:01

system continues on. And ultimately what they want

22:03

to do to ensure that

22:05

the system continues on is to have it basically

22:07

be a computer system that

22:10

runs. And then it's no

22:12

longer subject to the fallibility of even somebody like

22:14

a Brzezinski or a Kissinger. If you have an

22:16

AI, zeitgeist style super

22:18

system running everything and

22:21

everybody lives in a smart city, then

22:23

they don't have to worry about, you

22:26

know, human fallibility and malleability

22:28

ruining the system. And

22:32

that's what they said 100 years ago, there was a plan anyway. Regardless,

22:36

the structure, the system that we're going into

22:38

that they want to push is

22:40

again, based on inversion. It always uses the

22:42

same principles of not

22:45

just inverting natural order or

22:47

something like that, but inverting biology. So

22:50

turning the boys into the soy

22:52

boys and turning the ladies into

22:54

the dudes. That's

22:57

the basic structure. And you find that in the

22:59

ancient world, you find that, for example, the Greeks,

23:01

when they got into a very degenerate period, they

23:03

would celebrate this Saturnalian,

23:06

I think I know that's Roman, but I

23:08

forget the name of the, they had their

23:10

analog to that. And basically, you

23:12

know, you go and celebrate

23:14

primordial chaos by dudes dressing

23:17

up like ladies, ladies

23:19

pretending to be dudes, you

23:22

know, basically bearded lady circus worship shits

23:24

when I'm talking about that, then they

23:26

really did that. It's

23:30

a way to reignite primordial

23:32

chaos, they thought. Primordial

23:34

chaos. So that's

23:40

what we see in the book of Numbers, when

23:42

you read the story of Baal-Pior and it means Lord

23:44

of open holes. But

23:47

I want to go to Isaiah 49 because I want

23:49

to, that's all an example,

23:51

by the way, of illustrating

23:53

the inadequacy and the

23:55

silliness of the

23:58

sort of typical Protestant evangelical. attitude

24:01

that most of the time. I mean there's a few outliers

24:03

I'm well aware of this but most of

24:05

the Protestant evangelical groups and

24:08

modern you know libs in Orthodox

24:10

and Catholic circles they

24:12

assume that religion is a

24:14

private matter and the

24:17

public sphere is going to be governed by I don't

24:20

know what they think reason, science, all these

24:22

platitudes and these generic things that actually have

24:24

no substance which is really just another way

24:26

to say that we're gonna let the technocrat

24:28

and the money power run everything. So

24:32

no in fact you have to have any

24:36

law it's gonna have

24:39

some kind of moral presupposition

24:41

about it even if it's not evident on the

24:44

surface and everybody's beginning

24:46

to see this with questions like quote

24:49

bodily autonomy, pro-life issues

24:51

right it's impossible to

24:53

be morally theologically neutral on

24:55

those issues because they end up coming back

24:57

to how well how do you ground your

24:59

ethics how do you base your your morals

25:03

in your worldview if you're gonna argue for pro-life

25:05

then you've got to then immediately have some notion

25:07

of what it is to be you

25:10

know to have human dignity and so forth and you

25:12

can't really have in my view

25:14

a justification for those possessions you can arbitrarily

25:16

argue stuff but

25:18

ultimately comes down to metaphysics it comes down

25:21

to well are we made

25:23

in the image of God right if you were made the image of

25:25

God then there's a basis for objective

25:28

morals, ethics, etc. So

25:32

in Isaiah 49 what we see is

25:34

this prophecy not just of the Messiah

25:36

and and to be fair to Protestants

25:38

and evangelicals a lot of times they

25:41

recognize the messianic prophecies but

25:43

one thing they always failed to recognize and I

25:45

remember this as a hardcore you

25:47

know Calvinist back in the day when I was

25:49

like 21 I remember reading through these texts and

25:51

I'd be like okay this is a prophecy of

25:54

Jesus oh that's a messianic prophecy but then I

25:56

would notice hey wait a minute attached to a

25:58

lot of these messianic prophecies is the Gentile nations

26:00

that convert, that worship the Messiah, and things

26:02

are said about those that

26:05

Gentile group of the future. And

26:07

I don't just mean Gentiles because there's obviously

26:09

always Jews as well that are part of

26:11

that same body who believe in Christ. So

26:15

you get this Gentile

26:17

and Jew body of Christ that

26:19

is the ecclesia, the church, that

26:22

goes along with these messianic

26:24

prophecies. And so many Protestants

26:26

have forgotten, or they're ignorant, and don't

26:29

realize that this applies

26:31

to history. So

26:33

if the Messiah comes, Allah

26:36

all of these messianic prophecies, and

26:38

the Gentile nations then make up that

26:41

covenant structure

26:43

that fulfills the previous covenants,

26:47

then guess what? That historic

26:49

church, not just a church

26:52

in mental conceptual abstraction, like

26:55

Calvinists think. The

26:58

invisible church. The invisible church

27:00

is a ghost church. I'm

27:02

a member of a ghost

27:05

church, Saint Cosper. The invisible

27:07

church in history is

27:09

what's being talked about. Well,

27:12

wait a minute. Where does that come? Maybe there was

27:14

such a thing. Oh, yes, there is. It's the church

27:16

that we read about in the first, second, third, fourth,

27:18

fifth, sixth, seventh century. That's

27:22

the Orthodox church. That's what I'm getting

27:24

at. So in other words, the prophecies aren't just

27:26

about the person of the Messiah. They are. But

27:29

as we saw in my Mary

27:31

video, responding

27:33

to the questions that Isabella DeLuca

27:36

asked, there's

27:38

prophecies about Mary in the

27:40

Old Testament. What? I remember

27:42

when I was a Protestant reading through the Old Testament

27:44

over and over and over, I started thinking, wait a

27:46

minute. If there's all these prophecies

27:49

of Jesus, what if there's prophecies also

27:51

of the church and what if

27:53

there's prophecies also of Mary? Because maybe she

27:55

plays an important role in redemptive history. And

28:01

when you start to realize this you start to

28:03

think you start to think oh actually there's quite

28:05

a bit of biblical evidence for

28:07

the things that the

28:11

Orthodox do. Listen,

28:14

coastlands take heed to peoples from

28:16

afar. So this is the

28:18

servant in Isaiah

28:20

49 obviously very well-known messianic prophecy even

28:23

the Jews believe this is a messianic

28:25

prophecy and it's saying

28:28

coastlands Gentiles all you people

28:30

of the nations this

28:33

is Jesus speaking here take

28:37

heed peoples from afar Gentiles

28:39

Yahweh called me from

28:41

the womb this

28:43

is the second person of the Godhead the

28:47

Logos speaking which by

28:49

the way partially refutes a bunch of the

28:52

Aryan idiots because how is Jesus speaking through

28:55

Isaiah about his birth which has not

28:57

yet happened from

29:00

the matrix of my mother from his mother's

29:02

womb Mary oh wait a

29:04

minute Mary and Isaiah 49 what do you know he

29:06

made mention of my name my

29:09

mouth is like a sharp sword hey

29:11

evangelical pre-millennial goobers rapture

29:14

dummies when it says

29:16

that he conquers the nation with the sword

29:18

that proceeds from his mouth that's not talking

29:21

about Jesus coming back like some kind of

29:23

Pokemon character with sword shooting out of his

29:25

mouth it's talking about the ascension and

29:28

the gospel being preached to the nation's that's

29:31

the sword that proceeds from his mouth and

29:35

if you read Isaiah psalm 1 & 2 it

29:37

even explains that he

29:39

rolls the nations with a rod of iron

29:44

the sword that proceeds from his mouth that's the gospel

29:46

okay it's not Pokemon

29:49

characters is

29:51

there even a Pokemon care I'm assuming I don't

29:53

know anything about Pokemon I'm assuming that there's some

29:55

kind of weird Nippon creature that has sword shooting

29:58

out of his mouth It's

30:02

basic prophetic language which uses this

30:05

sort of symbolic imagery.

30:09

It's not, it doesn't link,

30:11

right? Link when you get full hearts, it

30:14

doesn't link swords shoot out. Okay, it's not

30:16

like Zelda, dude. Okay, we

30:18

don't do Zelda exegesis. Maybe you

30:20

fundamentalist evangelicals do, but no.

30:25

He made my mouth like a sharp sword, and the

30:28

shadow of his hand he hid me, and made

30:30

me a polished shaft. In his

30:33

quiver he hid me. So now Jesus is

30:35

saying, I'm like an arrow going out of

30:37

a quiver. So again, you see that the

30:39

sword coming out of the mouth being like

30:41

an arrow, it's just metaphors.

30:44

It's just symbolic imagery. He

30:49

said to me, you are my servant

30:51

of Israel. So Jesus is the preeminent

30:54

Israel. He is the servant. He's the

30:56

suffering servant in the next

30:59

few chapters of Isaiah. Everybody's familiar

31:01

with Isaiah 53 and all of that. But

31:04

you got to read the other chapters

31:06

because there's just as much messianic prophetic

31:09

material in Isaiah 49, 50,

31:11

51, and so forth as there is in 53. So

31:19

God said to the

31:22

son, Yahweh says to the

31:24

son, you are my servant Israel. You

31:27

are him in whom I will be glorified.

31:32

Then I said, I labored in vain. I spent my

31:34

strength for nothing in vain. Yet

31:36

surely my just reward is with Yahweh and

31:38

my work with God. And

31:41

now the Lord says, this is the work

31:43

of the Messiah. He's expressing his true

31:45

human feelings. So having

31:47

a fully human nature, he would feel

31:49

like he was going to his death.

31:52

But of course, as the divine son, he

31:54

knows that he's not dying for nothing. But

31:57

he does truly, for example, in the Garden

31:59

of the Gethsemane. not

32:01

want to die. Let this come pass for me,

32:03

yet not my will be done, but

32:05

I will be done." And so he submits his

32:07

human will to that divine will that he shares

32:09

with the Father. The

32:12

Lord says, who formed me from the womb to be

32:15

his servant, talking about his human nature, not

32:17

talking about the second person of God as being a

32:19

creature, the human nature is created.

32:23

He formed me in terms of that human nature

32:26

to be his servant, the incarnate

32:28

Messiah, to bring back Jacob to him so that

32:30

Israel is gathered to him. For

32:33

I will be glorious in the eyes of the Lord. God

32:35

will be my strength. Indeed, he says, it

32:37

is too small a thing that you should be my servant to

32:39

raise up Jacob, the tribes of Jacob, and

32:41

to restore the preserved ones of Israel. I will

32:44

also give you to the Gentiles as a light

32:46

to them that you would be salvation to the

32:48

ends of the earth. Notice

32:50

the whole context of that was the

32:52

birth of the Messiah, first

32:55

Advent. So take heed, goober evangelicals. It's

32:57

not talking about the end of the

32:59

world there. It's

33:01

talking about the first Advent. The

33:04

opening up of the covenant, as the

33:06

next verse talks about, is the first

33:08

Advent. And

33:11

really all these evangelical goobers do a great

33:13

disservice to themselves and to the entire religion

33:15

by postponing all of these things to the

33:18

end of the world. But

33:20

because they don't understand how to interpret Isaiah

33:23

and the prophecies, they make these fundamental mistakes

33:25

and undercut their own religion. And

33:29

they think, all these promises are to

33:31

Israel. This is to the nation of

33:33

Israel and Palestine. No,

33:36

it's not. It's to the church and the first Advent.

33:38

The church is the kingdom, not

33:41

a temple with red heifers in Israel.

33:45

It's just idiotic. And

33:48

we're going to see that in a minute. You're going to notice

33:50

the flow of this chapter and the next chapter. It

33:53

explains all of this very clearly. So

33:56

remember, we're talking about the first Advent of the

33:58

Messiah, His birth. Thus

34:03

says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, the

34:05

Holy One to Him, who man despises. So

34:09

the hem of the Messiah, despised of men,

34:13

abhorred by the nation, the servant of the

34:15

rulers, kings will

34:17

arise, princes will

34:19

worship because

34:21

of the Lord who is faithful, the Holy

34:23

One of Israel. He has chosen you. In

34:25

other words, this divine Messiah is even going

34:28

to be worshipped by

34:30

Gentile kings and queens. Now

34:34

does that not tell you, evangelical

34:36

goobers, that when we

34:38

say Christ is king, it means

34:40

He's king of kings, like

34:43

Revelation says. So

34:45

you are completely wrong to think

34:48

that the secular realm is something

34:51

cut off from divinity. That's

34:54

your mistake. That's your Americanist

34:56

enlightenment presupposition. And you're simply

34:58

wrong. Because

35:01

He said to be worshipped by

35:03

kings and princes. And lo

35:05

and behold, what do you think happens in the

35:07

next thousand years of church history when the Messiah

35:09

comes? I'm not talking about Isaiah's time. I'm talking

35:11

about when the Messiah comes. Because Isaiah

35:13

is writing this about 700 years before the birth of

35:16

Christ, by the way, which if

35:18

you keep that in mind, it makes it pretty

35:21

evident that this is inspired text. And

35:24

nobody believes that this is written after Jesus.

35:26

So even the most liberal scholars admit this

35:29

is prior to Christ, they don't

35:31

necessarily believe that it was written in the days of

35:33

Isaiah. But even if

35:35

you believe that, this is still

35:37

before Jesus. Just like Daniel's

35:39

prophecies are still before Jesus. Right?

35:44

In other words, the

35:47

point I'm making is that guess what happened

35:49

in the next thousand years after the birth of Christ? Actual

35:53

princes and kings and rulers

35:57

convert and worship the Messiah. Ergo,

36:02

Jesus is the king

36:05

of the civil sphere too. And

36:09

the church always understood that. It's

36:12

only been since the Enlightenment and since

36:15

the birth of Americanism that somehow

36:17

people believe that this

36:19

doesn't apply to the civil sphere. That's

36:24

not true Christianity. Constantine took over the

36:26

church. No, he didn't. You

36:29

can read the first, second, and third century church fathers.

36:31

All of their writings are publicly available and

36:34

they don't teach a different Christianity than what is

36:36

after the Council of Nicaea. When

36:39

Saint Athanasius at the Council of Nicaea

36:41

proposes most of his theological positions that

36:43

are accepted, he reiterates

36:46

all the things that the bishops of

36:48

Alexandria prior to him taught. He

36:51

says, I'm just following what Alexander of Alexandria

36:54

taught and what the synods

36:56

in Alexandria prior to me taught. So

37:00

when Protestants and Muslims, particularly

37:03

evangelicals and Muslims, repeat

37:05

this absurd nonsense, that

37:08

Constantine invented Catholic Christianity

37:10

is just complete ignorance

37:12

and stupidity. You

37:14

can go and read the post-apostolic church fathers and

37:16

they talk about the Eucharist. They talk about baptismal

37:19

regeneration. They talk about relics and they talk about

37:21

miracles. They talk about all this other stuff that

37:23

we believe and

37:26

that the people at Nicaea believed.

37:29

So it just relies on people's stupidity and

37:31

ignorance. All of this is relying on ignorance.

37:34

But these prophecies are not the end of the world. They're

37:38

not about the

37:40

Jews having a Messiah

37:42

that will give them earthly power.

37:47

And by the way, do you notice the Messiah is worshipped

37:50

by the kings and the queens? That

37:54

means he's the divine Messiah. So

37:57

that refutes Muslims and it refutes the

38:00

Job's witnesses, and all the stupid Arians. Thus

38:02

says the Lord, in an acceptable time I heard you

38:05

in the day of salvation, I helped you, I preserved

38:07

you and gave you as a covenant to the people.

38:09

So the Messiah prays, the Father hears his prayer, because

38:11

he's the second person that God had, and

38:14

he prays to the Father just like we see

38:16

in the book of John. And this

38:18

is very similar to the structure of the

38:20

prayers in the Psalms. Yes,

38:22

the Psalms are written by David, but the Psalms

38:24

are written by David through the Spirit of Christ,

38:27

and many of those Psalms are a dialogue between

38:29

the Father and the Son, and also the Spirit

38:31

is present. And if you

38:33

read Hebrews 1, you can see that very clearly.

38:37

So the Father hears

38:40

the prayer of the Son and

38:42

gives him as a covenant to the people.

38:44

The call to covenants are,

38:46

yay in him, Paul says, in Christ.

38:49

So all the covenants find their fulfillment in

38:52

the personal work of Christ. That's

38:54

the unifying structure of the Bible,

38:56

is the covenant structure fulfilled in

38:58

the Messiah. He

39:02

causes them to inherit the desolate heritage, that

39:04

is the places throughout the earth that are

39:06

desolate, the darkest places, the recesses of the

39:09

earth, are freed from spiritual

39:12

imprisonment to the demonic realm

39:14

via the gospel of the Messiah that goes out

39:16

to the further sins of the earth, to the

39:18

islands. And we're

39:21

going to see multiple times, it's again, over

39:23

and over, references to the Gentile church, the

39:26

covenant being opened up to all of the

39:28

Gentiles being invited in, the time of

39:30

the Gentiles. Those

39:36

that are in the prisons, he says to them, go

39:38

forth. Those that are in darkness, show yourselves. We see

39:40

this in the Gospels. By the way, this is quoted

39:42

in the Gospels and in

39:44

Paul's epistles about Christ. Understand,

39:47

this isn't my interpretation, right?

39:49

Protestants, evangelicals, you hear me on this? The

39:51

New Testament cites these passages about

39:54

Jesus's first advent. I'm

39:57

so sick of these people who

39:59

are biblical. ignorant and

40:02

don't even realize the New Testament interprets

40:04

these passages for you over

40:06

and over many times over

40:10

Psalm 110 is cited multiple times in

40:12

the New Testament about

40:15

sit in my right hand and I will make your enemies

40:17

your footstool and every

40:19

Protestant evangelical and even people in the Catholic

40:21

Orthodox circles think that's about the end of

40:23

the world that's

40:25

talking about when Jesus is made prince and king of

40:27

the world at the end of the world no it's

40:29

not it's talking about the ascension every time it's cited

40:32

in the assessments about when he ascended so these

40:35

realities are now they're not

40:37

the end of the world they're realized fully at

40:39

the end of the world their

40:42

realities now and

40:45

where does everybody get this stupid idea

40:48

of postponing all this stuff to the end of

40:50

the world it's

40:52

just not at all what you're I

40:54

mean over and over and over look up every

40:56

time Psalm 110 is cited in the New Testament

41:00

it's always cited as a present reality that began

41:02

at the ascension do you know the difference between

41:04

the ascension and the return I remember

41:10

having a debate with an Orthodox priest over this so I'm

41:12

like this is

41:14

not talking about the end of the world all these passages are about

41:16

the ascension it's not that hard it's

41:19

Psalm 110 is cited multiple times in the

41:21

New Testament about the ascension in Acts

41:24

2 is

41:26

Joel cited about the end of the world no

41:29

it's a sight of that it's fulfilled at acts

41:31

2 it's called Pentecost so

41:34

when Protestants lost the calendar the

41:37

liturgical calendar the celebration of Posca the

41:40

salt which is that's what quote Easter

41:42

is Passover they

41:46

lost the fundamental cycle that helps you interpret

41:48

these passages all these passages are read in

41:50

the liturgical cycle by the way and

41:54

then they put themselves into this dumb position to

41:56

be susceptible to dispensationalism

42:00

Scofield Study Bible and automatically assuming that all the

42:02

stuff is at the end of the world. Which

42:06

ultimately in the final

42:08

analysis is heretical. It's heterodox.

42:12

Because even though it's not necessarily

42:15

a premillennialism per se, it's

42:17

the presuppositions of premillennialism and

42:20

a Judaizing error. And

42:25

the second ecumenical council explicitly

42:28

says, when

42:30

we recite the creed whose kingdom shall have no

42:32

end, that's to

42:34

get rid of the remaining traces at that time

42:36

in 381 of millennialism.

42:40

Because people are still falling into this millennialist

42:43

error, making all the same

42:45

mistakes that the Protestant evangelicals and some of

42:47

the Americanist Catholics and Orthodox

42:49

make, interpreting all this stuff about

42:51

the end of the world. Thinking

42:53

that there's still a millennial fulfillment

42:56

in time and space that isn't the

42:58

church. The church is the kingdom. The

43:01

church is the millennium. It's not

43:03

a literal thousand year reign, obviously. It's

43:06

silly. Then

43:11

he gives the promise here in verse 10

43:13

of protection from, they

43:15

will not hunger, they will not

43:17

thirst, right? That's all repeated at

43:19

the end of the book of

43:22

Apocalypse for those in the new

43:24

heavens and the new earth. These

43:27

will come from afar. Gentiles

43:30

from afar will come into the kingdom. Jesus

43:33

says this in the gospels. You

43:36

will see Abraham reclining with For

43:38

nearly four decades, JMK Security Solutions has

43:41

provided protection for homes and businesses. I

43:43

know firsthand I'm Jeff Beckman and with

43:45

my wife, Kim, we started JMK Security

43:47

Solutions. Our attention to detail, service after

43:50

the sale and product knowledge are the

43:52

foundation of our success. JMK Security has

43:54

routinely been recognized as the best of

43:56

Madison for security companies. We expect that

43:59

trend to continue. as the next

44:01

generation our son Jeffrey takes over as

44:03

president. Let us protect what is valuable

44:05

to you. jksecurity.com. Some

44:09

people just know the best rate for you is

44:11

a rate based on you with Allstate. Not

44:14

one based on the driver who treats the highway

44:16

like a racetrack and the shoulder like a passing

44:18

lane. Why pay a

44:20

rate based on anyone else? Get one based

44:23

on you with DriveWise from Allstate. Not

44:25

available in Alaska or California, subject to terms and conditions,

44:27

rates are determined by several factors which vary by state.

44:29

In some states, participation in drive-wise allows Austin to use

44:32

your driving data for purposes of rating. While in some states,

44:34

your rate could increase with high-risk driving generally, safer drivers will

44:36

stay with drive-wise. All state baron casualty insurance coming in affiliates

44:38

north of Illinois. Some

44:40

people just know it's easy to get

44:43

Allstate's best price online. They

44:45

also know where to get half off pizzas on

44:47

Mondays, court side

44:49

seats at nosebleed prices, and

44:53

they know you can easily get

44:55

Allstate's lowest price on autoinsurance at

44:57

allstate.com. Prices

45:02

vary, including based on how you buy, subject

45:04

to terms, conditions and availability. Allstate Fire and

45:06

Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates, North Park, Illinois.

45:09

The Gentiles in the kingdom while you're

45:11

cast out. Sing

45:14

O heavens, be joyful O earth, break forth and

45:16

sing in the mountains. This is always said about

45:18

the gospel. This is the good

45:20

news, the glad tidings that have come to the Gentiles. But

45:23

Zion said, this is Israel speaking. God has

45:25

forsaken me. God has forgotten me. Can

45:28

a woman forget her nursing child? God

45:30

has not forgotten Jews and

45:32

Israel. This is Isaiah

45:35

expressing because we're talking about Babylonian

45:37

captivity, right? In terms of Isaiah's

45:39

historical context. No,

45:42

you were not forgotten. I've inscribed you on the

45:44

palms of my hands. That's Christ.

45:49

That's the crucifixion. Your

45:52

destroyers laid waste to you. God

45:55

says, I'm going to vindicate you against Babylon who has

45:57

taken you captive. That was for your

45:59

chastity. Don't worry. It's

46:01

all for your good. And

46:05

then he goes on to say that Babylon

46:07

will be destroyed. We're gonna skip down Israel

46:11

laments and says I'm desolate. Thus

46:14

says the Lord I lift my hands and an oath

46:16

to the Gentiles. What?

46:19

Again, Gentile church. Oath

46:22

covenant to the Gentiles. I

46:24

will set up my standard for the nations. That's

46:26

the Gentile peoples. They will bring your sons in

46:28

their arms. How the Gentiles gonna bring sons to

46:30

Israel? Makes

46:33

no sense unless Jesus is a Messiah and it makes

46:35

perfect sense. Kings

46:38

will be your foster fathers and queens

46:40

your nursing mothers. So wait

46:42

a minute imagine in Isaiah's day when

46:44

they're in captivity Isaiah

46:48

saying I've got good

46:50

news. Gentile kings and queens are going

46:52

to convert and worship the God of Israel. No

46:55

wonder the Jews didn't believe Isaiah and thought

46:57

he was crazy and killed him because

47:00

this just sounds out what that's impossible. That's crazy.

47:03

The Gentiles are never gonna convert and worship the God

47:05

of Israel. That's insane. We're in

47:09

this captivity to this pagan Empire.

47:13

How will we ever get out of Babylon? And

47:16

then God goes on and says The

47:19

nations come and go. I'm talking about

47:21

things centuries into the future millennia from

47:23

now. Kings

47:29

and queens will convert. They will

47:31

bow down to the earth. How

47:36

would kings and queens do this? How would this

47:38

happen? Oh, well they convert and worship Jesus

47:40

the Messiah. In other words

47:43

all this stuff begins to be fulfilled and again

47:45

this refutes the goofy Protestant notion an Evangelical

47:48

notion that God doesn't have anything to do with the

47:50

civil sphere. No, he's the king of

47:52

kings again He's not their sinus. He's

47:54

the king of kings when he returns and sets up

47:57

a temple in Israel. We get the red half or

47:59

in the middle. No,

48:01

that's the first advent. Have you not read

48:04

the book of Hebrews? Do any of these

48:06

evangelicals ever read Hebrews and Galatians

48:08

which says that there's no

48:11

more earthly temples with animal

48:13

sacrifices. That's done No,

48:16

because Bible says Israel is the

48:18

apple god That's

48:21

talking about Israel the true Israel the church

48:25

Now does that mean that there's no future for

48:29

Juice, that's also a mistake.

48:31

That's an opposite extreme mistake and because all

48:33

of the church fathers that discussed

48:36

this issue Say

48:38

that there is a first future conversion of the Jews and

48:41

they all base it on the exegesis of Romans 11 So

48:46

Romans 11 does say it does predict that there

48:48

will be a future conversion of Jews that means

48:50

that Jews are still Jews.

48:52

They're not some other thing that's made up That

48:55

does not mean that their religion is true per se Because

48:59

they've missed the forest for

49:01

the trees the Messiah But

49:06

Jews are still Jews So

49:10

you've got these weird groups that try to say

49:13

The New

49:15

Testament Jews don't that's not Judy

49:17

Judaism is not Jews. That's

49:19

a different than they have this weird idea that

49:23

Based on stupid word concept. Fellacies of

49:25

Judeans are not the same as today's

49:27

Jews That doesn't matter

49:29

Jesus says in John 4 salvation is of the

49:31

Jews Okay, and he

49:34

is talking about the Pharisees. He is talking about

49:36

what we think of his Judaism Now

49:39

Judaism after the Messiah becomes more and

49:41

more of a rabbinical thing More

49:44

and more of a Talmudic thing But

49:48

even still that's still the Jews.

49:51

Okay, and they will convert at some point. I don't know

49:53

how that's gonna happen I don't know when that's gonna happen

49:57

But every church father whether it's

49:59

Cyril whether whether it's Athanasius, whether it's

50:01

John Damascus, that comments on

50:03

Romans 11 says what I'm saying,

50:05

that they will convert. If you have

50:08

the patristic series

50:10

from IVP, from InterVarsity

50:12

Press, get the Romans volume and

50:14

look at all the church fathers commenting on Romans

50:16

11 and they'll say what I say. The

50:28

captives will be taken away from

50:30

the prey of the terrible, they will be delivered. I

50:32

will contend with those who contend with you. I will

50:34

save your children. I will feed those who oppress you

50:37

with their own flesh. They

50:39

will be drunk with their own blood as with sweet wine. If

50:43

you have the Septuagint version

50:46

of this, it's actually a better

50:48

translation because I think it says,

50:50

it's like a reverse Eucharist. The

50:52

Septuagint translation says, those who oppress you

50:54

will eat their flesh and drink their

50:56

blood as new wine. So it's almost

50:59

like, and

51:01

you get this in the book of Revelation

51:03

which we think is not primarily an end

51:05

of the world discussion, sections

51:07

of the book of Revelation are about the end of the world. The

51:10

book of Revelation is a liturgical service. Yes,

51:14

it's a liturgy. It's John seeing

51:16

the liturgy that goes on in heaven and

51:18

that liturgy in heaven is the same Eucharistic

51:21

divine liturgy that's the liturgy on earth. They're

51:23

one and the same. And

51:25

the liturgy that goes on in

51:27

heaven, when John sees it, it

51:29

unleashes the divine spiritual warfare. So

51:32

the curses, the bowl judgments and all of that,

51:36

that's not just something at the end of the world. It's

51:38

a progressive unleashing of

51:40

spiritual judgment that occurs when

51:42

the liturgy is celebrated. And

51:46

it goes out into your city and into your village and into

51:49

your town. It's

51:52

a present reality. It's an already

51:54

and not yet. It's a both and. It's

51:58

now, but it's also at the end of the world too. And

52:02

so here the text is saying

52:04

that those who oppress you, the

52:06

church, will also be given a

52:08

reverse curse Eucharist. They will feed

52:10

on their own flesh and blood.

52:16

And that's mirrored in the

52:18

book of Revelation. So

52:22

then we have this passage in Isaiah 50. Thus

52:26

says the Lord, where is the

52:28

certificate of your mother's divorce whom I have

52:30

put away? Of

52:32

which of my creditors is it to whom I

52:34

have sold you? For your iniquities

52:36

you were sold, for your transgressions your mother was

52:39

put away. This is

52:41

what's referred to as the divorce of Israel. This

52:43

is a similar phraseology in I

52:45

think, is it Hosea? Or

52:49

Hosea also talks about Israel being a whore

52:51

and being divorced. The book

52:53

of Revelation is in part a certificate

52:55

of divorce for the

52:58

physical flesh Israel, the nation's side of Israel,

53:00

because they had rejected the Messiah. Does

53:04

that mean that again there's no sense of a

53:06

future for Jewish people? No, but it has

53:08

to be in Christ you have to convert. That's

53:12

what Romans 11 says. So

53:14

flesh Israel is given a certificate of

53:17

divorce precisely because of the rejection of

53:19

the Messiah. It says this in

53:21

the parables. The

53:25

kingdom of God will be taken from you and given

53:28

to a nation producing the fruits thereof. He's

53:30

talking about the Gentiles. And that does not

53:32

mean that Jews can't convert. It just means that you,

53:35

whoever rejected the message, the

53:38

message will now be given to the Gentiles.

53:40

And by the way, that was all prophesied a long

53:43

time ago, you see. And

53:51

really this is the only position that makes sense of all

53:53

these texts, right? Because there's texts that

53:55

talk about, wait a minute, God's going to divorce Israel.

53:57

But wait a minute, God also has promises that he

53:59

will... never forsake, he

54:01

will always be there. But yeah, it's fulfilled in

54:03

Christ. The nation state of Israel

54:05

in the flesh is divorced, and

54:08

they can no longer be divorced by accepting

54:11

the Messiah. So you see how all the

54:13

promises are still kept? None of

54:15

them fail. And God is

54:17

married to the true Israel, which is

54:19

the church. And also

54:21

there's a certificate of divorce. All

54:23

of these things are true at the same time. And

54:26

we don't need to fall into the false either or's of

54:28

many of the evangelicals. So

54:31

then this text goes on to talk about curses.

54:37

And then it goes on in verse four, The

54:39

Lord has given me the tongue of the learned. Now

54:42

this is the Messiah speaking again, and you'll see that in

54:45

a second, that I would know how to

54:47

speak a word and do season to him who was

54:49

weary. He awakens me morning by morning. He awakens my

54:51

ear to hear as the

54:53

learned. He opens my ears. I

54:55

was not rebellious. I didn't turn away, but

54:58

I gave my back to those that struck me,

55:00

my cheek to those who plucked up my beard.

55:02

I did not hide my face from shame and

55:04

spitting prophecies of what

55:06

happens to Christ at the crucifixion clear as day.

55:10

So you know that that's Christ speaking. The

55:14

Lord will help me. I will not be disgraced. I

55:17

have set my face like a flint and I will not be ashamed.

55:20

He is near who justifies me. Who will contend

55:22

with me? Let us stand together. Who is my

55:24

adversary? Let him come near me. Surely

55:27

the Lord God will help me. Who

55:30

is he that will condemn me? Indeed, they will all grow old

55:32

like a garment and like a moth they will be eaten up.

55:36

And then it goes on to say that trust in the name of the

55:38

Lord and those

55:40

that torment you will lie down

55:42

in torment. So again, messianic prophecies.

55:45

And this is not a one off. This is

55:47

very typical in the book of Isaiah. I've

55:50

got a list in my Bible in the

55:53

back where there's at least

55:55

in the book of Isaiah. probably

56:02

15 to 20 places maybe

56:05

more maybe maybe

56:07

25 or 30 I just haven't counted

56:11

them up where not

56:13

just messianic prophecies but the

56:16

Gentile church which is a

56:18

sign of the Messiah now

56:21

if that's a sign of the Messiah then

56:23

when the Messiah came the

56:28

first second third fourth fifth sixth century church

56:32

is that fulfillment that means

56:34

that is the true church so what's

56:36

the belief the practice of that first

56:38

second third fourth fifth sixth seventh century

56:40

church it's not Protestant

56:42

it's not Islam you

56:45

see how all these messianic prophecies refute

56:48

not just Protestant errors and evangelical

56:50

errors but also Islamic

56:52

idiocy because

56:54

this shows that the prophecies

56:56

in Isaiah are not

56:59

about Muhammad and

57:01

as we've seen analyzing a lot of Islam

57:05

they were so ignorant of what the actual biblical text

57:07

said the people who compiled

57:09

the original versions of the Quran they didn't

57:12

even realize the importance of prophets like Isaiah

57:15

Isaiah that has basically no importance in the

57:17

Quran because they didn't

57:19

even understand what any of this was about just

57:22

like fundamental mistakes fundamental

57:25

ignorance of what came before

57:27

now how would Muhammad be

57:29

in true continuity with the

57:31

prior prophetic tradition of Moses

57:34

and Ezekiel and Isaiah with

57:37

that level of fundamental ignorance of

57:40

important books like Isaiah I mean it's that

57:42

silly but

57:44

as we've seen over and over and over Muslims

57:47

have basically no knowledge of the Old Testament

57:49

they have no idea what's actually in there

57:52

99% of them I've encountered

57:54

very few again go watch the debate

57:56

with Daniel Hakekichu he had no idea what was in the

57:58

Old Testament they have no idea what the temple's

58:01

significance was, what the Levitical laws are about.

58:03

They just think it's just, you

58:05

know, made-up stuff. Alright,

58:10

now we're gonna open it up. That means

58:12

you can bring your arguments,

58:14

your disagreements. That's

58:17

just what was on my mind today. We don't

58:19

have to talk about Protestant evangelical stuff. We don't

58:21

have to debate, quote, Christ the King. You can

58:23

bring out whatever topics you want. But

58:26

I think this is a significant topic given the

58:29

fact of, you know, while I'm reading through

58:31

Isaiah, I'm thinking, and this is really a

58:33

great reputation of a lot of this stuff.

58:35

And of course we've done a couple streams

58:37

the last couple weeks about how, you

58:40

know, Christ the King by the way is not primarily

58:43

some sort of Bayes trad political thing. Now

58:46

all the Roman Catholics, the trad cats, are just

58:51

repeating this non-stop. But

58:54

of course does it really mean anything to these

58:56

people? So while it's true

58:58

that there is

59:00

a political social application,

59:02

that's not where any of this starts. It

59:05

starts in you at the individual

59:07

personal level. So if Christ

59:10

isn't King in your heart, in your life, spouting

59:12

all this stuff out is just

59:15

clanging symbols and making noise like

59:17

Paul says. It's not effective.

59:20

However it is still true that

59:23

Christ is King. And

59:26

the Protestant evangelical position is still

59:28

objectively speaking incorrect. So

59:31

the traditional Catholics are also correct, like

59:34

the traditional Orthodox position. That

59:37

yes, of course, the whole

59:39

idea of the Byzantine

59:41

double-headed eagle. The state has a

59:43

duty to God. Romans 13 calls

59:46

the Emperor a Diaconos. But

59:49

it doesn't mean that Christianity is first

59:51

and foremost a Bayes political movement. Right?

59:57

There's an order of importance here. a

1:00:00

hierarchy of importance, so to speak, if that makes sense.

1:00:04

And I thought these two passages in

1:00:06

Isaiah were really insightful on that point.

1:00:09

We also see the deity of Christ, which refused

1:00:12

the Arians and the Muslims. We see the history

1:00:15

of the church being something where kings

1:00:17

and queens convert, which

1:00:19

refused the Protestant and evangelical ideas.

1:00:23

So there's quite a bit in these

1:00:25

passages. And again, everybody knows about Isaiah

1:00:27

53 and the suffering servant, but nobody

1:00:29

reads Isaiah 49 and 50 and

1:00:32

talks about the messianic elements there. Anyway,

1:00:35

so we're going to open it up. That means you get

1:00:37

the floor. Remember to keep it to

1:00:39

the topics. The topics don't have to just

1:00:42

be about what I mentioned in this talk. The

1:00:46

topics are, how did I list it? I'm trying

1:00:49

to remember. Which

1:00:52

are anything related to Jehovah's

1:00:54

Witnesses, Mormons, cults, anti-Trinitarianism, Black

1:00:56

Huber Israelite, Hebrew roots. That

1:00:58

seems to be exploding everywhere.

1:01:00

Everybody's seeing this weird

1:01:03

Bryson's popularizing the Hebrew roots stuff.

1:01:06

BHI is adjacent to that. It's a

1:01:08

different thing, but they're close to that. So we're

1:01:10

seeing this stuff everywhere. There's

1:01:12

multiple people after I made that video saying, oh, you

1:01:14

need to debate the BHI people. And

1:01:16

well, if there's one of those people on here that wants to

1:01:18

call in, you can call in and make your points. They'll let

1:01:21

you have the floor. You

1:01:23

can talk about Islam. You can talk about

1:01:25

Calvinism. You can talk about Roman Catholicism, Papacy,

1:01:27

atheism, Transcendo arguments,

1:01:30

Logos, Logie, any of these

1:01:33

topics you want to bring up and you can have the floor. You're welcome

1:01:35

to bring them up. But

1:01:37

remember, if you don't

1:01:39

make arguments, I'm going to interrupt and bring you

1:01:41

back to the point and tell you to make

1:01:43

an argument. So don't get mad if I

1:01:46

interrupt you if you just start telling me stories. Because

1:01:49

if your story isn't an argument, I mean,

1:01:51

theoretically you could tell a story that includes

1:01:53

an argument maybe. But if you're just telling

1:01:55

me stories, if you're giving me psychological reports,

1:01:57

if you're giving me, you know, know,

1:02:00

personal incredulity, those are fallacies.

1:02:03

Doesn't matter that if you find something hard

1:02:05

to believe, okay, well that's interesting, but that

1:02:07

doesn't constitute any kind of argument. So we

1:02:09

want to see the argumentation, we want to

1:02:11

see why you think this or

1:02:13

that position is correct. If

1:02:15

you want to call in as a Protestant and prove your prima

1:02:17

lino position, you want to prove your sola

1:02:20

scriptura, sola fide, all of that's on the

1:02:22

table today. Remember, it's not,

1:02:26

I'm not going to take any topics related to

1:02:28

conspiracies, I don't care about your geopolitics, that's not

1:02:30

what we're talking about today. We

1:02:32

don't want wine mom poetry, that's not today.

1:02:36

And for the people in the chat on YouTube, the

1:02:38

link is right here. So people, where can I call

1:02:41

in? The way it works is you got to go to Twitter

1:02:44

and you request to speak. When

1:02:46

you request to speak, it automatically mutes you, it's

1:02:49

not me muting you, it's the way the system

1:02:51

is set up. When

1:02:54

you come up to speak, I

1:02:56

will say you're ready, unmute.

1:02:58

What do

1:03:01

you mean the call link isn't working? It's right there.

1:03:03

I mean,

1:03:07

it is working because there's like a

1:03:09

bunch of people in here waiting to talk. So it does

1:03:11

work. In fact, I think, I

1:03:15

don't see you, but let's go ahead and get

1:03:17

into it because a lot of people in line, there's like 11 people

1:03:19

now. So let's go to cyber cavalry. He's up

1:03:21

first. What's up, man? You got

1:03:32

to unmute. Hello. Hey, what's

1:03:36

up? Hello. I just wanted

1:03:38

to ask about a

1:03:40

question regarding where the Old Testament mentions

1:03:42

that God is not a man. And

1:03:44

I wonder what your response is to

1:03:46

numbers 2319 and Jeremiah 17.5. This is

1:03:48

more for the audience's education. I don't

1:03:55

actually believe this myself, but it's a question

1:03:57

I get asked a lot by my Jewish.

1:04:00

followers and Something I

1:04:02

would like to hear your perspective on Right.

1:04:05

So is both things are true

1:04:07

so in one sense we have passages in the

1:04:09

Old Testament say that God is

1:04:11

not a man because there would might

1:04:13

be a temptation of the Israelites to

1:04:15

idolatry to think that God

1:04:17

is a creature or God is a being

1:04:20

who you know is like something in

1:04:22

time and space that's changeable So

1:04:24

we have passages throughout the Old Testament right

1:04:26

where it says God is not a

1:04:28

man God is not Relent and yet

1:04:30

other passages right like well God relented

1:04:33

that he made man in

1:04:35

terms of the flood So we have

1:04:37

statements that affirm both things and it's

1:04:39

analogous to the way that we argue

1:04:41

for the Trinity in the Old Testament So

1:04:44

for example many passages say we believe in

1:04:46

one God but there's also many

1:04:48

passages that talk about Yahweh and His

1:04:51

angel who receives worship and who

1:04:53

is equated with Yahweh and is

1:04:56

called Yahweh and it's called

1:04:58

Yahweh son So both things are true and

1:05:00

that's why if you watch my video That

1:05:03

I did over here on this. I think I put on this channel.

1:05:05

Let's see if I put it on here It's

1:05:09

called the Jewish Trinity I think

1:05:11

is what I titled it and

1:05:13

the reason this is such an important topic is

1:05:15

because most of the Muslim debates that we have

1:05:18

We end up having to get into

1:05:20

this topic of whether the Old Testament

1:05:23

teaches a generic Unitarianism or

1:05:25

whether there's a type of

1:05:27

multiplicity to God in

1:05:29

the Old Testament and What's

1:05:31

interesting about modern Jewish scholarship is that

1:05:34

as you probably saw me point out in

1:05:36

the Daniel Hakekichu debate many of

1:05:38

the modern Jewish scholars and rabbinical

1:05:42

academics are realizing and

1:05:45

admitting that Before

1:05:47

the codification of what's called rabbinic

1:05:49

Judaism particularly at the time of

1:05:52

Maimonides Before that there

1:05:54

was quite a lively debate about

1:05:57

in what sense God was multiple

1:06:00

the Old Testament and even up into the first,

1:06:02

second, third, and fourth century. So

1:06:06

you have, for example, even at the time of

1:06:08

Rabbi Akiva, him saying that, well,

1:06:11

there seems to be this dual sense here of Yahweh,

1:06:14

but there's also this angel

1:06:16

Lord, this one like a son of

1:06:18

man, there's this form of God's glory

1:06:20

that appears to various prophets. So

1:06:22

even within rabbinic Judaism, there's this debate that

1:06:25

occurs for many, many centuries. And

1:06:28

that's why you have people

1:06:30

like Boyar in Segal Summers

1:06:32

writing these books nowadays, talking

1:06:34

about how it's

1:06:36

a mistake to think that Hebrew

1:06:39

Old Testament theology and even New

1:06:42

Testament, even at the time of

1:06:44

Christ rabbinic theology, that it was

1:06:46

this strict Unitarian generic

1:06:48

deity. So this has come

1:06:50

up so many times in the debates that we've been having lately,

1:06:53

even with Roman Catholics. This ended up being

1:06:55

a big debate that I had on Twitter

1:06:57

a few weeks ago with Trent Horn, because

1:07:00

Trent Horn has doubled down, still thinks

1:07:02

that the Old Testament teaches a generic

1:07:04

Unitarian deity, and Trent didn't even know

1:07:06

what the word triad meant. So,

1:07:09

and I'm not trying to be mean to Trent,

1:07:11

but I mean, so the top Roman Catholic apologist

1:07:13

doesn't even know that the word triad is just

1:07:15

a, it's a Greek

1:07:17

Byzantine term for the Trinity. So

1:07:20

if you come over here to this

1:07:22

video right here, it's called The Jewish Trinity,

1:07:25

Refuting the Unitarian Pre-Subpositions. And it's

1:07:27

my opening statement for the Daniel

1:07:31

Hakekichu debate. And if you watch that

1:07:33

video, it ends up, I think rebutting

1:07:35

and refuting the basic principle that you're

1:07:37

getting at, which you're saying the Jews

1:07:39

are saying to you, even

1:07:42

though their question was about anthropomorphic

1:07:45

imagery, the Summers book

1:07:47

actually goes through all that as well, because it

1:07:49

points out that Yahweh

1:07:51

is not restricted from

1:07:53

a theophany. And

1:07:55

how is he being manifested

1:07:58

or being a theophany in time? in

1:08:00

space when we have

1:08:02

statements for example that no one can see the

1:08:04

father, no one sees God and lives. Well, then

1:08:06

who did Moses see? This

1:08:08

is the debate that occurs in the book of John. John

1:08:11

has this very debate with the

1:08:13

Pharisees and Jesus concedes no

1:08:16

one sees the father at any time. And

1:08:19

the Pharisees presumably will say yes, that's true. And

1:08:22

then Jesus says, well then who was

1:08:24

Moses talking to? Who was Moses

1:08:26

seeing face to face? Who

1:08:28

did Moses have a meal with? No

1:08:31

one has a meal with Yahweh who

1:08:33

can't be seen. So

1:08:35

there is this form of Yahweh,

1:08:37

the face of Yahweh, the glory of Yahweh,

1:08:39

one like a son of man, the angel

1:08:41

of the Lord, who is all

1:08:44

throughout the Old Testament. That's

1:08:46

Jesus, you see. And

1:08:49

by the way, the Holy Spirit is mentioned throughout those

1:08:51

passages as well. If you read Ezekiel 1-10 and 11,

1:08:53

I did a whole talk just on the Trinity in

1:08:55

Ezekiel 1-10

1:08:59

and 11 because

1:09:03

there's the angel of the Lord who

1:09:05

is called the one that rides the chariot, the son of

1:09:07

man. And Rabbinic Judaism by

1:09:09

the way is not in some unified position.

1:09:12

The whole history is a bunch of debates. Oh,

1:09:14

that's this angel metatron. Oh, it's this magical

1:09:18

sorcerer rabbi. They

1:09:20

don't know what it is. Oh, it's the essence

1:09:22

of God. No, it's a creature.

1:09:24

It's an angel. So

1:09:26

they're all over the place, you see. So

1:09:30

there's not actually a coherent,

1:09:32

unified rabbinic interpretation. There's

1:09:35

a whole bunch of rabbinic debates over

1:09:37

this topic of what is this? Because

1:09:40

it's not just in Ezekiel. It's

1:09:43

in all these multitudes

1:09:45

of passages that we cover over and over and over. So,

1:09:48

but to back to your point, I mean, both

1:09:51

statements are said. God is in one

1:09:53

sense, like a man in terms of

1:09:55

making an analogy, but

1:09:57

in another sense, he's also not like a man

1:10:00

like. He has a change of mind like he

1:10:02

didn't know stuff. Like, oh, I didn't know that

1:10:04

this was going to happen, so now I've changed

1:10:06

my mind. I'm going to kill everybody after the

1:10:08

flood because I didn't know. I

1:10:11

mean, it already says God has omniscience.

1:10:13

So that's just called anthropomorphic language. But

1:10:15

we wouldn't take anthropomorphic language, for example,

1:10:18

and literally say that God the Father

1:10:20

has a beard, something like this. This

1:10:22

is part of the mistake that we

1:10:24

see when we have a lot of

1:10:28

erroneous iconography of God the Father.

1:10:31

And when the Moscow Icon Council meets, one

1:10:33

of the reasons they say that it doesn't

1:10:35

make sense to make icons of God the

1:10:37

Father as having a giant beard and old

1:10:39

man, because he's not incarnate. You

1:10:43

make icons of what's incarnate

1:10:45

or what's a theophanic manifestation.

1:10:49

And God the Father is not

1:10:51

manifested as an old man ever.

1:10:53

So it's a heterodox idea.

1:10:57

And that's not to say that you can never

1:10:59

have an image of what's called the idols or

1:11:01

the idea of the Father. But in

1:11:03

the closest thing to that would be the ancient of

1:11:05

days or icons that show the voice

1:11:09

coming out of heaven. But those

1:11:11

are never intended to be the person of the

1:11:13

Father or even the person of the Holy Spirit.

1:11:16

They're the energetic manifestations. So anyway,

1:11:18

hopefully that answers your questions there. Cyber

1:11:21

Calvary, appreciate that. Next up

1:11:23

is Valet. Thank

1:11:28

you guys for those Super Chats. Appreciate that. We got

1:11:30

a couple here. If you want to support the stream,

1:11:32

you can do so via the Super Chat function, which

1:11:35

is this, which is the Streamlabs

1:11:37

link. So if you use

1:11:39

Streamlabs, you can ask

1:11:41

a question right there. Got

1:11:44

to unmute, man. What's up? Hello.

1:11:48

Hey. Yeah. Okay. Hey,

1:11:50

Jamie. Hold on one second.

1:11:52

Hey, Jamie. Maybe she left. Go

1:11:55

ahead. Okay. Okay.

1:11:57

Yeah. I need a coffee. I'm

1:12:00

a Muslim. I wanted to ask you a

1:12:02

couple questions. A Muslim you said? Yeah.

1:12:06

Okay, sure. I wanted to ask you

1:12:08

about questions like, what

1:12:10

kind of evidence would you say that you had?

1:12:13

Because all I hear about the scriptures, for example, is

1:12:16

that, oh, they're always corrupted. Like that's all I hear

1:12:18

really. Like I hear that they're corrupted. I hear it

1:12:20

from all kinds of scholars. I mean, I don't, I

1:12:22

haven't read that much, to be honest. What

1:12:25

would you say is a good defense in

1:12:28

defense of them not having any contradictions on

1:12:30

anything in the books? Well,

1:12:33

the Quran itself says to the Muslims

1:12:35

at the time first hearing it to

1:12:37

go and check everything that's said in

1:12:39

the Quran against the previous revelation that

1:12:41

the Jews and the Christians had. So

1:12:45

if the previous revelation was corrupted and full

1:12:47

of errors, how would anybody be able to,

1:12:49

hearing the Quranic supposed revelation, be able to

1:12:52

go and check it against what came before?

1:12:57

What do you mean, check? The

1:13:00

way the Quran speaks, there's multiple places where

1:13:02

it says, go and check what I'm telling

1:13:04

to you. And you will see it as

1:13:07

consistent with what the Jews and the Muslims

1:13:09

were told. Right? It

1:13:11

says constantly, we gave this revelation to Moses. We

1:13:13

gave this in jail, which is

1:13:15

not a book, by the way, there's no, there's

1:13:17

no book called the in jail, which

1:13:19

is a mistake that the Quran makes. It's

1:13:23

telling the hearers, okay, imagine

1:13:25

you're a sixth, seventh

1:13:27

century Muslim Christian Jew and

1:13:29

you're hearing people reciting the

1:13:31

Quran and it says, go

1:13:33

and check this revelation given

1:13:35

to Muhammad against the previous

1:13:38

revelation. How could you go and

1:13:40

check the previous, the new revelation against the previous

1:13:42

revelation if the previous revelation was full

1:13:44

of errors? For nearly four

1:13:46

decades, JMK security solutions has provided protection

1:13:48

for homes and businesses. I know firsthand,

1:13:51

I'm Jeff Beckman and with my wife,

1:13:53

Kim, we started JMK security solutions. Our

1:13:55

attention to detail, service after the sale

1:13:58

and product knowledge are the foundation. of

1:14:00

our success. JK Security has routinely been

1:14:02

recognized as the best of analysts and

1:14:04

for security companies. We expect that trend

1:14:06

to continue as the next generation our

1:14:08

son, Jeffrey, takes over as president. Let

1:14:10

us protect what is valuable to you. jksecurity.com.

1:14:16

Some people just know the best rate for you

1:14:18

is a rate based on you. With all speed,

1:14:20

not one based on the driver who treats the

1:14:23

highway like a racetrack and the shoulder like a

1:14:25

passing lane. Why pay

1:14:27

a rate based on anyone else? Not one

1:14:29

based on you. With driveways from all states. Not available in

1:14:31

Alaska or California. Subject to terms and conditions. for

1:14:35

purposes of rating. will

1:14:37

stay with driveways. And corrupted?

1:14:41

or where parts of this stuff is not. Well, hold on. First

1:14:43

of all, you don't know where the driver is. I mean, I'm not sure. I

1:14:45

mean, I'm not sure. I mean, I'm not sure. I

1:14:47

mean, I'm not sure. I mean, I couldn't

1:14:50

wait to say, well,

1:14:53

I mean, there's parts where Mohammed is mentioned, or

1:14:56

where parts of this stuff is not. Well, hold

1:14:58

on. First of all, you don't even know that

1:15:00

there's parts where Mohammed is mentioned. But setting

1:15:02

aside that issue, I'm saying the

1:15:05

Koran doesn't tell you that the Torah

1:15:08

and the Gospel is corrupted.

1:15:11

That's a later Muslim argument. So

1:15:13

if I'm a sixth, seventh century

1:15:15

Muslim, Christian, or Jew, and

1:15:18

I'm told by the Koran to go and

1:15:20

check this new revelation that is

1:15:22

consistent with the prior, how

1:15:25

am I going to do that if the

1:15:27

prior is corrupted? How

1:15:31

does it not say it's corrupted when it says they twist

1:15:33

it with their own hands and say this is from Allah?

1:15:36

It doesn't say the texts are corrupted. But

1:15:40

what is it implying then? In fact, in

1:15:42

other places, it says that it's not corrupted. It

1:15:44

says we gave them this. We gave this revelation.

1:15:49

If you go listen to Sam Shamoon

1:15:51

have the debate with the guy who

1:15:53

argued over this very point. And Sam

1:15:55

goes into the Arabic and shows that

1:15:57

it doesn't actually say that the texts

1:16:00

was corrupted. It says they corrupted it with

1:16:02

their reading of it. It doesn't say

1:16:04

the text was corrupted. Well, I mean, I

1:16:06

tried asking Sam Shimon, but he just cursed me off, so I don't

1:16:08

know how to ask him. Well,

1:16:10

I'm saying you can go watch the video where

1:16:12

there's a guy who made the exact same point.

1:16:18

I mean, how can I trust him? Is

1:16:20

this a liar? How can I trust that?

1:16:22

Is this a liar? Okay, so

1:16:24

that's ad hominem. So even if Sam Shimon is a

1:16:26

liar, how would that refute this point? I

1:16:31

mean, sure, but how

1:16:33

can I trust him? Anything he says, I mean, in

1:16:36

my opinion, he clearly says. So again,

1:16:38

do you understand what a fallacy is? Yeah,

1:16:41

depending on what fallacy you're talking about. So

1:16:43

I said ad hominem. So even

1:16:46

if he were a person who had a tendency to lie,

1:16:48

which I'm not saying that he does, but even if that's

1:16:50

true, how would that refute this

1:16:52

argument? So

1:16:57

just because the scripture says that

1:17:01

we confirmed the scripture that came before it, it doesn't mean

1:17:03

that. How are you going

1:17:05

to confirm it? Okay, let's say that it is corrupted.

1:17:07

How are you going to confirm what came before if

1:17:09

what came before is corrupted? Because

1:17:12

there's still parts of it which are not corrupted. But that

1:17:14

doesn't tell you which parts. That's the point. Well,

1:17:16

the Quran is the criteria. Okay, so again, so now

1:17:19

the, so you can't check it as to what came

1:17:21

before to see if it's consistent. That's

1:17:23

the point. You don't understand how that's a problem. What's

1:17:27

the problem? If we can say that the

1:17:30

word of God, what's the problem? That's

1:17:33

the thing in question. The Quran is telling

1:17:35

you that I can demonstrate that what I'm

1:17:38

giving you is the word of God by

1:17:40

what came before. And then I

1:17:42

say, okay, I'm hearing you. I want to go check

1:17:44

with what came before. And then you say, yeah, but

1:17:46

that's all corrupted. And the only parts that matter are

1:17:48

the ones that are consistent with the Quran. You don't

1:17:50

see how that's a stupid argument. Are

1:17:53

you saying circular? You

1:17:55

could say it's a type of circular argument. Yeah, it's

1:17:57

actually a moving of the goalposts.

1:18:02

I mean, yeah, I mean, I guess overall,

1:18:05

you don't see how that's a problem argument. Do

1:18:08

you understand? So do you understand that someone

1:18:10

could do the exact same thing to you? Yeah,

1:18:13

but don't the Christians do the same thing with

1:18:15

the church and stuff like that? No, no, we

1:18:17

don't. Not at all. Nobody says

1:18:19

that the Old Testament is corrupted and the

1:18:22

Christian revelation is the new true revelation. That's

1:18:24

what you do because that's what cults do.

1:18:26

Cults do this exact same move where they

1:18:28

pretend like the new revelation is consistent with

1:18:30

what came before and then when

1:18:32

you actually start to flesh that out, then

1:18:34

it becomes a double standard to where you

1:18:36

say, no, no, no, actually a giant portion

1:18:39

of that Old Testament revelation is false. Do

1:18:41

you understand that it's arbitrary? Is

1:18:44

it okay to be arbitrary in argumentation? No.

1:18:48

Okay. So, but your position is

1:18:50

arbitrary because you don't even

1:18:52

understand how much of the Old Testament you're canceling

1:18:54

out. So it's like giant portions

1:18:56

of the Torah and the prophets. You

1:18:59

understand that? Sure. I

1:19:01

mean, sure, but you guys do

1:19:03

the same thing with the... No, we don't. That's

1:19:05

not true. You don't know. No, we

1:19:07

don't. That's not true. How

1:19:09

is it not circular? No,

1:19:12

no, no. It's two different types of argument. The

1:19:14

comparison would be, if you wanted to make the comparison, well, how do you as a

1:19:22

Christian interpret

1:19:24

the Old Testament? That's the comparison.

1:19:27

Not do we get revelation through the

1:19:29

church. That's two different topics. So that's

1:19:31

a category error. The

1:19:33

revelation that comes to Moses, let's start with

1:19:35

the Torah, okay, because there's a historical progression

1:19:37

here. So the revelation that comes to Moses,

1:19:40

it says in Deuteronomy 13 and Deuteronomy

1:19:42

18 that any new revelations

1:19:44

that come have to be consistent with what

1:19:46

came before. So when

1:19:48

the gospels come, when Jesus comes multiple

1:19:51

times in the gospels, Jesus is

1:19:53

arguing to demonstrate against the Pharisees

1:19:55

that his position is

1:19:57

consistent with Moses and the prophets. him.

1:20:00

Okay? So

1:20:02

that's the analogy here is that Christianity

1:20:05

is consistent with Hebrew Old Testament revelation.

1:20:07

That's what I just spent the last

1:20:10

hour talking about from Isaiah 49 and 50. So

1:20:12

if Islam comes

1:20:14

along 600 years after Jesus and it

1:20:19

says we're the true

1:20:21

new revelation of the prophets consistent with

1:20:24

what came before, then

1:20:26

you have a burden of proof to show

1:20:28

that the prior revelation is number one false

1:20:31

and number two that you're consistent with it and you

1:20:33

can't do either of those. That's the point that I'm

1:20:35

making. No you can't and by the way the

1:20:41

Quran does not say that. The Quran says that

1:20:44

the revelation that came before is pure and

1:20:46

the text that you're talking about doesn't say that

1:20:48

the text itself is corrupted. It says that the

1:20:50

Jews twisted it. That's two different things. That's

1:20:53

twisting interpretation. Well

1:21:00

hold on now do you accept the Hadiths about Satan farting?

1:21:11

So you think Satan farts? How

1:21:15

does an angel fart? Does an

1:21:17

angel have a digestive system? Yeah

1:21:22

so again

1:21:25

this is a silly religion. It doesn't get

1:21:27

it's not consistent with what came before. Because

1:21:30

angels don't fart. Well God can do a miracle

1:21:39

but that's different than something that has no

1:21:41

digestive system farting. That doesn't make any sense.

1:21:45

It doesn't mean something different. So

1:21:49

again they don't know what you're talking about. We're

1:21:53

moving on to Aggie what's up. Jamie

1:22:02

could you maybe a copy got to unmute

1:22:15

Unmute Aggie. Oh,

1:22:18

yeah. Sorry. I was all right. I was gone for a

1:22:20

second Yeah, there's

1:22:22

an interesting conversation I Love

1:22:27

what you've been saying so far J And

1:22:29

I don't even know if it's gonna be much

1:22:32

of a debate between you and I maybe I

1:22:34

was just wondering what you Put

1:22:36

your thoughts around this But

1:22:38

I would consider myself a Muslim

1:22:40

mystic. So Sufi

1:22:44

is called Sufi branch of his

1:22:46

life You know that I'm

1:22:48

familiar with Sufism. Yeah. Yeah, so

1:22:51

I was just wondering if you if

1:22:54

you think like when you think about the Bible

1:22:56

and like in the basic sense the Bible and

1:22:58

Jesus and God and Religion

1:23:01

in in the general sense. Do you think like

1:23:03

there's more of a depth to it? Do

1:23:05

you think like? Every

1:23:07

single thing is to be taken literally

1:23:09

or is there is there in your

1:23:11

opinion something too mysticism like in Christianity?

1:23:16

Well, I mean I think those are general

1:23:18

terms I mean sure, of course, you know,

1:23:20

if you go to a divine liturgy, it

1:23:22

is very quote mystical But

1:23:24

it really doesn't have anything to do with hermeneutics

1:23:26

So you're referring to hermeneutical interpretation

1:23:28

issues as to when a passage

1:23:31

is literal when it's using figurative

1:23:33

language When it's a

1:23:35

simile a metaphor though, that's the

1:23:37

science of interpretation. That's hermeneutics So

1:23:40

yeah, so that doesn't necessarily have anything to

1:23:42

do with quote mysticism. It might have some

1:23:44

overlap, but they're two different things Yeah,

1:23:47

yeah, but I would even argue so that's

1:23:49

right. Definitely. I would even argue like Even

1:23:52

in the complete beginning so even

1:23:54

the understanding of God and what

1:23:56

is God? How

1:24:01

can one understand God? What

1:24:03

is God exactly? Even that

1:24:05

can be viewed and studied through

1:24:07

the lens of mysticism. You

1:24:10

could view it in a very

1:24:12

basic orthodox sense, in my opinion.

1:24:15

And then you come to conclusions

1:24:17

like, for

1:24:19

example, our God is the only

1:24:22

God, Allah is God, or Jesus

1:24:24

Christ is God, and that's it. But

1:24:26

if you listen to the mystics everywhere,

1:24:29

so Christian mystics,

1:24:31

Muslim mystics, every

1:24:34

mystical thinker comes to the same conclusion

1:24:36

in every religion. No, they don't. That's

1:24:38

not true. No, they don't. They

1:24:40

completely do. No, they don't. No,

1:24:43

they don't. They totally don't. I mean, I

1:24:45

can give you our key mystic right here.

1:24:47

Wait, wait, wait. When it comes to God...

1:24:49

No. It's what you said is just totally

1:24:51

false. I have right here our key mystic,

1:24:53

Gregory Palamas. All of his

1:24:55

books are defenses of the Trinity, and so he's not

1:24:57

saying that all the religions aren't based the same. So

1:24:59

that's false. Really?

1:25:06

He defends the Trinity, you said. Yeah.

1:25:10

Yeah, but I mean, you have like a Muslim mystic, and then

1:25:12

he will defend Allah. So? But the

1:25:14

point being is, if you look at what all

1:25:16

of them are saying, like in the... Yeah, it's

1:25:18

just, again, not true. Excuse me.

1:25:20

In the basic sense, what they say... What

1:25:23

they say is, when

1:25:26

you look at God, when you look at

1:25:28

God as a concept, like what is God

1:25:30

truly? You're just picking out... For

1:25:33

example, a Christian mystic would say like, there

1:25:35

is something called Christ Consciousness. Yeah, it's not

1:25:37

true. It's false. I mean, I've got

1:25:39

a book by David Spangler, who's like the top

1:25:41

New Ager. His book is about Christ Consciousness.

1:25:44

So is that a true Christian mystic? Yeah,

1:25:48

of course it's true. Yeah, so basically,

1:25:50

Luciferian UN philosophy is true Christian mysticism.

1:25:52

And what about Hinduism? Like in Hinduism,

1:25:55

they say nirvana, but if you look

1:25:57

at nirvana, it's basically the same as

1:25:59

Christ. No, it's not. No,

1:26:01

it's not. It's all word concept, fellas. Bro, are

1:26:03

you just going to interrupt me after... Because it's all...

1:26:06

well, you're completely... I am going to

1:26:08

interrupt because what you said was false. What you

1:26:10

said is wrong. Hey, we

1:26:12

can play this game all day. It's not a

1:26:14

game. I just showed you the Archie Mystic, who

1:26:16

says the opposite of what you say. Yeah,

1:26:19

but, bro, like, if you... if

1:26:21

you look at the basics of what they're saying...

1:26:23

No. Do you understand? Let me... can I explain

1:26:25

why that's a mistake? Can I

1:26:27

explain why that's a mistake? Can

1:26:29

I explain why that's a mistake? Let

1:26:33

me explain why what you're saying is a mistake

1:26:35

to say that, quote, basics. So

1:26:37

what you're doing is you're assuming

1:26:39

that, where there's commonalities, that equates

1:26:42

to the basics, a

1:26:44

lowest common denominator approach, and you're

1:26:46

ignoring the fact that in many

1:26:48

places, there's actually mutually exclusive claims

1:26:51

that are made. So

1:26:53

you're wrong in the presupposition. Would

1:26:56

you agree that if the overlap is in

1:26:58

the importance... No, you're just

1:27:01

assuming that that's what's important. ...key positions of

1:27:03

the argument, then it's... No, that rests on

1:27:05

the presuppositions. That rests on the

1:27:08

unproven presupposition that that's the important

1:27:10

essential part. That's what you can't

1:27:12

demonstrate. I'm

1:27:16

sorry, what is the unproven presupposition?

1:27:19

So I said it four times, so let's move on.

1:27:21

Sapphire. What's

1:27:24

up, Sapphire? So

1:27:34

let's give an example. We do it... we do this

1:27:36

every week because

1:27:39

everybody who makes this mistake is

1:27:41

guilty of the word concept fallacy. By the way, here

1:27:44

is the video that I mentioned to the last Muslim

1:27:46

guy, Sam Shamoon, debating

1:27:48

with the Muslim who says that the

1:27:50

Bible is corrupted, and then he finds

1:27:52

out that the Quran actually does not

1:27:54

say that the Bible is corrupted. They

1:27:57

lie about what the text says.

1:28:00

actually says, where it says that

1:28:02

they twisted the words, it's

1:28:04

saying that the Jews twisted what

1:28:06

the words in the Mosaic

1:28:08

Revelation said. It's not saying they twisted

1:28:11

the Revelation itself and that's

1:28:13

the whole debate that Sam has there and

1:28:16

in this verse, I

1:28:18

mean in this video, excuse me, so both of these

1:28:21

videos Shamoon

1:28:24

addresses the exact same argument and that guy just said

1:28:26

well Shamshoon is a liar so I don't have to

1:28:28

listen to him. Well that's a nice ad

1:28:31

hominem. So even if Shamshoon is the

1:28:33

worst person on the planet, that would have nothing

1:28:35

to do with whether his argument is true or

1:28:37

false. So again, people

1:28:39

that come on and get mad, when

1:28:42

I'm interrupting you, it's because of the

1:28:44

fallacy move that you're making and

1:28:46

half the people that call in, no, 90% of the people

1:28:49

that call in don't know what

1:28:51

a fallacy is. Those of you who

1:28:53

are interrupting, I told you

1:28:56

at the beginning I was going to interrupt you when

1:28:58

you make a fallacious move. So he

1:29:00

made the fallacious move of saying that every

1:29:02

religion, its mystics at base, teach

1:29:05

the same thing. No they don't. I just

1:29:07

gave our key mystic Sengari Palamas who does

1:29:09

not teach that all the religions have the

1:29:11

same basic generic view of God. Totally

1:29:14

false and he says well but

1:29:16

other religions do. Okay but I'm not here to defend all

1:29:18

the religions. I'm here to defend mine and

1:29:21

so he just kept reasserting the same fallacious

1:29:23

position. Sapphire, what's up? I

1:29:26

had a question about mysticism, like tax

1:29:28

and stuff. Okay hold on one second

1:29:31

because let's

1:29:33

take a classic

1:29:36

example of the word logos. Most

1:29:46

of the arguments of people who think that or argue

1:29:48

that all the religions are constantly

1:29:50

saying that well here's an overlap because this

1:29:52

word is used and this word is used over

1:29:54

here so it's the same religion. Let's

1:29:57

take the word logos. Logos

1:30:00

is the same word used by Marcus

1:30:02

Aurelius and used by John and

1:30:04

John 1. But

1:30:06

in Marcus Aurelius, Logos refers to

1:30:09

an abstract principle of reason that

1:30:11

permeates the universe. That's

1:30:13

not what John is talking about in John 1. John

1:30:16

in John 1 says Logos is Jesus. Jesus

1:30:19

is not an abstract principle that permeates the universe.

1:30:22

You could argue that the abstract principle that permeates the

1:30:24

universe points us in the direction of

1:30:27

this, yes. But they're not the same

1:30:29

referent. Marcus Aurelius did not

1:30:31

refer to the second person of the

1:30:33

Godhead when he talked about Logos in

1:30:36

his stoic philosophy. Go ahead. Yeah,

1:30:40

I was curious, is the Lesser Key of

1:30:42

Solomon an actual book or is

1:30:44

it just gnostic nonsense? I

1:30:46

mean, that's like a Renaissance pseudonymous

1:30:49

book. It was written

1:30:51

sometime in the late Middle Ages or Renaissance

1:30:54

era. It's not actually from Solomon.

1:30:57

Yeah, I understand it's not from Solomon because the dates don't

1:30:59

line up, but is there anything to it or is it

1:31:01

just like just taking

1:31:03

care? I mean, I think it's like a

1:31:06

demonic delusion. You're

1:31:08

not going to get demon powers and

1:31:10

wealth from drawing sigils

1:31:12

and invoking demons. I mean, maybe they might

1:31:15

delude you into thinking you're going to get

1:31:17

wealth or power from that, but

1:31:19

it's ultimately going to drive you insane

1:31:21

and drive you to madness. I

1:31:24

understand. Another one would be the

1:31:26

Codex Aegis. Is that also like a demonic delusion or

1:31:28

is it? I'm not familiar with that

1:31:30

one. There's a whole bunch of these grimoires that promise

1:31:32

you all this kind of stuff. I don't know what

1:31:34

that one is. Yeah, I'm creeped out about that sort

1:31:37

of thing, but it's a book written

1:31:39

by a monk and there's a drawing of... They

1:31:41

say it was written in one night despite being way too

1:31:43

long and there's a drawing of the devil in it. It's

1:31:46

a whole thing. Codex Aegis, if

1:31:48

you ever have the time, read up

1:31:50

on it. Okay, yeah, I would just avoid

1:31:52

all that stuff. I think it's a lot

1:31:54

of superstition and it will kind of drive

1:31:56

people into mania. When

1:32:00

you start getting into that kind of occult

1:32:02

and magic stuff, what happens is you start

1:32:04

becoming kind of

1:32:07

a slave to things that

1:32:11

you're not meant to be a slave to. I

1:32:13

mean, I don't just mean the passions and pride, but

1:32:15

I'm saying like people that get

1:32:17

all into numbers and gamatria and numerology, they start

1:32:19

getting really superstitious and they think, oh, I can't

1:32:21

walk out of my house on this day because

1:32:24

this is the third day of the week. And

1:32:26

the third day of the week is, I'm

1:32:29

gonna have, the demons will get me to, if

1:32:31

you become a slave to things that you're not

1:32:33

supposed to be a slave to, right? Man

1:32:36

was made to be the

1:32:38

steward and master of creation, not a

1:32:40

slave to a giant algorithm

1:32:42

like the weirdo gamatria people think.

1:32:47

So let's see, Father Moses is up, what's up? You

1:32:57

just hit unmute. Father Moses, you wanna hit

1:32:59

unmute. You

1:33:14

gotta hit unmute before we can hear you,

1:33:16

we can't hear you. If

1:33:20

you wanna come back and try, maybe you got a

1:33:22

connection issue. So we

1:33:25

can't hear you, Father Moses. If you wanna hit, come

1:33:27

out and come back in. Super

1:33:31

genius, what's up? You

1:33:38

gotta unmute. Super

1:33:45

genius, you have to unmute yourself. Hey,

1:33:48

how's it going? Hey, what's up? So

1:33:52

you mentioned algorithms and

1:33:55

these days everything basically

1:33:57

works by algorithms, really.

1:34:00

You know, the ads you see on

1:34:02

Facebook, Twitter, X,

1:34:05

or whatever, it's all just numbers,

1:34:07

right? And

1:34:09

it tells people what

1:34:11

to think, what to believe, what

1:34:14

to buy, what to consume. And

1:34:18

at the end of the day, religion has no

1:34:20

defenses against any of this stuff because

1:34:23

it's in all the media. It's on TV, some

1:34:26

radio, it's even on your phone. It's

1:34:29

all about algorithms. So the

1:34:31

people in charge of the algorithms, right? Like

1:34:34

Elon Musk, Bill Gates. Like,

1:34:37

they don't believe in any of what you're talking about. And

1:34:40

that's why they're in charge. They

1:34:43

basically just worship money, right? They

1:34:46

worship money in a mechanical system that's

1:34:48

destroying the planet. So

1:34:51

when you guys talk about this stuff, it really

1:34:54

makes no sense to me because the reality

1:34:56

is that everything is going

1:34:58

to shit. And

1:35:00

no matter how much you debate, you know, which

1:35:02

religion is correct. Which one has

1:35:05

the right kind of ideas

1:35:09

or beliefs. Really, at

1:35:11

the end of the day, it doesn't make a difference because we're

1:35:13

destroying the planet. These people are destroying

1:35:15

the planet. Well,

1:35:18

I mean, if you think that finite human beings

1:35:20

are omnipotent and you want to be black-pilled and

1:35:22

nihilistic, I mean, I guess you can give up

1:35:24

if you want to. But I mean, our position

1:35:27

is that the nation's rage and the people plot

1:35:29

a vain thing. The kings of the earth set

1:35:31

themselves, the rulers take counsel together against Christ. And

1:35:34

they want to, you know, erect a

1:35:36

babble of their own. And it's

1:35:39

foolishness because as we just read in Isaiah, I

1:35:42

mean, Bill Gates won't be alive much longer. So

1:35:47

how is Bill Gates your God if

1:35:49

he's not even going to be, what

1:35:51

is he, like, 70? I mean... No,

1:35:53

Bill Gates is not my God. That's not what I'm saying. Well,

1:35:55

you just... you just... you attribute it

1:35:57

to them basically omnipotence. No,

1:36:00

that's not what I'm attributing to them. I'm

1:36:02

saying what they worship, the algorithm. That's what

1:36:04

they worship. You attributed to them a form

1:36:06

of omnipotence by what you said that they

1:36:08

control everything and that we have no power

1:36:11

basically. Yeah, because right now

1:36:13

we are on Twitter. Well, that's what I just said you did.

1:36:16

Yeah, that's fine. But they are

1:36:18

not attributing control to them because they're

1:36:21

not in charge. Well, who is

1:36:23

in charge? Because they worship the machine. So

1:36:26

who is in charge? Nobody? Oh

1:36:29

yeah, we're just throwing the planet. It's nobody

1:36:32

in charge, of course. So no one's

1:36:34

in charge. So the universe is just chaos? Basically,

1:36:37

yeah. So is everything

1:36:39

meaningless? No,

1:36:41

of course not. Wait a minute. If

1:36:44

everything is ultimate chaos, how is it not

1:36:46

ultimately meaningless? I'm saying,

1:36:48

if you believe in God, then... No, I'm

1:36:50

asking you. You. What

1:36:53

do I believe in? On

1:36:55

your position, if everything is ultimately chaos, how is

1:36:57

it not ultimately meaningless? No, no, that's not what

1:36:59

I'm saying. That's what you said. That's

1:37:02

not what I said. I'm asking you your position.

1:37:05

My position is... How does it not lead to

1:37:07

that? ...humans are destroying the planet. You're just repeating.

1:37:10

I know that. So, but you said ultimately it's

1:37:12

chaotic in your worldview. How does that not lead...

1:37:14

...the humans are the embodiment of chaos. Do you

1:37:16

not listen to my question? Are you not going

1:37:18

to answer the question? What's your

1:37:20

question? If you

1:37:22

believe that ultimately reality is chaotic,

1:37:25

how does that not... Let

1:37:27

me finish the question. How does that not

1:37:29

lead you to also believe... I asked

1:37:31

you and you said yes. I

1:37:37

asked you if you believe the universe is ultimately

1:37:39

chaotic. You said yes, correct? Yeah,

1:37:42

of course. Okay. How does that not

1:37:44

logically lead to the universe being meaningless

1:37:46

in your view? Because

1:37:49

that doesn't follow. Okay,

1:37:52

how does it not follow? Explain to me. ...between meaning

1:37:54

and chaos. How does it not follow if

1:37:56

it's chaotic? Because you are

1:37:58

making that connection. asking you in

1:38:00

your position so in your position how does it not lead

1:38:02

to that? Because your mind is small

1:38:04

and you cannot comprehend it that's why it's chaotic. My

1:38:08

mind is small and I can't comprehend your answer. You're

1:38:11

a human being right? Your mind is small. Do

1:38:13

you even understand the question? I'm asking for

1:38:15

a justification for your position of meaning. In

1:38:19

my world there's no connection between

1:38:21

chaos and meaning. Meaning is something

1:38:23

else. I

1:38:25

know that there's something else but if the

1:38:27

universe is ultimately chaotic aren't all the parts

1:38:29

chaotic? No,

1:38:32

again it doesn't follow. Okay why does it not follow?

1:38:39

Because even in a chaotic universe

1:38:41

there can be order and structure.

1:38:43

Okay where does the order structure

1:38:45

come from? How would I know? Okay so

1:38:48

there's not a justified position so it's just

1:38:51

total sophistry. Moving

1:38:53

on let's see hex

1:38:56

nub. People

1:39:03

don't realize that you have to be consistent with

1:39:05

your worldview. Like you can just pause it all

1:39:07

kinds of I mean I guess in that guys

1:39:09

if reality is chaotic then he doesn't have to

1:39:11

be consistent. Oh he don't have to be consistent

1:39:13

then you don't have any arguments against God's existence

1:39:15

or Christianity because nobody has to be

1:39:17

consistent. Unmute. Hex

1:39:21

nub. What's going

1:39:23

on Jay? What's up man? I just

1:39:25

had a question. Can

1:39:28

one argue that Protestants can be semi-nostic

1:39:30

in a way? Absolutely, I've been arguing that

1:39:32

for a long time. Okay

1:39:35

how would you mount the argument because you'll get

1:39:37

these types that think they possess

1:39:39

this type of like esoteric knowledge

1:39:42

well like they'll say they'll

1:39:44

say shit like the Holy Spirit told me

1:39:46

so or like my interpretation

1:39:48

is correct because the Holy Spirit

1:39:50

told me. Well yeah you can just

1:39:52

ask them how do we know that that's the Holy

1:39:54

Spirit and not a lying spirit or how do we

1:39:56

know that it's not you know

1:39:59

your You

1:40:02

know you the pizza you ain't giving you

1:40:04

indigestion I mean, how do we know that's

1:40:06

what that is? And how would we adjudicate

1:40:08

between rival claims of the Holy Spirit speaking?

1:40:10

So if we got five Protestants in a

1:40:13

room in the Holy Holy Spirit quote-unquote told

1:40:15

them five different things How do we know

1:40:17

who's right? Gotcha

1:40:22

now beyond that I would say Protestantism

1:40:25

is Gnostic And so far as it

1:40:27

shares a lot of the same views

1:40:30

as the actual Gnostics not everything for

1:40:33

example most Gnostics didn't believe in like the

1:40:35

Trinity or the Inc the deed of Christ

1:40:37

and mostly Protestants believe in

1:40:39

the sort of the Trinity and

1:40:41

the deed of Christ at least they intend to but

1:40:44

when it comes to things like sacraments

1:40:46

and Iconography their iconoclastic

1:40:48

which is kind of a Gnostic

1:40:50

position. God is somehow opposite

1:40:53

the flesh opposite matter

1:40:55

Opposite the world that's

1:40:57

a tendency the Protestants have and so

1:41:00

for example They'll see passages where Paul talks about

1:41:02

the flesh Battling the flesh and

1:41:05

they think that's actually talking about the physical

1:41:07

body and not Paul stand in term for

1:41:09

the passions Gotcha,

1:41:12

okay, cool. So it would be correct

1:41:14

to call Gnostic as opposed to semi Gnostic

1:41:16

done Well, I just

1:41:19

think they have Gnostic tendencies. Maybe that's a better

1:41:21

way to phrase guys. Cool. All

1:41:23

right. Cool. Yeah, good point Yes.

1:41:26

So again the people who want to come back on if

1:41:29

you're not going to Understand what

1:41:32

it means to give a justification for a

1:41:34

position to give an account to ground your

1:41:36

worldview and your claims There's

1:41:38

no point having this conversation So you just

1:41:40

keep asserting these positions isn't an

1:41:42

argument and doesn't tell me why I'm supposed to

1:41:45

believe in a chaotic universe Don Felix What's up?

1:41:57

What's up, Don? Hello

1:42:02

Jay, how are you feeling? Still

1:42:04

good man, what's up? Very

1:42:06

good. So

1:42:09

I have a few arguments

1:42:13

I would like to bring up,

1:42:15

but they are just regarding two

1:42:17

things, the human Catholic Church and

1:42:20

the reality of ethnos.

1:42:23

Well, the first one we can talk about, the

1:42:26

second one might not work on YouTube. Right,

1:42:31

I could possibly just spell out the letters so

1:42:33

it doesn't catch it. Well, let's just talk about

1:42:35

the first one because that's not totally

1:42:37

relevant to today's topics. So what's the first

1:42:39

one? Oh,

1:42:41

very well. Alright,

1:42:43

so I will

1:42:46

ask this question first with

1:42:49

proposing an example. So

1:42:51

have you seen the movie Black

1:42:53

Panther? The Marvel movie? Yes,

1:42:56

I think so. Alright,

1:42:59

so you know how

1:43:02

Kiel Joy, he has a

1:43:04

legitimate fire for the throne

1:43:06

so he comes and he

1:43:09

does the match with the king. That's

1:43:11

the one about Wakanda, right? Yes,

1:43:13

this is for him. Alright,

1:43:16

so he is an outsider, he is

1:43:18

not grown up in Wakanda, but he

1:43:20

is a legitimate heir, he defeats Black

1:43:23

Panther so he becomes the

1:43:25

king and the soldiers are first loyal to

1:43:27

him. But

1:43:29

he oversteps his throne, they finally get

1:43:31

him out. So he is

1:43:34

an outsider and a usurper, even though he

1:43:36

is legitimate. So with

1:43:38

this in mind, I

1:43:41

am wondering if you've ever

1:43:44

thought of how the Roman Catholic Church is

1:43:47

in the same position with the Vatican. This

1:43:50

is something that the Trads

1:43:52

will bring up. I

1:43:54

know what you will usually say to them

1:43:56

is because of Vatican I can accept that.

1:44:00

that they can choose, so they cannot, they can choose. But

1:44:04

I would assume, and many of them don't bring

1:44:06

this up, but it's like they're, they

1:44:10

have problem with modernism and the

1:44:12

infiltration of the church is exactly

1:44:15

like this. Like even

1:44:17

though they have done everything legitimately and that

1:44:19

both be as they both, unless

1:44:21

they want to be a significant, it's like this,

1:44:24

all of the things that they have put in

1:44:26

place and opened up is because these

1:44:28

are the infiltrators, missions,

1:44:31

LGBT lobby, all of these things. Yeah,

1:44:34

I mean, the Roman Catholic Church

1:44:36

was infiltrated, sure, sure. So

1:44:39

for those who would be argued

1:44:42

by Orthodox, they

1:44:46

argue, don't

1:44:49

just accept Pachmama, if you're going to

1:44:51

be a consistent, going Catholic, even as

1:44:53

they tried, like this is what be

1:44:55

responsible for, this is an

1:44:58

infiltration, like we know

1:45:01

the difference and like the former councils

1:45:03

cannot be counseled out even if the

1:45:05

current Popes, you know, wish to pretend

1:45:07

to do so. Right,

1:45:10

so a present Pope couldn't cancel out previous

1:45:12

councils, right? I mean, I think that's true.

1:45:15

So what's the question exactly? So

1:45:18

with this in mind, I,

1:45:23

in part of this argument,

1:45:26

which to lay out is the

1:45:28

effect of, excuse me, first

1:45:31

Corinthians 12 or St. Paul, he says, there

1:45:34

are many parts but one body. So

1:45:37

each of these churches that exist

1:45:40

in the world are

1:45:44

representative of, usually of historical

1:45:47

peoples. So as much

1:45:49

as those who

1:45:51

wish to evangelize for Orthodoxy, Eastern

1:45:54

Orthodox Church in and

1:45:56

historically non Orthodox lands, like this

1:45:58

is the. One of the

1:46:00

main problems they're facing is that it

1:46:03

is so much a big foreign thing. Other

1:46:05

people, this is one of the reasons they do not

1:46:08

convert. It's to a foreign

1:46:10

atmosphere, a different paradigm. Well,

1:46:13

I mean, I guess it depends on where you are, because

1:46:15

like in Europe, like in France, there

1:46:17

have been quite a few people that are converting to

1:46:19

Orthodoxy, and old Roman

1:46:21

Catholic churches and monasteries are becoming

1:46:23

Orthodox churches and monasteries. So, I

1:46:26

don't know what kind of... Some people

1:46:28

just know the best rate for you is a

1:46:31

rate based on you, with all states. Not one

1:46:33

based on the driver who treats the highway like

1:46:35

a racetrack, and the shoulder like a passing lane.

1:46:38

Why pay a rate based on anyone else?

1:46:41

Get one based on you, with DriveWise from

1:46:43

Austin. Country

1:46:57

you're in, maybe in your country, if it's

1:46:59

dominantly Roman Catholic, there's not people converting to

1:47:02

Orthodoxy, but there's a lot of people, thousands

1:47:04

of people are converting in America to Orthodoxy

1:47:06

all the time. So, I'm not sure. It

1:47:09

depends on where you are. Yes.

1:47:16

One of the things that would help

1:47:19

with this is if

1:47:22

they were sort of experimented with the Western

1:47:24

rights. So, this is something that has been

1:47:26

attempted to make Orthodoxy more palatable to those

1:47:28

who are more used to your

1:47:31

Western religion. So,

1:47:34

even though I will not bring up the thing you said,

1:47:37

I must not. However, it's somewhat

1:47:39

related. For instance, all

1:47:41

the Black and Blue movement of Bryson. If

1:47:44

perhaps there was an Ethiopian

1:47:46

rights of American Orthodoxy, perhaps

1:47:49

this would make Orthodoxy more

1:47:51

palatable to the Black community.

1:47:54

Yeah, that's a good question. I don't

1:47:56

know how the bishops actually make that

1:47:58

decision. in terms of

1:48:01

like how they decide when is appropriate

1:48:03

to do a Latin right. Maybe they

1:48:05

base it on the, on

1:48:08

like how many numbers of people start

1:48:11

being interested in Orthodoxy. So for example, if

1:48:13

there was like a large

1:48:15

amount of black people getting interested in

1:48:17

Orthodoxy, they might, there might

1:48:19

be something like that. It's an interesting idea, I don't know.

1:48:22

I'm not sure about that. Next

1:48:26

up is Kenotic. What's

1:48:28

up, dude? Hey, hey. Beauregard,

1:48:36

since $10, thank you so much,

1:48:38

appreciate that Beauregard. No,

1:48:41

I'm sorry, that was from last night's stream. Noah,

1:48:49

$3. Can God do

1:48:51

something illogical like make a square circle? No. Does

1:48:54

it violate the law of identity in some

1:48:56

way? Basically, yeah. If you

1:48:58

watch David's video that he just made about how

1:49:01

there's no way to ground morals without God, David

1:49:04

has some good examples of this kind of stuff

1:49:06

where he talks about how omnipotence

1:49:08

means omnipotent. So potency,

1:49:11

in a sense that God can do anything that

1:49:14

is possible or potential, does

1:49:17

not include things that are impossible with

1:49:19

no potentia. So can God do evil? Evil

1:49:21

doesn't have potency. So no, it's not possible

1:49:23

for God to do evil. And

1:49:26

so the very word omnipotent potentia

1:49:29

does not include irrational or

1:49:32

absurd things like that. It would also go

1:49:34

along with, you know, Paul says it's impossible

1:49:36

for God to lie. Does

1:49:38

that mean that universals are eternal and independent

1:49:40

from God? Universals

1:49:43

are, in the creative world, principles

1:49:47

of creation. And

1:49:49

so Maximus says universals are creatures, they

1:49:51

can perish. They're based on the

1:49:54

logi in the divine mind. So

1:49:56

every universal has a logi in

1:49:58

the divine mind that's imperishable. because

1:50:02

God's thoughts are infinite as Basil

1:50:04

says and so he knows everything

1:50:06

every particular and every universal but

1:50:09

God's thought is not identical to the created

1:50:11

thing. JITSQ2

1:50:14

$1. What

1:50:17

is your opinion on stop signs being

1:50:19

inherently demonic? I assume

1:50:21

that's a joke nothing is inherently demonic. Lee $1.

1:50:23

I read the

1:50:26

Bible can you explain Genesis 9 20 to 26 I

1:50:29

don't understand what it means

1:50:32

for Ham and

1:50:35

Canaan in terms of the curse. How

1:50:37

did Ham seeing Noah mean

1:50:40

that Canaan was cursed? I

1:50:43

agree with the there's a book

1:50:45

called Primeval Saints by James Jordan and that's pretty

1:50:48

good covering a lot of this stuff. I

1:50:50

think basically what's going on there is that it

1:50:53

was a sign of disrespect so

1:50:55

rather than respecting his father even

1:50:57

in a compromising situation

1:51:01

he sought to shame him and

1:51:03

embarrass him right so we have this principle

1:51:06

that we cover our father's sins now

1:51:08

there's a limit to that doesn't mean like

1:51:11

if your father father's like some

1:51:13

kind of like just I'm a gaffery like oh I'm

1:51:15

gonna cover him up because it's my father I need

1:51:17

to respect him it's saying like

1:51:19

we don't try to expose and shame

1:51:21

everyone at all times especially

1:51:24

if they're people that we respect

1:51:26

or or deserve honor and respect

1:51:29

and so rather than honoring his father

1:51:32

he shamed his father and that's what

1:51:34

led to that situation I'm

1:51:36

pretty sure that's what Jordan's exegesis is I

1:51:38

think he's correct there Noah M $3 can anybody perform

1:51:43

a baptism no you're supposed to be

1:51:45

baptized in the church now

1:51:47

the church can at times decide

1:51:49

if a baptism that

1:51:52

occurred in some group is

1:51:54

received by economy but no

1:51:57

like we don't accept the Roman Catholic

1:51:59

position that atheists and Muslims

1:52:01

can baptize people. Cataclysm $10.

1:52:04

There's a girl that's called Zena North. She

1:52:08

makes my chest burst. I

1:52:11

don't know what that means. Does that mean

1:52:13

like you're growing boobs? Uh, you're growing man

1:52:15

boobs? That's probably from the IPAs that you're

1:52:17

drinking. Can you give me some advice? I

1:52:19

think you mean you have a crush on

1:52:21

somebody? Um, that

1:52:23

sounds like an internet chick, like an e-girl. So,

1:52:26

no, you don't need to have a crush on

1:52:28

an e-girl. So, uh, I

1:52:30

would say avoid having crushes on e-girls

1:52:32

and try to focus on, uh, focusing

1:52:36

on getting a

1:52:38

real girl in real life. Big boss $20.

1:52:42

I like to think that Jesus was a

1:52:44

ninja fighting off evil samurai. Um, I

1:52:48

don't can't tell if that's a joke or

1:52:50

being serious. I mean, I don't

1:52:53

know if I would make that parallel. Maybe you're

1:52:56

talking about the swords. I mean the

1:52:58

sword proceeding from his mouth is just a version

1:53:00

of the gospel, right? It's not

1:53:02

a physical sword. It's, it's

1:53:04

a spiritual sword that has to do with

1:53:06

subduing of the passions by which we serve

1:53:09

the demonic powers, right? So

1:53:11

that's what it's talking about. Day of

1:53:13

the Philippians $10. Nobody wants to

1:53:15

debate. You're on fire. I think

1:53:17

a lot of people do want to debate, but a lot

1:53:19

of people don't really understand what debate is.

1:53:21

They think that it's like

1:53:23

just yelling or saying a bunch of stuff or

1:53:26

arguing. That's not what our debate is. The debate

1:53:28

is more like a, um,

1:53:31

an exchange where you have rules that

1:53:33

you have to follow. And

1:53:35

the rules are the laws of logic. That's

1:53:37

why you can't violate those and

1:53:40

be a debater. I

1:53:42

mean, you can, but you will be a crappy debater.

1:53:45

So you can't just assert your

1:53:47

position over and over and over. You have to

1:53:50

abide by the rules and laws of thought, which

1:53:52

are called the laws of logic. Slavic doomer $5.

1:53:56

Is comparing the Christian Trinity to the Neoplatonic

1:53:58

Trinity a word concept of Absolutely,

1:54:01

absolutely. Classic example,

1:54:03

right? I mean, noose. The way that

1:54:06

Platonic philosophers use noose is not the

1:54:08

same way that the Church

1:54:10

Fathers from the Hebrew tradition think

1:54:12

of the heart. Very

1:54:14

different. So it's the same

1:54:16

word but very different meaning. Do

1:54:19

you have any other classic examples? Yeah, like

1:54:21

logos. I

1:54:23

mean there's just tons and tons of word concept thelacies.

1:54:29

Sorry for the only being five dollars. Well

1:54:31

you don't have to give me five dollars but appreciate it.

1:54:34

Michelle, new day, twenty five dollars. I

1:54:36

feel like I'm constantly unlearning and

1:54:38

relearning theology. That's everybody though. That's

1:54:41

all of us. I mean, there's

1:54:43

no point where, oh now

1:54:45

I'm converted and I know all the

1:54:47

theology. You're always going to

1:54:50

be readjusting and relearning

1:54:52

because it's a never-ending purification

1:54:54

process. And ultimately

1:54:57

it's not an intellectual problem. Intellect is

1:54:59

involved but actually intellect is secondary to

1:55:01

the heart. So to play on that

1:55:03

last point, people always think that you

1:55:05

can solve theological

1:55:07

issues and problems with intellect.

1:55:11

And ultimately it's not the problem of intellect.

1:55:13

It's a problem of repentance in the heart.

1:55:16

And then as you do that,

1:55:18

the intellect gets fixed. But

1:55:21

people flip that and they think, well I

1:55:23

don't really care about heart stuff. And

1:55:25

by heart I don't mean like sappy soy stuff

1:55:28

or like that's not what that's not what it means.

1:55:31

I have no idea what the seven years of tribulation

1:55:33

are in the book of Revelation. Well you don't have

1:55:35

to worry about that. Like it's not, that's

1:55:38

not the most important germane

1:55:41

issue in your life. Like figuring out

1:55:43

what the seven years of tribulation are

1:55:45

is not, I'm not saying it

1:55:47

doesn't matter but it's like do I have to know

1:55:49

all the problems in

1:55:52

the book of Numbers to, no it's not,

1:55:54

but that's that's not the most

1:55:56

important thing on the hierarchy of importance. $5

1:56:01

if a Protestant engages me as Orthodox an argument, but

1:56:03

he doesn't have any metaphysical philosophical basis or

1:56:06

understanding How can I go about arguing these

1:56:08

points at his level of

1:56:10

understanding? Thank you for everything. Thank you Yeah,

1:56:12

I just try to bring it back down to practical

1:56:14

stuff like You

1:56:17

know If you're talking to

1:56:19

a Protestant evangelical person doesn't know much about any of

1:56:21

this stuff Just say look, where do you think the

1:56:23

Bible came from? Like did it just drop

1:56:25

out of the sky? I mean How

1:56:28

do we solve you know when there's there's

1:56:30

gigantic divisions in the church like they can't

1:56:32

all be right So these

1:56:34

are the kind of basic issues that? You

1:56:37

know you can ask them to well What do you think the

1:56:39

Christians in the first 500 years

1:56:41

believed do you think that matters? Should

1:56:43

we believe what they believe so start asking those

1:56:45

kind of basic questions to get him thinking about

1:56:47

those kinds of issues? Because a lot

1:56:50

of Protestants have never even thought about that they

1:56:52

never even thought about like Where

1:56:55

did the Bible come from like who decided like what books go

1:56:57

in there? You know what I mean? So if you get

1:56:59

I'm thinking You don't immediately

1:57:01

have to convert somebody to all of your

1:57:03

dogmatic positions in the first conversation, right? It

1:57:05

might take a long time of talking to

1:57:08

somebody and you might have to plant some

1:57:10

seeds of thought that Six

1:57:13

months a year later come to fruition, right?

1:57:15