1 Eastern Orthodox Vs 5 Protestants and Catholics (HEATED)

Are you stupid? Are you dumb? Because I said you cited it >> to the degree of invisible communion. I'm going to prove it to you right now. >> Are you reading on your metagasses? >> I'm going to prove >> Why are you reading on your metal glasses? This person's too stupid. >> I'm not dumb. I'm not stupid. You are stupid. >> No. No. Call me titties. Call your titties. It's all good. It's all good. >> Ice is coming, dude. Ice is coming. >> The unintended consequence that you're >> you're shaking right now. So, I trust video of you. Why should I limit myself to the church? Dude, where's your Yamaka? >> Were according to Pope St. Louis the Great. >> Yo, I could see why he retired and came back. >> Dude, all I got is a bunch of low levels. >> He's got his meta glasses up on a piece of glass. >> He's got his meta glasses. >> On a piece of glass in the middle of >> Get out of here, dude. I'm not even talking to you. My name is Jay Dyer and today we'll be debating uh the idea is the Orthodox Church the most faithful to the early church. The early church has as its normal practice cinnodality or collegiality and only the Orthodox Church maintains this principle of church [music] governance. >> All right. So Jay, what do you mean that only the Orthodox church has this caliggo cenotal matter when we have the same thing as Catholics? >> You don't have that. You have elements of what we have. But if you look at the structure of Acts 15, the way that the Jerusalem council happens, you'll notice that Peter does not rule that council. >> He's there with the other bishops. They have a debate. And then as you progress into the second and third century, you see cenidality. That means the normal governance of the church is local sinods collegiality. So you have Gangra, you have Ankaira, you have Nika and in canon six of Nika, it says that Rome has a similar jurisdictional structure to Alexandria and Antioch. >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. But here's the thing. Ozius of Cordova at that same senate who resided over Nika also resided over Sardica which said that the bishop of Rome has the authority to judge any deposed bishop anywhere else in the world and it does can canon for says that canon for says that both >> you understand that Rome itself now admits that the Sardic cannons are only about a retrial >> you're talking about Ki right >> yeah you know Kady the same document you like to appeal to a lot says that since the 3rd century Christians in the west believed in the Vatican won't papacy. >> No. No, it doesn't. >> It does. It doesn't. >> What's the la What's the last statement of K80? >> I I don't remember off the top of my head. >> Well, then you would know that that's the most important controversial statement. It says that the bishop of Rome did not exercise jurisdiction in the east. >> No, you know who wrote that? It was the Metropolitan that was with the cardinal at the time. I don't remember his name. >> I mean, it's approved. >> It's not We We don't this document. >> Well, so if it's not papery approved and it doesn't matter, then why did you just cite it as a proof for the papacy? >> I didn't site it as a proof for the papacy. >> You just did. You brought up >> No. Two seconds ago. You said >> No, you said that. >> You said it. You just said that. >> No. No. You said that. Doc, you brought up that document, but that same document refutes you. All right. Let's go back to >> Okay. So, if it refutes me, then it's not a good proof, right? >> It against your position. >> No. I mean, it's not a good proof for you. If it refutes me, but then you also reject it for its very last paragraph. >> No. No. It's a It's treated as scholarship. It's not It's not binding to believers. >> I didn't say it was binding. I said it's paperly approved. I mean the the joint commission is it under it is it under the paper the joint commission of the orthodox and the Catholics that is joint approved no pope signed k >> that's not true the pope later Leo has said that is a paply approved document he said recently >> I don't I'm not sure so you don't know that let's go back to sardica okay so if your position right is that the bishop of Rome didn't have the authority to judge um jurisdictions outside of himself when it comes to a deposed bishop why is it that in contra >> you don't even know what says I didn't even I didn't even see that. >> Canon 4 canon 4 says >> it says a retrial in that bishop. >> Canon 5. That's canon 5. >> Canon 4 says that when a bishop is deposed they go to Rome and Rome makes the judgment and no one is to be put in that sea until Rome makes that judgment. >> The judgment is for a retrial. He's not an autocrat. >> Why does say in the very last statement that it's not a universal >> jurisdiction? Let me ask you something. No, let me ask you because >> K8 is irrelevant right now. >> You just cited it as an argument. You brought it up. >> You cited it as an argument against me after I brought it up. >> No, you you cited it. The same thing. All I said was the same document you're appealing to doesn't represent your position. >> It doesn't have to. I'm not a Roman Catholic. It's an internal critique of your position because >> it's a dialogue between the Orthodox. The Orthodox wrote it >> and it admits that the that Rome had no universal jurisdiction. It's the last paragraph. Does it say that in the last paragraph? >> I'm I haven't I haven't read it in a while. But Jay, are you saying that? >> Is it saying it in the last paragraph? >> I haven't read it. I just told you. >> Okay. It's the most controversial statement. It does say that. >> Wait, Jay, real quick. You're >> Don't keep saying my name, dude. Come on. >> Okay. You're telling me we can't talk about what Julius said without talking about the clown masses of today. >> What? That's totally irrelevant to this to this completely. >> This is not the prompt. Clown masses have nothing to do with your prompt. >> I know, but it I'm I'm saying that that comes way later. But when it came to Julius who was at the council of Sardica, do you think he believed your ecclesiology that's only for a retrial? Yes, he did. Okay, let me ask you this. How come in Simon's church history and Socrates's church history, they both say and so does Athanasius that he reinstated Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Anyra, Athanasius of Alexandria, all to their >> Do you understand that Ke who did the >> Why do you keep interrupting me? Why do do you not know that Kied says that other patriarchets did the same thing? >> No. No. >> You're saying it doesn't say that. >> Sardica doesn't appeal to that. >> Kied I'm talking about Sardica. >> I'm talking about your church's interpretation of the dumb thing that you're >> of Sardica. >> Yes. Kied says that also the patriarchs in other jurisdictions had the same place as Rome. They got appealed to >> the Orthodox wrote that. >> Did Alexandria get appealed to? >> Yes. Alexander received appeals, but it wasn't it wasn't superseding the regional jurisdiction. >> You know that. >> Nor is Rome because it allows for a retrial. No, it doesn't. >> Let me ask you. Do you think Do you think you just keep changing from one thing to another? >> I'm trying to stick to I'm trying to stick to the same topic. >> You cited Ki to refute me for using Ki. >> I didn't cite it. Watch this. The way >> Are you stupid? Are you dumb? Because I said you cited it because I cited it to refute me. Right. >> Yes. That that doesn't represent your position. >> Are you stupid? Are you going to let me know? >> It doesn't rep It doesn't represent my position nor your >> Does Leo site Ki? >> Does Leo? I'm not sure about Leo. >> You don't know because he does. He cited it recently. We did a whole stream without on it. >> Hang on. >> Leo said that the dialogue at K80 does represent the Roman church's attitude. >> You think Orthodox is a sister? Is it a sister church? >> Yes. >> How could it be a sister church in schism according to Vatican 1? >> According to Vat What do you mean? Because Vatican 2 stop >> Vatican 2. >> Vatican one. What does Vatican 2 have to do with it? >> Cuz it's the same church. Referring to the same church. >> Vatican 1 says Eastern Orthodox are out of the church cuz they're damn schismatics. The >> So how are we a sister church? >> Because we lifted the excommunication off of you. >> No, you didn't. >> Yes, we did. >> How can you lift the excommunication if we still believe heresies? Hang on. In Vatican 2. >> So I can believe heresies and be a Roman Catholic. >> No. Wait, you're not a Roman Catholic? >> Are you stupid? >> What? >> Are you stupid? >> No, I'm not stupid. You said that I can be a sister church believing heresies. >> Mhm. To to a degree. You're still invisible communion. >> No, actually, >> you know, we have reestablished invisible communion, right? >> That doesn't exist. There's no such thing as reestablishing invisible communion. >> Why does why does Barthomia say >> how can I be a schismatic? Are schismatics outside of the church? >> Yes. How >> then? How can I be in the church if I'm outside the church? >> Visible church. You're outside the church. >> No, you're a Protestant. >> What? >> There's an invisible church. How's that? That's a Protestant doctrine. >> No, it's not. Why >> the invisible church is the key doctrineism? >> Why did St. Robert Bellamy teach it? >> Why did St. Why does Bartholomew That's just an appeal to authority? He's not even a He's not >> my authority. Yes. >> Yeah. When you're critiquing that you have you have you have a saint that believes in a Protestant doctor. Why did Bartholomew Why does Bartholomew agree with it? >> Bartholome he can be a heretic. >> You're a patriarch can be a heretic. >> Yeah, duh. We're not papist. >> I I get that. You think that I'm a heretic, but I'm also in the church. That makes sense. >> I'm invisibly in the church. >> There's no such thing as invisible church, dude. >> There you Okay, let me ask you this. When it comes to what does your Roman Catholic doctrine say at Katad domino? >> Are we just going to keep spamming questions? >> What does katad domino say? >> It says you have to be subject to the Roman pontis >> and schismatics are what? Outside the church. >> Yes. >> So, how am I inside the church and outside the church? >> Because you believe in the same thing via baptism. >> One heresy puts you outside the church. >> Correct. Yes. >> So, you just refuted yourself. No, you're in to the degree of invisible communion. To the degree of invisible communion. >> You haven't proven the Protestant doctrine of invisible church yet. >> Bartholomew agrees with it. You agree with Bartholomew. Agreeing with a wrong position proves your church is invisible. I'm going to prove it to you right now. >> Are you reading on your metagasses? I'm going to prove >> Why are you reading on your metag glasses? >> I'm going to prove it to you. Right. When it comes to baptism, >> do you not do you not accept our baptisms? >> It doesn't matter. >> It does. I'm going to prove it to you. I'm going to prove it to you. I do >> in your own doctrine if you believe. >> Are you going to keep avoiding questions? >> You're outside the church. >> Okay. Do you accept our baptisms? >> Mystici Corporus. >> Mystique. >> You know what that is? Yes. >> Who wrote that? >> Uh P the 11th >> 12th. >> 12th. 12th. >> Okay. The Mstichi Corporus and uh the uh Satis cognitum of Leo the 13th >> teach that if you deny one dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, you are outside the church. >> I agree with that. The Orthodox Church denies >> several of your dogmas. >> But you realize that >> so we are outside of your church >> invisible form. Yes. But you realize you accept the same principle. You accept the same principle. >> What's the Let me No, we don't. Yes, you do. >> It doesn't matter if I I have a different system. Would it matter if I accepted that if a different system? No, it wouldn't. Yes, it would. Do you accept >> So, I have to have different system. >> Jay, stop. Do you accept our baptisms? >> No, >> you don't. No. >> So, you're a Donatist? >> No, that's not the Donatist. Yes, it is. >> You don't even know the Donatis. Okay. Why is it Bartholomew? >> What's the difference between the donuts? >> Watch this. Why does Bartholomew John the 10th and >> they're not I don't care if they make a mistake. You don't even know the difference between position and our position. >> Yeah. Because Donatists are essentially that you have to be a sinless perfectionist in order to administer sacraments, >> right? And how does that differ from the Athanasius position for example in the festival letters where he says that outside of the Orthodox church the Catholic church >> the Catholic church >> how do they not have the Eucharist >> he's referring to Aryans obviously they don't have the Eucharist Jay >> they would have the Eucharist as an Aryan if they had apostolic succession in your position >> what >> a valid conseidly ordained in your position through exoperado they still have the Eucharist >> no a valid ordination can't be under heresies Yes, it can. You don't. That's exoperado. >> No. No. >> Yes, it is. You don't even know your position. Exoparado says if the was What are the three things What are the three things necessary for a valid sacrament in your view? >> Uh, we're not going to go keep >> You just made a claim. So, you need to know your three your three bases. What are the three things? >> No, I'm not doing this question >> because you made a claim that you came back up. >> I'm trying to get back to the question. >> No, you made a claim and now you're stuck. >> No, I'm not stuck, J. >> What? You just made a stupid mistake. What does Xoper mean? I I don't know that Latin term. That's irrelevant doctrine. >> Hang on. Why are we jumping from topic to topic? Why are we jumping? No, you brought >> you brought up sacraments and baptism. You >> Yes. You accept our baptism. We don't. So, you're a donist. No, we don't. That's not even the three of you know what it is. >> Okay. Why is it? Let me ask you this. Right. When Paul V 6 met with the patriarch of Constantinople, that patriarch >> You saying that we have a paper position? >> No. No. I'm saying that your leaders accept our baptism so long as >> I don't care because they're not popes. You don't understand that. >> Does the can grace of baptism be administered? >> You don't know your own position. Why am I going to listen about the grace of baptism? You can't tell me what the basic is. >> Cuz you're a donatist. >> Tell me the difference between our position and donatism from our perspective. >> From your perspective, um it's any valid sacrament has to be by an ordained clergy of the Orthodox Church. Donatist are sinless perfectionists that >> So that's not Donatism. >> Huh? >> By that explanation, it's not Donis. >> You're leaning towards you're leaning towards >> Oh, so now you've moved now you move the goal post. You move the goalpost. You just move the goal. You >> move the goalpost. I brought up Pope Julius. You brought up not relevant to what we're talking about. >> Okay. Can we go back to the topic of does the >> where do you get papacy out of this? By the way, Sardica is not the first three centuries. >> It's in the third century. It's after it's in the 300s. My argument. >> Did you say third century? >> I said first, second, and third century. >> Okay, then that's my bad. But still, do you seriously >> because you're I didn't hear you say third century. >> I said first, second, and third century. >> All right, then. >> That's my fault. I'm sorry. You could look it up on your medical glasses. >> I wasn't recording, but can we get >> Perfect. That was amazing. [applause] >> Awesome. The early church is not Protestant. And one way we know that is because they do not have a set cannon of scripture. And so they are using consistently tradition. And it's only centuries later that there is a canon of scripture. >> What's up? So >> what's up? >> Could you go ahead and say >> so J fake and J >> something like that. >> Yeah. you can go ahead and uh still man your claim a bit more. >> Yeah. So my position is that if you look at the early church particularly the first three centuries but we don't have to stop there. We can go to fourth and fifth and sixth as well. You will find that they do not have a consistent clear canon of scripture. In fact many of the church fathers will list between east and west varying text cannons of scripture. Right. In the 4th century in the west you have the council of Rome in the 380s and that cannon of scripture includes the dudero cannon. In the eastern apostolic cannons in the 4th century you have a canonical list that includes the dudero cannon. Okay. So I'm not saying that that settled the canon. I'm saying that by the 4th century east and west what is the normative practice is to site and use the dudero cannon. So even if there's not a set universally accepted cannon there's still no evidence for the protestant cannon except for St. Jerome and there's no reason why as a Protestant I have to accept or should accept Jerome's cannon. So we need the Eastern Orthodox Church to determine the cannons is a big chunk of your claim >> is >> it's inextricably bound up with the providential move of history that the east and the west both were involved in the process of the formation of the canon. >> But just a yes or no is the Eastern Orthodox uh church needed in order to establish a cannon? >> It did establish the cannon. >> Yes. I mean >> you're assuming that there's these different church. Is there a different church in the first eight centuries? >> I mean, I think that whenever we discuss the term early church, whenever you mean Protestant, do you just mean like generally one that a sort of belief that doesn't confide with >> Well, particularly here, it's about the canon. So, that's why I mentioned St. Jerome and the Protestant cannon. I mean, whenever whenever we talk about the eastern the Eastern Orthodox Church establishing a a cannon, if you're going to connect that to Eastern Orthodoxy being like the fullest of the faith, I think that what we're going to end up running into here is a bit of a like what what type of standard did um did the church fathers or sorry, did the Eastern Orthodox Church go to in order to establish what was scripture and what was not? Did they go by like historicity or did they just know what was canon? Well, if you look at the canonical debates in the various councils, they looked at what the church fathers prior to them accepted, what the apostolic seas handed down and passed down as tradition. For example, that Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew. Uh you look at the uh other councils that were prior to those councils. For example, Trello will look back to the previous ecumenical councils when it says we accept what Carthage said uh about the Old Testament cannon. That's why it includes the duro canon. I really hinge this argument on the acceptance of the Dudo cannon by the 4th century east and west. So why would I think that I don't accept the duro canon as a Protestant? >> So just to just to elaborate a bit for everything you just everything a good chunk of the things you just listed have to do with history. Would you say that history is the basis as which >> I listed one element of history not everything? >> I mean you said that to do with the >> you don't think the canon was a historical decision? I think that the And do you think like like in the sense of like do I believe like the cannon was established at some point? Yeah, I'm confused on what you're talking about. >> Okay. When >> um like a a direct time I probably a same time off the top of my head. >> So but I'm saying but I'm argue argue that 4th century you have absolute cannons in the east and you have council of Rome in the west and those are normative for east and west by fourth century. I'm not saying that they are authoritative even necessarily infallible or whatever. I'm just saying east and west universally for the most part except for Jerome excepted the duro canon >> and you're connecting that to the idea that that you >> the argument is the orthodox church is the most most faithful to the early church. So why does your church whatever that is protestant not have the duteronical books because it's not faithful to it. I I mean, like I like I said earlier, I feel like the the idea that we're just going to keep running into it. It's it's the fact that I feel like what you're I I feel like what you're doing here just really isn't faithful. If I'm being honest, >> what I feel like it's it's just not really faithful here. What I'm being honest with >> Okay. Did I make an argument? >> How is it not faithful? >> I mean, I I I feel like what we're talking about here, if you're connecting the fact that um we're like we we don't have certain scripture. I believe that's we don't have certain scripture and therefore what we have is is less of the faith. I just don't see. >> Okay. So then tell me why the Protestant church is more faithful to the early church then. >> I mean you I mean you've given an you've given a an argument. I'd like to for for you to expand on that even more. So again, I'm arguing that if I look at the first, second, third, fourth century in the in the 300s, the east and west are using the dudero cannon and I cited the specific examples. And then by the sixth and 7th century, the e the eastern church and the western church agree on the dudero cannon almost universally. Now for the Roman Catholics, they have a different measure because they're going to look at the council of Rome because Pope Damos has said it. So therefore that makes it normative for them. From the Orthodox perspective, we're more interested in totality and collegiality. So for us, East and West, speaking at an ecumenical council is when the seventh council accepts Trello, which Rome doesn't accept. But regardless, East and West agree by the seventh ecumenical council and it includes the Dudo cannon. So I'm saying if we take those first four centuries or the four first seven centuries, we don't see the Protestant cannon except for St. Jerome. But if we're going to go with Jerome in terms of most faithful to the early church, then why as a Protestant should I accept what Jerome said? >> I Yeah, I'll end it right here. I'll uh I'll I'll go. I'll let someone else take over this. >> All right. Okay. First of all, you didn't give us a prompt. You gave us a thesis that was 400 words long. Secondly, as it relates to the main point of the whole discussion is the Eastern Orthodox closest to the early church. Well, how early? Your point in this is you're talking about they don't have uh the the scripture, the cannon, the same cannon. Well, the the first century church didn't have a canon. >> So, wouldn't that be >> closer to the Protestant that doesn't have your canon specifically? Not at all. Because the Protestant position specifically delineates the 66 books of their canon. So, that actually works in my favor. If the first three centuries of the church don't have a canon, that proves that they're not faithful to that early church. So where's the Protestant? >> How does that make any sense? The early church didn't have a canon. >> Yeah, >> there was no canon. >> So they weren't working on soul scripture. But again, you you're saying your claim is that like the Protestants don't match the early church, you know, the first century because they don't have your canon and the first century church didn't have your canon and they didn't have No, they didn't have your cannon here was about the >> the apostles didn't have your canon. If your canon was established in the third, the first century, >> I didn't argue it was established in the third century. My point is is like how early church cuz the earliest church of the earliest church the first the first century at least is like people meeting in homes in secret. So they're not operating right. So they're not operating planning churches. >> So they're not operating on solos scriptura. >> What are you talking about? What does that mean? What does that matter? >> Because that's the Protestant doctrine of >> they're not working on any scriptor Torah. Nobody's working on a scriptor at the time. >> So now So now you're not a Protestant. was no scriptor Torah in the first century. There was letters between churches. There was testimony between people. There was, you know, the people, the eyewitnesses going around telling people there was Paul planting churches, but there was no script Torah at that point. There was no script Torah or canon or gatherment until a certain point. So church now matches the Protestant church. Okay. the closest sense the the point is the letters of Paul to the churches the testimony of the apostles and the eyewitnesses the words written down Luke's history he gathered the history of Jesus and his life and what >> so the Protestants didn't teach solar scripture I mean so so the Protestant doctrine so >> what does that have to do with what we're talking about >> because you don't even know the Protestant doctrine >> I do know the Protestant doesn't apply right here >> so they're not teaching sol scripture >> the main promp So they're not no the main prompt is admitting the prompt is the Eastern Orthodox Church more bas and I said three centuries yes exactly yours instead of prompt that's four ages long is talking about the the canon >> did anybody have the century the first century church didn't have a canon >> so they're not operating on solos scriptura so they're not Protestant >> that doesn't matter that's argument here. >> No, it is not. >> It's my argument. You just said canon. You >> the Protestant canon, >> right? Exactly. >> So, they don't have it. >> The 66 books is the >> So, they're working on tradition. >> No, >> you just said they were >> tradition in the very early church. There was no tradition. It was the Jewish tradition. Does Paul tradition >> in second Thessalonians Paul talks about tradition? >> The tradition keep the traditions people >> that I delivered to you. Paul says, >> okay, so they are creating the traditions that we now participate in. >> Paul says we all participate in >> Paul says keep the traditions that I delivered unto you whether written or oral. >> Okay. So again, so what are you saying those traditions were 10, 20, 30 years after >> the resurrection? What tradition? >> Everything that Paul delivered to Timothy, he says everything that you heard me say in the presence of many witnesses because he taught for three years in >> Ephesus. And how do we keep those traditions >> oral and written as Paul said? >> Well, okay. So then if he had oral and and written traditions that they were writing down solo scriptura, right? >> Again, you didn't mention a thing about solos scriptor. I don't have to. It's your doctrine. You should know that. >> No. In your prompt, >> I don't have to explicitly mention all of your doesn't say anything about solos scripture. >> It's your doctrine. It's not the prompt. It's not my prompt. I I don't have to answer anything. That's not the specific prompt. Why am I in the argument? >> No. What's your prompt? Read it again. I know it's like four sentences. >> The early church was not Protestant because they didn't have the canon of scripture that Protestants have. >> Okay. The canon of scripture. There was no canon of scripture. So they don't believe in church. That has that doesn't follow. It has nothing to do. >> You already admitted they didn't you already admitted that they didn't follow. It's a critique of your position. >> Nothing to do with it. >> It's the argument. What is my position? >> You believe in solos. What did I just say? Are you a Protestant? >> No. What did I just say? Are you a Protestant here? What did I say? >> Do you believe in solos scripture? >> That has nothing to do with my argument. I don't sit there and say it has nothing to do with it when it's my argument in your face right now. >> My argument and your prompt says canon. So, we're talking specifically about >> canon is the 66 books. >> So, >> so why are you not defending it? >> There was no canon in the first. So, again, you can't relate. They weren't Protestants. >> Well, then the Eastern Orthodox has their canon. The first century, no canon. Arguing for that. So, again, you don't even understand the argument. >> No, I do understand the argument. I understand it perfectly. Repeat it. Your argument is what you just said. You said the Protestants is not as close to the the original church because they didn't have a clear canon, right? >> The first century church. >> So, they're operating on tradition. So, they're operating on tradition. So, solos scriptural was not true in those centuries. That's the point. But you didn't say a thing about solos scriptor in your >> That is the argument. When I say you're canon, you said canon. When I say you're canon in solos, >> you don't know your own position. Two different words. No, they're not. Yeah, they're two different words. It's included in the position. Two different things. It's included in the position. This is so low. >> It's not included. If it was included, you would have written it down. You had plenty of words to write it down. This is not even I can't. This person's too stupid. >> No, I'm not dumb. I'm not stupid. You are stupid. No. No. >> You're haggling over words because you can't make over words. That's who's the first person we're here to do over words. No, it's not. A debate is not haggling over words. >> You said canon. That's what I'm referring to. The canon is the >> your canon is the Protestant cannon. >> Yes. So what the point is they're talking about the century had no canon. Then they don't have your canon. Can you even make an argument? Then they don't have your canon. >> Doesn't they don't have your canon. >> Then they don't have a exactly. So it's tradition. >> So again the m Did Paul talk about tradition? >> The main prompt. Is that Did Paul talk about tradition? >> What tradition? >> I already defined it for you. >> Yeah. What? What is it? >> You tell me what Paul means by that. >> No, you tell me. >> I did already. I already did. >> Tradition is I did. I said it's what they were. >> You did it. >> You're just a gaslighter. >> No, I'm not gaslighting. >> Go back to the food bar. >> The food bar is still open head on. Read the prompt that you set out. It was 400 words. >> If there's no cannon, >> I did not not one single word. Do you know what a canon? scripture. We're not the [clears throat] canon. A canon is a group of included documents into a group of them. So yes, your canon has more books than the Protestant. >> If there's no canon, what were they operating on? >> Canon includes all of the books. >> If there's no canon, what were they operating on? >> But again, on the first century, >> if there's no canon, >> there was no canon, >> what were they operating on? They were operating on copies of the letters, copies of the testimonies and also the oral testimony, right? >> Testimonies. So it's not solos scripture. So it's not the Protestant position. >> No testimonies. So it's not operating on testimony. Testimonies tradition according to Paul. It's tradition. What happened? What literally happened. People going around telling them what happened. No clue what you're talking about. You don't have a clue. >> But a canon. You're using the word canon wrong because the word canon means a group. >> It means a rule. >> No. If you mean solos rule, if you mean the the concept of scripture, then you don't mean the word canon. So you should put that you should have put haggling over and the concept of it in your prompt instead of the word canon because the word can overather. No, I know exactly what. Will I find the correct prompt at the food bar? Will the word solos scriptorra be there instead of not under the donuts underut there and that's what you want to talk about because you want you don't want to address what I'm saying >> you don't have an argument >> the point is is like early are you talking if you admit I said three centuries three centuries you can yeah exactly so the first >> that's how early >> yeah didn't have a canon no >> thank you so they weren't Protestant thank you >> no one had a canon >> then they weren't protestant how are you how how does then they weren't protestant support the main prompt which is the weren't protestant closest to >> they were using our text meet the prompt it doesn't the overall >> because the dudero canon was the duton what's the dudo cannon >> it doesn't do what's the duton >> for your argument who cares it doesn't apply >> thank you so doesn't have any clue you don't even know what's being debated >> I know I don't know all of the words and all of the terms >> this is the thing being debated you don't even know that >> know that what's being debated You don't know what the dudero canon is. You have no business debating is the main. >> Tell me what the duton is. Is the Eastern Orthodox Church is the first early church because they're using it early because the three centuries because the first century the earliest of churches. They didn't have a canon. They didn't have traditions. They were creating the traditions that you're talking about. So who created traditions? >> They were creating an example. Give an example. the apostles Paul and all the churches that he started he started so they'realing so they're oral planting churches so they're oral no they would they're not all oral cuz they discussed anytime there was discussion about how the church you don't even listen to the arguments should operate the duton they all got together and they decided wrote it down the duton wrote it down the not just oral yapp yap yap yap has nothing to do >> what's the dut cannon >> has nothing to do with >> what is the dudo I tell me, Jay, I don't know. >> No, you're here to debate that. What is it? >> I don't. No, I'm not. Because again, >> you don't even know what's being debated. You don't even know what's being about the doral or whatever canon. It just the cigarettes you're going to go smoke there. Go get your Virginia Slims and your Doron. Go get your says canon. Go smoke your doral. >> Again, when I look in a pack of cigarettes, am I going to find solos scriptural? Am I going to find dural canon instead of what your prompt was was just canon. So again, the first century church, the earliest of church had no canon whatsoever. Thank you. So they weren't Protestant. It's not so they weren't in any way prove you're so they weren't Protestant. The the main topic which is is the Eastern Orthodox Church the closest. So they weren't Protestant. >> So again, what does that have to do with anything? >> How does it how does it follow? >> The food bar is going to close. Not the Eastern Orthodox. Not >> okay. Thank you. >> All right. So Paul writes in Romans 9 about the uh about the tradition of the Israelites and about um how they preserve the text. There are Israelites and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises and to them belong the patriarchs. So Paul is giving um clear clear instruction to us that the the Jews were the ones who had copied the scripture. They copied the text. Mhm. >> So when we trace back what the Jews had copied, we get to uh the 66 books of the Bible. >> Which Jews? >> So >> which Jews? >> Well, uh we have the Maseretic text from the Jews that had >> you think they had a Maseretic text at that time? >> Well, yeah, the Maseretic text was compiled. >> No, there's a protomaseretic text in the first, second, third century, and that's a theory. So there is no maseretic text that Paul cited. >> So you understand there's there's Palestinian Jews and diaspora Jews. Did they use the same cannon? >> Well, I would believe so. >> No, they didn't. It's not even all the Protestant scholars will admit that diaspora Jews, especially those that spoke Greek, they used the Septuagent. >> Well, no, they didn't use >> that's not questioned in in Protestant scholarship. >> Diaspora Jews who spoke Greek used the Septuagent. >> Okay. Okay. So, where are the dudero canonical books in the Dead Sea Scrolls? >> Yes. >> Where? Which ones? >> I don't know expl every specific one. >> They're not in >> I have a whole essay. Yes, they are. You're lying. I I have a whole essay. You don't even know that. I have a whole essay I wrote about that. And I cite nothing about Protestant scholars that duo chonicle texts include >> uh excuse me, the Septuagent includes the Duro Canon and the Dead Sea Scroll includes some elements of the Duro Canon. >> Okay. But >> but the the Dead Sea Scrolls also have the Essenes too. So that wouldn't prove anything to do with canonicity. It's just a historical addestation. >> It it's just a a remnant. Sure. Like that includes some of those books. But when we have the the Masterites compiling the text that they've had, they they copied it very diligent. >> Yeah. But you're begging the question, how do I know that I'm supposed to go with Palestinian Jews and not diaspora Jews when the apostles for the most part site which Old Testament? >> Well, they site from the Septuagen. I'll admit that. >> Yep. But at the same time, the Septuagent isn't even consistent with with which I mean you can say that, but why why are the apostle So now you're saying the apostles cited a bad text? >> No, I'm not saying that they cited a bad text. The manuscripts we have include different apocryphal books. That doesn't mean that the those exact manuscripts were the ones that >> Why weren't they all citing your Maseretic Proto Maseretic then? I'm not saying that they cited the Maseretic text because it's in Greek. So of course they're going to cite from the Septu. >> So then Romans 9 doesn't prove the Maseretic text. >> Okay. But >> for the for the church. >> Okay. But also in Romans 3, Paul says that you know they were >> How does Romans 9 or 3 tell you which which textual tradition is the church's norm? >> Well, it's because the Jews had copied it. >> But I just showed you that there's diaspora Jews with the Septuagent. The apostles are citing the Septuagent. Why am I supposed to go with the Palestinian protomaseretic tradition? >> Well, it's because they they didn't copy the books because they didn't have them. >> The the ma the Jews >> then what? Wait, the Jews didn't copy what books? >> The apocryphal books and >> the dudero canon has the the apocryph the duter chrononical books are not included in the maseretic text because they didn't have it. But how does Romans 9 and Romans 3 tell me which of those traditions is right for the church? It doesn't because it doesn't tell you in that passage whether we go with the protomaseretic or with the Septuagent which has the duturo cannon. And if the apostles continually cite the Septuagent and they site the Duro cannon, why would that not argue in my favor? >> Okay. So can you tell me? >> So you're not gonna So So your answer is a two quick way. >> Not necessarily. Just just let me know what what was it again. >> That was a question. Okay. So, Romans 3, Romans 9, Paul's referring to the Jewish heritage. We agree there, right? That they have the scriptures. They're passing it down. >> Yes. >> But I'm making a more nuanced layer of argument. I'm saying >> if you look, there's a tradition that's in what's called the Palestinian tradition, which is a protomaseretic limited cannon. That's the Protestant cannon. But outside of that, diaspora Jews that spoke Greek used and cited the Septuagent. And because the the Roman Empire eventually had at that time point A Greek as the normal language, the apostles tended to site >> the Septuagent for the Old Testament and that includes the Deuteronical text. So if the Romans texts that you're citing are intended to prove the Palestinian Jewish cannon, they would have cited that and not the Septuagent. >> Well, I would also say that uh Jerome had not included those. >> As a Protestant, why am I supposed to follow Jerome? >> I mean, >> you think he's a heretic? Uh, not all of his stuff. >> I didn't say all of it. >> I'm not. >> Does he teach justification by faith alone? >> I would believe so. Yeah. >> No, he doesn't. He consistently says that works are necessary for salvation. He was a monk. So, I don't think that you believe that monks and priests, right, >> believe in justification by faith alone typically, right? >> Well, just because that's what I think. I mean, I haven't necessarily read. >> Well, I've read Jerome explicitly, right? So he has a famous treatise on the perpetual virginity. Mary has a treatise on relics. Do you believe in relics? >> Well, I personally don't. >> Is it part of the Protestant tradition to believe in relics? >> No. >> Okay. So Jerome departs from the Protestant tradition, right? On fundamentals. >> Okay. Well, according to that, sure. >> Okay. And did he uh did you do do you know that he also included the dudero cannon in his version because he submitted to the pope? Well, I was saying that he wasn't. >> Huh? >> I was saying that he he didn't include the dudaro cannon in >> No, he did. He personally did not believe it, but his translation of the vulgate includes it because he submitted to Rome. >> What's up, dude? Hurry up. Ice is coming. >> Shorts are over there. >> Yep. You can see my testicles if you look hard. >> Yeah, >> Ice is coming, dude. Ice is coming. Hurry up. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, this is Paul's Christian Apologetics. I'm a Protestant and I'm happy to be debating you, Jay, on this topic. So, yeah. So it seems that you do agree though that um when Paul in uh Romans talks about um the scriptures being faithfully given to the Jews that he is referring to um uh number one he's referring to a set of Jews and what set of Jews are those >> I think that Paul is speaking collectively of the whole of the Jewish tradition. I don't think he's specifically saying in those earlier those passages I don't think he's saying which textual tradition. So, I was arguing that it's ambiguous with that guy. >> Okay. >> That doesn't tell me whether I go with Palestinian or diaspora cannon. >> So, are you are you arguing that uh Paul believed in an open cannon or um >> Well, since the New Testament wasn't written yet, technically there's not a full Bible cannon because it's still ongoing, but >> Right. with the New Testament. Yeah, for sure. >> But no, I don't think that the Jews had a set cannon at that time. No. >> Yeah. Well, the >> Jews don't believe that either. >> Yeah. Well, the fact of the matter is uh Josephus would disagree with you. He writes um in against Zapion that the cannon was long closed and up until the uh uh time of Moses up until the point of Arctic Xerxes that >> well yeah it's evidence for my position that >> no it's not I mean Josephus ended up being a heretic so for from the Jewish perspective so what >> well no he's definitely a Jew um that >> but I don't he didn't even but I mean from the Jewish perspective >> how is he how is he a heretic >> because he has terms of he has a weird logos view no I'm saying he's a heretic from the Jewish perspective so why should we listen to a person that the Jews consider a heretic on the on their >> How do you know that they were that he was considered a heretic by the Jews? >> He is still and to this day because he believed in the two powers. >> Well, by that logic like Pho of Alexandria and a whole swath of second temple Jews would be considered heretics. >> They they were though, right? So, in other words, oh no, excuse me. Let me take that back. I want to correct myself. You're right. >> Phod in the two powers, but uh Josephus ended up being some other kind of messiah believer. So he did end up being a heretic but for a different reason. So he believed in >> a heretic from the from the Jewish perspective. So basically anyone any Jew who believed in any messiah whatsoever um was a false Jew in your opinion? >> No from the Jewish perspective those people end up being heterodox Jews. So why would we listen to whom the Jews consider a heterodox person if we're looking to the Jews for the canon? >> Say that again. If say Pho or Josephus end up being heretics from the Jewish perspective, why would we listen to the people that they consider to be heretics to get the Jewish cannon? Wouldn't we listen to the normative Jewish? >> Well, by that logic, like anyone who believed in a messiah, any Jew who believed in any Messiah whatsoever, whether that be even like >> No, no. From the Jewish perspective, Jew Jews would not say any person that believed in a Messiah was necessarily a heretic. But if you believe in a false because they all believe in a coming Messiah. Yeah. >> Right. So, but if you leave a false messiah and and follow that tradition, then therefore their cannon is incorrect. >> Why ought we listen to a heretics's cannon from the Jewish perspective? >> Well, their cannon was pretty much the same like Joseph that >> No, it's not. You're just assuming you had Pharisees. Well, the thing is you're appealing to an authority too by claiming that the um the council of uh Trello or the seventh ecumenical council was the uh >> yeah from the Christian paradigm. But we're talking about the Jewish paradigm and you're saying that well Joseph >> then then it's a reductio, right? So because if I can't make appeals to testimony, not authority, then that >> why am I supposed to go with Josephus's argument? >> Oh, yeah. Because he's a first century Jew who was in contact with the Sanhedrin. He >> and other first century Jews who believed in the pal the diaspora cannon. >> They were not part of the Sanhedrin. They weren't Pharisees. They weren't um part of the same tradition that we inherit from. So Protestantism follows So Protestantism follows the Christ rejecting Jewish tradition. >> Christ is the king of the Jews. Do you reject that? >> No. But Jesus set up the apostles and the apostles cite which which text? >> They cite the Old Testament. >> Which Old Testament? >> They cite the closed 22 book canon. But >> what text? You you >> what text? >> The 39 book. >> Which textual tradition? The old >> tell me then >> the septuagent >> there are many septuagents. >> Okay. Do they include the do they include the duronical text? >> Do they include fourth mcabes? >> Do they include the duronical textcl? >> Well, no it's a reductio because >> No, it's not. You don't even asking me a question when I ask you a question. Is duoquay not a reductio? >> No. No. Because it's appealing to the difference between I'm not saying the difference. Calm down. >> You don't even understand the argument. No. Come on, dude. Calm your titties. Calm your titties. It's all good. It's all good. >> ISIS is coming, dude. ISIS is coming. Um yeah. So yeah, a reductio the difference between a reductio and an um u a tuoquay is a twoqu is appealing to your hypocrisy. >> Which tradition are they citing? >> Uh like I was saying um a reductio is appealing to the unintended consequence that you're >> you're shaking right now. So I had fun playing video games. >> Yeah, I'm making fun of you, too. Yeah, >> you're just repeating what I say, though. >> Yeah. So anyway, yeah, let's get back to the topic, right? Because you're um kind of shifting. >> Let me be let me let me let me restate what I'm saying so you don't misunderstand me. I'm asking you >> if Paul and the apostles are consistently citing the Septuagent. >> They're citing a Greek translation there. There's no such thing as the Septuagent, which you conceded on. >> I don't It doesn't matter if there's variance because I'm not hinging the cannon on that. I'm saying that Romans 3 and Romans 3. Why don't you shut up and listen to me what I'm saying? If Romans 3 and Romans nine don't specify whether it's a protomaseretic, exactly what I said to this guy, or the Septuagent, why am I supposed to know from those passages which is which? Which one do I go with? >> Well, let me tell you what's not the answer. The Eastern Orthodox. >> Which one do I go with? >> We go with what is most evidentially uh >> says who? >> Well, here's the thing, Jay. I'm not a vantel presuppositionalist like you. So, I'm going to do to testimony. I'm going to make appeals to scholarship. >> Yeah. Cool. So let's understand why that's let's do that. Let's do that because how would I know which one is the right historical evidence or claim? >> Yeah. So by and large uh everyone recognizes that the 22 book >> that's an appeal to that's an appeal to the masses fallacy. >> So councils that's a two quotequote >> on your position reductio. >> On your position you can't just ask me. >> Repeat to me. Repeat to me on your position. Why do I go with that? >> What's the difference between >> Don't ask me about the fallacies dude. Yeah, because you're shifting because you can't prove your evidentialism. Why am I supposed to go with this pro? >> You're calling it you're calling it a >> you made a fallacy to say everyone agrees with this way. What's the difference? >> Who believed in your in the first question in the first three centuries who had your in the first three centuries in the first that's not the prompt. In the first three centuries in the first three I'm not going I'm not going to answer this guy's question if he's going to go off into other topics. The first three centuries the first three centuries. >> Who had your cannon? >> Who had yours? >> That's a tuquo. >> It's It's a >> No, it's not. Who had your cannon? >> I like I said, Joseph. >> Who had your cannon? >> Josephus. >> In the church in the first three centuries. >> Josephus was a church. >> Who had your cannon in the first three centuries of the church? >> By extension. >> Name a church father that had your cannon. >> Name a church. First century church father that had your cannon. >> The first three centuries. Who had your cannon? >> The first three centuries. who had my cannon >> like >> yes for the 10th time >> like the majority of >> no name a church father name one >> sure let's go with uh Clement of Rome >> where does where does Clement give you he cites the dudo cannon >> does he >> well and where does he tell you where does Clement tell you the canon >> well he doesn't uh >> so he doesn't so so there isn't one >> so wait >> so he doesn't give you the protestant canon so you just admitted that Clement doesn't give you the Protestant cannon Well, you're the one asking for you're you're framing you're framing. No, here's the thing. Here's the thing, Jay. >> So, you couldn't name one. >> Can you just Can you Can you name one? Can you name one? It's a redo. >> There's not a cannon. That's my point. They're not soul scriptura. They don't use the Protestant cannon. >> No, but here's the thing, Jay. I'm not a vantal presuppositionalist. Like, my version of relevant to this. Who cares? My version of soul scriptura is not presuppositionalist. I look at the evidence. What does that have to do? I follow where uh >> You don't look at the evidence cuz you didn't know. You're literally a presuppositionalist. literally presuppos. >> Is that part of the prompt? >> No. No, it's not. But you you asked the question. >> So, who had the canon in the first three centuries as Protestant? Wasn't Clement. And he doesn't tell you a canon. So, you don't have one, do you? >> Silence. >> What? Where? Where's your >> Let's keep all this silence in. Don't edit the silence out. It's beautiful. It's beautiful silence. >> Yeah, I think I >> sound of silence. >> Silence. Sound of silence. side of music. Yeah. Um, no, I mean, like, here's the thing, Jay. Like, you're you're you're you're making like a bunch of like hypocritical critiques on my position. >> Ad hom. >> Um, >> okay then. Well, I not not not hypocritical, but it's a reductio in the sense that you're appealing to the irrationality of my appeals. >> You're an evidentialist. I asked for one evidence. You didn't give one. >> Yeah, I did. I cited Josephus and the fact that he was in church main >> in the church. Why should I Why should I follow with that? And why should I follow that? >> I thought you were a Christian, so I am. It sounds like you're a Jew. Like you want to follow Josephus and the Jews. >> Jesus is king of the Jew. Jesus is king of the Jew, sir. >> Yeah, but the Jews religion is fulfilled when Jesus came. So you're a Judaizing heretic. >> No, I'm not. >> Then why am I going to listen to Antichrist heretics? >> So we should listen to Antichrist heretics and not the apostles and their successors. >> Sir, all we we can go back back and forth. Sir, sir, sir. >> We can go back and forth and talk about uh >> Yeah, but you haven't given any evidences. >> We can go back, we can go back and forth and talk about like ad hominemum attacks, and I can call you anti-Semitic first. >> Oh, here we go. Yeah. >> I mean, you you're the one calling me Judy heretic, so I think it's a fair uh exchange. So, uh nothing personal, but it's whatever. Um >> where was anything anti-semitic in that? >> Where is Judaizing? Where where's the Judic? >> Because you're saying that we go with Antichrist rabbitic tradition to decide the canon and not the early church and the apostles. >> That's the early church. You're you're expanding the early church to include things like 7th century um >> specifically here said the first three. >> So where's the ecumenical council that talks about the dudero can? >> I didn't make that argument. >> Well then but then you can't you can't use that argument against me then. >> I don't have the same paradigm. Dummy, dummy. I believe in oral tradition. >> I believe in tradition, too. Okay. Yeah, let's make that again. Put your position on me. >> What position? >> Because no one in the first three centuries has the Protestant cannon. >> Joseph Joseph Church. >> Why? Why should I limit myself to the church? >> Dude, where's your yamaka? Get go get a yam. >> Did your Did your Did your come from a drrele? I'll bring you a drreleium. Uh uh >> now he's he's being anti-semitic. Look, he's doing >> you just copy all my jokes. And so now >> you you literally do it. >> When you copy my when you copy my Oh, here we go. So now he wants to start with a with a atheist. So good. Jews and atheist. That's literally all that. That's your church. Jews is is atheist. Good job. >> Where does the Old Testament come from? Did it just drop from the sky from the Orthodox church? No, we follow the Septuagent >> which was written by >> It was written by Jews. >> There you go. >> All right. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Nobody denies that. I mean, that was so stupid. >> The early church has a lurggical specific ordered form of worship that comes out of the Old Testament synagogue and temple service. The apostles gave that tradition. In the Protestant world today and in the Roman Catholic Vatican 2 world, there's not a consistent uh reverent form of lurggical worship. And thus, the Orthodox Church is the only one faithful to the early church again with your paragraphs instead of prompts. Okay. So again, same question on this matter as well. Like first off, how early and where where's your evidence for that? >> Yeah. So >> with the early church, >> the first three centuries >> look like the Eastern Orthodox >> first three centuries >> worship. Well, how about the first century? How about the first >> Yeah, sure. The New Testament. Sure. >> Yeah. >> So Revelation 5 through9. >> We do we know what their worship looked like? >> Yeah. Sure. >> Yeah. Cuz where cuz where how do we know? Because the early church in the book of Acts has evidences of liturgy. >> They wrote it down. >> Uh well, Acts is not describing the entire service itself. >> Okay. So then how do you know >> that? Well, the argument is that it's tradition >> because the New Testament doesn't have a worship service. It shows images of how they worship but not the actual service. So it's a tradition. >> A tradition >> of what? >> Of the liturgy. How to do it. The apostles set up lurggical worship services in their in their missionary efforts. >> Okay. So, you're saying that you know exactly how the first century church conducted their worship service >> not because they wrote it down >> because they >> well it eventually got down but event there we don't have a first century service but we have a later for example in 150 St. Justin Martyr describes the lurggical worship of the church. >> Okay. So it's either described written down >> it's eventually written down by the by the third century >> by the third century >> or I should say we have copies >> the other couple centuries you don't know. So the only thing we know about the first century >> that's not true it's say we don't know is not true. No that's not >> okay. Well how do we know? Demonstrate how we know. >> Well we have attestation and testimony to the type of service but the earliest actual lurggical record is like in the 200s but that doesn't mean they didn't have it. just means we don't have a written version of it. >> But we do have some written versions in Acts and in the letters. Oh, we don't. We don't. So, we don't know >> the people when the apostles gathered and talked about how they should do when Paul wrote letters instructing the churches on how to what they ought to be doing when they gathered. So, like we have that written down, but you're saying like we don't have a list itself. But so again, how early are we talking? So maybe third century century. Correct. >> Yeah. But the earlier church. So if I just say, well, I'm just talking about earlier. So it doesn't match with earlier. It's not the closest because you can't claim that you know how it is. >> I think you understand the argument. So >> Okay. Well, then go ahead and read it again. But >> if there's not a lurggical service, >> you know, do you know what I mean by that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So there's not a lurggical service in the New Testament. >> Kayla, I know what you mean. >> In the New Testament, [laughter] in the New Testament, we don't have a service. We have descriptions of how they worshiped, not the service itself. >> Okay. So if they're not worshiping clearly in your view, then it would have to be tradition. Correct? >> Say that again. >> If there's not a service in the New Testament, a written worship service, then how are they doing it? Has to be by tradition, right? Do they give instructions? >> No, but the service itself is not there. >> The service is not there. But but what we're told to do, >> so again, how would you know? How would you know what they're doing or how they're worshiping >> tradition? >> Well, then I have the same thing that I can go by, you know, how it was. The Protestant church doesn't have I have a description. >> You do not have a lurggical service like the early church. >> The Protestant churches today kind of match more with the descriptions of the first century. You don't have people meeting together, going around planting churches, evangelizing. Where's your altar? You know, we have altars. >> No. For a eucharistic service. No, you don't. >> Yes, we do. >> No. Paul says you eat the sacrifice at the altar in Hebrews 13. You don't do that. >> Protestantism rejects the idea of a eucharistic sacrifice. >> What are you talking about? >> Protestantism. Yes, it is. The Protestant church is founded on the Eucharist not being a sacrifice. what >> the Protestant position the Eucharist as a sacrifice. >> Well, the Jesus's position on what we ought to do and the first is as described in the scriptures that we have is is you know every time you eat the bread and drink the wine do this in remembrance of me. So we do that >> but that's not a Jesus said it should be doing >> Protestant Reformation. place in you know >> the church fathers believe in a real presence and it's a sacrifice talking about what Jesus said like you're not the first there I mean he kind of left it there >> so it's not the worship service every time we do this do it in remembrance those were his >> so you reject Paul so you reject you reject Hebrews 13 >> again Jesus >> you know I'm going to Jesus's words about it >> against Paul >> well yeah [laughter] >> so Jesus fights Paul okay >> you know I'm going to >> so you don't believe in inspiration >> I'm going to say well again if Jesus said it out his own mouth and then you just rejected Paul expanded on it Paul gave you know might have given some sort of like you know um additional this is how we remember it so Jesus wasn't he didn't inspire Paul >> I'm not saying that I'm just saying each other Jesus said so you're attaching a whole lot of stuff to what Paul said that I'm not I'm just saying Jesus I'm going to go with what came out of his mouth for the like So again, if you have some extra stuff you want to put on the extra stuff is to be >> extra stuff is Hebrews 13 claiming we don't have altars and then we don't you don't have a Eucharistic alter. That's your opinion. >> No, it's not. Yeah, it is. Because again, >> can you name a Protestant reformer who believe the Eucharist is a sacrifice? >> What I'm saying is that we have altars for the Eucharist. >> Not for the Eucharist. You do not. Protestantism is founded on rejecting the Eucharist as a sacrifice. You don't believe that in the Protestant tradition. That's not true. >> No, I'm pretty much going again with what Jesus said about it. >> What does that have to do with the Protestant position rejecting that's it's a fact >> because again, you're you're attaching a lot of requirements to the Eucharist that Jesus didn't. So again our position generally speaking is that whatever Jesus said about it is going to be what we >> the Protestant position also holds to to Hebrews 13 which you rejected this you know man was not made for the Sabbath but if you reject if you reject Hebrews not you know we were not made if you reject Hebrews if you reject Hebrews why do you accept Acts do you reject Acts too >> no of course not >> but you reject Hebrews >> no I'm not I'm not >> you just said a minute ago that it doesn't matter what Paul said I'll go with Jesus >> I didn't say it did Yes, you did. What Paul said? Yes, you did. You said he attached those other things. >> Okay. I take what Jesus says above what Paul says. >> That's heresy in the Protestant tradition even. No. >> So, you're not even a Protestant. >> That's not heresy. Jesus Christ. I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to stick with what he says. If he says that Paul inspired Paul contradicting what Jesus said contradiction, no. >> Then in Hebrews 13, Paul says we have an altar that we eat from. You know, you Okay. Again, I don't know what your >> Your tradition rejects the Eucharist as an altar sacrifice. Your tradition rejects that. Yes, it does. It's a That's Protestantism 101. >> No. No. That's just y'all's definition of what an altar is. I used to be a Protestant definition of what a Eucharist is. And you're >> You don't even know that Luther's one of Luther's key elements was to reject the Eucharist as a sacrifice. >> You know, I go, >> can you name a Protestant? >> Name a Protestant that teaches the sacrifice. And in what way is it is you just want to altar >> that you know no again I'm trying to figure out the context I mean you already contradicted Paul and Jesus >> you what I didn't contradict Jesus >> you contradicted Paul to Jesus >> I didn't contradict Jesus and I'm saying I'm not contra I don't know if Paul contradicts Jesus or not. I'm not saying >> well a minute ago you said that he did. Now you're saying you don't know. >> No I didn't say he contradicted Jesus. I said I don't care what Paul said. So he if he added on would it not be inspired? >> Jesus Paul church fathers. >> Yeah tradition. So again Jesus is up here. So whatever he says is more important than you know or more the point or more the the the actual point of something than what Paul says. Paul might expand upon it. That's fine. But again I'm not sure how this relates to anything about the prompt. >> Where in the New Testament? >> I've already forgotten. Where's the lurgical service? Where is the lurggical service in the New Testament? >> The lurggical service. I'm not saying that there is one. >> Thank you. So, it's tradition. >> Again, I'm not saying that that's not the point. Again, back to my point. Uh back to the main thing. >> My point is it's a tradition. >> The main thing closest to the early church. The early church didn't have it either. >> Yes, they did. >> So, the >> Yes, they did. Thank you very much, All right. So, with worship, um I can admit that a lot of Protestant groups don't necessarily agree with the traditions. Like for example, Lutheran have their own liturgy and um Presbyterians have their own liturgy, Baptists don't necessarily have a liturgy for service. >> But when Paul is laying out how Timothy should be conducting worship in churches. >> He leaves it up to how the elders are going to lead the church. >> Where does he leave the worship service up to any elder? >> So he whenever he appoints bishops and uh to lead churches >> that doesn't tell you that it's a that it's a open service. Well, he Okay, so in 1 Timothy 2, he explains that he exhorts all people to be praying for the leaders. And then later on, he explains that all men should be lifting up hands. And he also explains that women shouldn't be preaching um at all. >> Yeah, those are those are lists of dos and don'ts, but is that a service? Well, uh, that's not the whole service because we also have we have recorded sermons. >> The question was, is it a whole service? Is it a lurggical service? >> Not necessarily. No. >> So, should you, for example, have a reciting of a creed in the church in the church service? >> No, you don't necessarily need that. >> Well, now you're saying that, but I'm saying, how do you know that you shouldn't have that? Because Paul exhorts Timothy in 1 Timothy chapter 4 to have public reading of scripture, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have to read out a creed like >> and how does that how is that conducted? Could I have a worship service where I just read Deuteronomy? >> Sure. Yeah, that would be a great service actually. >> No, but I just read Deuteronomy, so I don't have to read anything from the Gospels in the in in a in your church service. Well, if you're only reading from Deuteronomy, you're not you're not uh being faithful to what Paul says to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16. >> It requires an interpretation and there's not specifics. >> There's not specifics for which scriptures to go through. >> Anything goes. Can I use Welch's grape juice in the Eucharist? >> No. Uh I mean, >> oh, hold on. How do you know? >> Well, okay. I mean, >> if it's corn syrup with 10% juice or corn syrup with% when you were saying it. Okay. >> There's not a regulation for what Welches is. >> No, no, I understand what you're saying now. >> When you when you first said it, sorry. There's not a regulation for what you necessarily need to use for when you're passing out the elements. >> Oh, can I use Doritos? >> I mean, Welches and Doritos. >> I wouldn't personally recommend loco. I I wouldn't personally recommend it, but >> I mean, but it doesn't matter. So, we can have Dorito, Welch's, for loco. So, could I mix the fourlooco and the Welch's grape juice and the Doritos? What if it's kosher Doritos? >> Yeah, you don't. >> So, there's no So, you don't have any idea. >> So, when >> can I do it in the basement of Can I do the liturgy by myself in the basement with Welches and Doritos? >> Okay. So you're when you're talking about the u you I I assume that you are talking about the you know first Corinthians when Paul is talking in chapter 11 about uh you know eating the bread and drinking wine for uh ukares right >> communion. Mhm. >> I I don't necessarily I wouldn't necessarily recommend that >> but I mean it's not clear. So sure it's not clear really. >> So it could be Doritos. >> I mean he's talking about unleavened bread. >> So it has to be unleven bread. >> Sure. Yeah. >> But it could be Welches. >> Could it Could it be Purple Source Rex >> Kool-Aid? >> So >> could it be Kool-Aid? I'm being serious. I mean I'm being silly about being serious. >> Yeah. I haven't really thought of that. >> Mhm. Well, that's the point is that the chaos of the Protestant church, which as we're seeing here from all of your answers, shows us that you don't have any clear laid down prescriptions about worship because there's not a lurgical. >> I can understand that it would it would be kind of stupid to have >> But why? >> Well, because it's not >> I mean, mega churches do all kind of stuff like this. >> Yeah, I know. I I can I can understand that. And I don't think that's honoring what uh Christ had done. I believe >> you understand that if you're not going by the tradition of what was laid down, that's why there's all the chaos. >> Okay. But then how do you define what the tradition is? >> We have the lurggical traditions in those apostolic seas. >> And it's a lurgical worship that we still have. >> Where are those first written down? >> They're not first written down until about the 200s. But but I'm saying that >> if it's a lurggical tradition and just because we don't have a year 200 lurggical text, it doesn't mean that they weren't worshiping that way. So if the requirement is that I only believe what's written down, you're not you're not going to be able to have the Protestant cannon because it's not written down in the first three centuries. So when when you're talking about having things written down, Paul had ex had had instructed uh the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 4 to not go past anything. >> Paul says to not abuse what he laid down as he says in Corinthians as a tradition. Paul uses tradition in Corinthians and he says follow the tradition that I delivered to you. >> No, that's >> no he says it and he says the same thing he says the same thing in Corinthians that he gave a tradition. It's It's in both passages, >> but he wrote it down. >> He didn't write the liturgy down. He wrote down, "Don't." >> Okay. So, if he didn't write a liturgy, then we don't need it. >> No, that's the point I'm I'm trying to tell you is that if it's an oral tradition that he establishes in those churches and they do a lurggical worship service, it is eventually written down, but it doesn't prove that they didn't have lurggical worship because it's not written down in 200. Let me give you an example. There's no Protestant list of a canon of scripture. There's no list of what the books are. Yet, they're still using those books in those centuries. Right? So, if you in other words, you nobody has the criteria that everything has to be written in a certain way or else we don't believe it because the churches don't have a written list of the canon. And yet, you still think that they were worshiping, right, in those centuries? >> On what basis? >> Okay, I would assure. Yeah, they they worshiped. I'm not going to deny that. How >> they prayed. They lifted up hands. >> How did they worship? Do you think we can read them? >> Uh well, we don't have the documents for that, but that doesn't mean that they didn't worship. >> Can we read the church fathers about how they worshiped is what I'm saying. >> We can we can read them, >> right? And how did they say >> Jerome Justin, how did they say they worshiped? >> Okay, so they say that they worshiped liturgically. >> Exactly. Okay, that's an example of worshiping that. But >> correct, >> since we don't have apostolic uh an apostolic authority telling us exactly how to worship, >> but we do. That's my argument. And the argument is that it's not in the Bible. We know they worship lurgically. The church fathers believed it came from the apostles. So therefore, it was a tradition passed down in the different seas. When Paul went to Rome, do you think he just told them like you said, "Do whatever you want." How could he tell them not to abuse the service to the Corinthians, okay, if they were doing whatever they wanted? So clearly there's a pattern of worship that he gave. >> Okay. Well, Jesus says to the women at the well that those who worship God will worship in spirited truth. >> What does it have to do with whether it's lurgical? It has nothing to do with this. >> Okay. Yeah. It doesn't have to >> How did David worship? >> He worshiped by writing the Psalms. He had >> well he yeah but I'm saying in the temple liturgy that his psalms are used in >> there was a pattern of lurggical worship right in the old testament >> yes >> okay when Jesus went to the synagogue there was a pattern order of worship right yes there was okay >> protestant scholars liturgists whether it's Hugh Wrew any of these people even Anglican and Lutheran >> scholars will say that the first second and third century church again Hugh Wru has a great book on this called the Byzantine liturgy. >> Okay. >> They worshiped after an apostolic pattern that was uh crafted out of the temple and the synagogue services. Okay. >> Okay. >> So the Protestant church does not have that apostolic pattern of worship. Do you believe that worship is so significant like Naabu in the book of Leviticus that if you worship falsely it could result in death? >> Yes, I agree with that. And Paul >> And Paul writes that in 1 Corinthians 11. >> We agree. We agree. >> Yes. >> So why is there not a worship service the liturgy itself in the New Testament? >> Because God wanted us to >> DIY do it yourself. >> Yeah. Basically >> why would God >> do it yourself? But you >> if he kills Native Au over offering strange incense fire, >> why would he leave it up DIY? And you just admitted that they worshiped lurgically in the first, third, second, third century. >> Okay. >> So, it's not DIY. >> Yeah, they Well, >> is how could it be lurgical and DIY? >> That's an example, but that's not a command. We since that's not an apostolic authority. Like, >> you're begging the question. I'm saying it is. It's a tradition. >> It's a tradition, but it it's not an inspired tradition. >> Well, how could the worship of God not be inspired? because we're we don't have the apostles with us anymore. >> Yeah. But the apostles in Paul's letter to Timothy set up the successors. Paul tells Timothy that I laid hands >> and the giving of the Holy Spirit is lay is given. So don't you lay hands Timothy on anybody hastily. >> So do you believe that the Holy Spirit is transferred in that way? >> No. It's in we have the indwell Holy Spirit when we >> No. In in Timothy's letter to Paul's letter to Timothy, he says, "I laid hands on you, Timothy. You give the gift of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. >> He does not say those words. >> Yes, he does. He says, Yes, he does. He says the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of hands. Don't lay hands on hastily. >> Okay. Can you cite that for me, please? >> Uh, it's it's it's either it's first or second Timothy. I don't remember. >> Okay. I I know what you're talking about, right? >> He specifically says, let me tell you why he says that because >> it's it's the gift of prophecy that he has. >> No, it's not. It's talking about the successors in Ephesus. Timothy is appointed by Paul in Ephesus and he says when you do this don't do it hastily because the gift of the Holy Spirit is given. >> Well, he doesn't say because the gift of the Holy Spirit is >> Yes, he does. He literally says that. >> He does not say that. >> You're lying. And yes, he does. >> Okay. So, and I I know I know what you're referencing. Do not lay hands hastily. >> Because why? >> He doesn't he doesn't say because why? Okay. So, I know in 1 Timothy chapter 4, he says in verse 14, "Do not neglect the gift that you have, which was given to you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you." And then he says, "Practice these things. immerse yourself in them. Um, I think it was in chapter five where he says >> [sighs] >> It's the passage where he talks about not doing it hastily. >> Yes, that's I I know that. I don't I'm on my way. >> Okay. So, it's it's first Timothy 5:22. So, Paul says, "Do not be a hasty in the laying on of hands, nor part nor take part in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure. No longer drink water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments." So I don't see anywhere here where it's referring to the Holy Spirit being given in that way. >> Yeah. The he says earlier in Timothy, do not lay hands any on anyone hastily. He says the Holy Spirit was given to you. And yes, it says the gift of prophecy, but that's the same laying on of hands that Paul's talking about. >> Oh yeah. So in in 1 Timothy 4:14, >> who did Paul put into authority in in Ephesus? >> Okay. He put Timothy, >> right? And the gift of the Holy Spirit was transferred to him. And then he says, "Do not lay hands >> of prophecy." It's a >> Yeah, but that's that's part of the apostolic power. >> Okay. But every believer has No, they don't. The Holy Spirit. Yes. >> Not every believer has the power of prophecy. >> Okay. Sure. But there are other gifts that are given by the Holy Spirit. Same Holy Spirit. >> What does that have to do with this? >> Each person can have a different gift. >> Not everybody had the authority in Ephesus. >> Okay. So that's why >> that's my point. And Protestant Reformation theology rejected the idea that there was a giving of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands. That's why you believe in a doctrinal succession, not a spirit apostolic succession. >> Exactly. >> In Numbers 11. >> Yeah. >> The uh the tradition says that they laid hands and the Holy Spirit was given. >> Okay. But the Holy Spirit works differently since we have the indwelling. The nying creed nino cosapolitan creed talks about the one holy catholic apostolic church. Only the orthodox church still maintains these four marks to this day. Protestants and Roman Catholics do not have one holy catholic and apostolic. >> All right, [clears throat] Jay, let's see if you do the dodgeball this time. So, when it comes to one holy catholic apostolic church, does that um involve communion necessities? >> Communion necessities. >> Yeah. So between the patriarchs, between the bishop of Rome, between authority, >> does communion and and necessitate patriarchets? >> No. No. When you say one holy, Catholic and apostolic church >> within that claim? >> Mhm. >> Is it qualified that there must be um necessity of communion between certain bishops or between the bishop of Rome or an authority within that claim? >> Uh at Constantinople one, the whole council happened out of communion with Rome. So no, Rome is not necessary. >> Okay, Rome is not necessary. Okay, can we I want to talk about calcedon. So at the council of calcedon after Ephesus 2, the robber council, the patriarch had said that they held a sinned without Rome and they can't do that. >> And then the deposition of dascorus was immediately imposed um that Pope St. Leo the Great did before the council. >> And then along at towards the end, we can go over it if you'd like. They said it is absolutely necessary to submit to Leo's authority when it comes to his tome and to submit to the decisions. And this is session 10. Anatolia said Leo overturned Ephesus 2 and instated Maximus to replace Dominus in Antioch. >> So >> yeah, none of that proves Vatican 1 view. >> Did I say anything about Vatican 1? >> Well, your argument is that the Roman Catholic interpretation is what they had, right? No, I'm saying that that >> you're arguing for the Roman view of the four marks, >> right? And I'm saying that the authority of the Roman pontiff is included with the four. >> That's equivocation because it's because you're assuming that the authority is the Vatican 1 interpretation. I >> the orthodox view can agree that the patriarchs are needed and yes, absolutely people appeal to Rome because that's part of Sardica. Sure. >> Is the is the bishop is the bishop. >> It doesn't prove that the bishop of Rome is the mark of the for of the church. >> Is he necessary? It's necessary to have as many patriarchs as possible. >> Okay. But is the bishop of Rome specifically necessary? >> They're all necessary. >> They're all Is the bishop of Rome specifically necessary? Cuz >> if you want to if you want to secure your position, you want all of the patriarchets and bishops as as many as you can get. >> Okay. So, when it came to over >> was it necessary cons? >> Hang on. When it came to Ephesus 2, right, did anyone but Pope St. Leo the Great overturn that council before session 10? >> Probably not. >> Okay. So he overimposed his authority over the other patriarchets because everyone else affirmed it the other four. >> So in that instance was having communion to him >> to submitting to his decision necessary to be in the one true church. >> No. Although it would be >> So could I have been in communion with Alexandria >> when they accepted Ephesus 2? >> Well these periods of communion and out of communion are ambiguous at times. >> Right. And didn't you argue that in your first statement? >> I don't remember what we argue. >> You argue for an invisible church. >> Invis to a degree. >> So, but does it apply here? >> But does that apply here when it comes to being in communion to the Roman pontiff? >> One holy Catholic. So, the four marks is that invisible this time. >> Not this time though. >> Can we? >> Are you serious? >> Not at this time. >> So, the Roman Catholic Church. No, no, no, no, no. >> You just said it wasn't true at this time. >> Hang on. Hang on. >> So, your argument in the first stop in the first dodging. No. I'm calling you out on a contradiction. You literally contradict. You just said you got caught and now you're lying. That's why I don't want to shake your hand because you're lying. >> You know how it's not a contradiction? You just said I'm going to show you how. I'm going to show you how invisible. Watch this. Watch this. No. I'm going to prove to you that I'm going to prove to church now. Enough of this rhetoric king. We know you're the smartest guy in the room. Listen. In letter church now and not then you are. >> No. No. No. No. You want me to show you how there is? You want me to show you how there is? You know what? Pope saying the other. No, no, no. Pope St. Leo the Great and Watch this. No, no. Pope St. Leo the Great. No, watch this. Watch this. I'm not I'm not asking you. I'm not asking you. I'm telling you. Pope St. Leo the Great and Letter 95. He said I'm not. He said he modified the deposition of Diosaurus. He modified it for the sake. Then >> he said go back to address >> invisible church. None of this matters. >> I'm going to prove to you how it matters. >> You just taught that Roman Catholic dogma changes. No, I never said that. >> You said that there's invisible church now. >> I'm going to prove to you. >> Did you say that? >> Hang on. Did you say it? >> Are you talking about the >> Is there invisible church now in your view? >> Right now? >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And you said not then. >> The proof you're a liar. No, I'm going to prove to you. No. No. I'm going to prove to you it's not then. >> Okay. Do you want me to respond? Was it true then? Do you want me to respond? >> Was it true then? >> Yes. You would you like me to prove? Was it true then? >> Yes, it was true. >> You said no. You asked me. You asked me if that applied to the depositions of overturning Ephesis. >> Okay. Do you want me to respond? >> Was invisible church true then and now not. >> Do you want me to show you how? Do you want me to show you how? In letter 95. >> What did you say a minute ago? It wasn't. >> Okay. I misunderstood. Yes. No, you got caught. >> No, I didn't say it's completely out the window. In letter 95, Paul say I'm not I'm not asking. I'm telling I'm not lying. Watch this. >> You got caught and you got caught the first time. So, you lied. Why would I shake your hand and would you just lie to my face? >> I'm not lying to your face. Jay, listen. Pope St. Leo the Gray in letter 95 modified his deposition of dascor. >> What does it have to do with invisible church? I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you. He was deposed. You're running out the clock. But he was still in authoritative bishop if he repented. >> What does that have to do with the invisible church? >> Communion. >> So was one in communion with Rome? >> Why are you dodging? >> You know this gets you. You know this gets you. >> No, it doesn't. You just with your stupid change of doctrine. Pope St. Leo the Great said Dascorus had the opportunity. >> I see you using your fake ass glasses, dude. >> So listen, Pope St. Leo the Great looking up [ __ ] >> I'm looking through a piece of glass. Through a piece of glasses on a piece of glasses on a piece of glass in the middle. Get out of here, dude. I'm not even talking to you. >> Listen, Pope St. Leo Lra in letter 95 said he modified the deposition. >> You're a liar, dude. Get out of here to give him the opportunity to recant. You're a phony, dude. >> No. Okay. You're a phony. Jay, you tweeted that Metropolitan Hilarion gave you a blessing. >> Sentinel. Now you're going after he got trying to make it personal. He didn't know who this guy was. Metropolitan. I have the letter. I have the letter. >> He said that he said he didn't give you Stop lying, dude. He said he didn't give a blessing to talk about theology, but he does know who I am. I have the email where he talks about me. >> He said he said what you're doing is wrong. >> No, he didn't. No, he didn't. Let me >> What does that have to do with the prompt? That is not You just called me a liar. Get out of here, dude. Let me read this to you. >> This has nothing to do with the prompt. He's going after my character because >> you just called me a liar to my face when I'm trying to Okay, get out of here. No. Pope Cindia the Great proves you wrong. >> This has nothing to do with the prompt. >> This is what he says. Jay is a freelancer. Thus, it would be not appropriate for me to give an official blessing for such a program. >> Official blessing has to do with representing Roore, you dummy. >> No, no. with representing the orthodox >> where he says I'm doing great work >> on the ones theology you liar he gave you no the same letter talks about political blessing >> political blessing bro you're not engaging >> I already called ICE you better hurry up dude ICE is on the way you better get out of here >> I called Metropolitan Hilarion he's outside he's going to depose you >> he's dead you you liaric piece of [laughter] crap why are you laughing about a person that I'm not laughing about a person that died. God bless him. I didn't I wasn't aware of that. >> So now you're bringing it back cuz you're a piece of trash. >> Yeah. Yeah. No problem. No problem. >> Okay. So everyone watch. He didn't want to engage my argument. He didn't want to engage my argument. >> Lying piece of crap. >> Listen this Jay. This behavior >> invisible church. But not then. >> Pope St. Leo said the same thing. He said the same thing. >> So thank you. So your popes also teach your stupid heresies. So popes contradict. >> Okay. You believe the same thing cuz they you did your patriarchs not sign off on calcedon? >> Did they sign off on Post Leo's tome and his letters? Did they sign off on >> Okay, look. >> Did it happen on respond? >> Did they sign off on Pope Leo? Did they sign off? >> You got to look to your tool, bro. But that's all you [laughter] got, dude. You got to back up some homies. Homies, back me up, bro. >> Jay, did Jay, >> you're what? >> He's Asian. He's Asian. >> So Jay, did they sign off his letters? >> No more homies, bro. >> Did they sign off his letters? Did they sign his letters? >> Pope, excuse me, Patriarch Anatolia said the full force of confirming the acts were according to Pope St. Lay. >> Yo, I could see why he retired and came back to >> Dude, all I got is a bunch of low levels. >> Like, is this like the behavior of like the king of Orthodoxy? >> Put my Let me put my meta glasses back on so I could. >> What is it? What is it? Like for the first years, everyone came to Orthodoxy because of this guy. I went to Orthodoxy. because of him as well. >> So this guy's a liar. All he does is lie. >> Yeah, I lied. >> Nobody thought you were or hey >> I was a catacub for a year. >> Oh dude, that's that's that's your problem, bro. You couldn't stick with it, dude. >> I could have stuck with it. >> They didn't have enough tortas there. [laughter] >> Dude, you went for me personally. So I'm going to go >> me. You called me a liar. >> You lied to my face. >> No, I didn't. No, I didn't. I'm trying to prove to you how he didn't lie. No. Post the great in letter 95 affirms my position. >> King of Orthodoxy. >> Sorry. I heard you're feeling so bad last time that you >> You're the one shaking, dude. Did you Did you tinkle a little? Did you tinkle a little bit? >> I'm not shaking, dude. >> You were shaking. Your lips are to your lips are shaking, bro. >> Okay, whatever. Um, so yeah. So your argument is basically in the Nyian creed. >> Mhm. Nice cosmopolitan creed. >> Yeah. Um, >> two different creeds. >> Okay. Can you repeat your argument? >> Yeah. So the four marks of the char church are one holy Catholic apostolic, right? So that's in the ninoapolitan creed. And I'm saying that the Orthodox Church is the only church that still maintains those four marks and thus we are the only church faithful to that time period. >> Okay. And you're a part of Roor. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So you're not Eastern Oriental Orthodox. >> Mhm. >> And you're not a Syrian church of the East. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So those you're not in communion with all of these other Eastern Orthodox churches. >> They're not Eastern Orthodox. They're oriental. >> Yeah, that's right. They're oriental. >> You're the one. >> They're oriental according to their own description. >> Yeah. So yeah. So >> yeah. how >> I I don't understand why I came for my position for my type of Protestantism. >> Well, do you think that you have to understand the four marks according to the way that the people that wrote the creed understood it or no? >> I don't think I'm necessarily bind bound to a specific uh metropolitan creed, but I do think that my >> Metropolitan Creed. What's that? >> That's what you said. Um but I do think that my church is is >> I never said Metropolitan. When did I say Metropolitan Creed? Okay, then repeat it for me. What? What? >> The nino constant, the second amenical council, its creed says one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. >> Okay. Yeah. Then I I agree that I'm part of the one holy and apostolic catholic church. >> No, you're not. >> Okay. Then >> how could you be? >> How could I not be? >> You reject the people that wrote that creed and what they understood the creed to mean. So you're clearly not mean by it. the one visible church meeting at Constantinople one with bishops with episcopacy with apostolic succession that teach Catholicity that produces saints that's unified throughout the uh >> so so just to clarify I thought you were talking about the original NY creed so um >> so you didn't even know what this is what's the original creed >> we believe in one god or uh and so on and so forth um but >> okay so let me help Yeah. So, Nika 1, >> yeah, >> produces the original Nian creed, right? But it doesn't have the phrase about and the Holy Spirit and the one holy Catholic apostolic church. That's added at the second ecumenical ecumenical council in 381, the nino constant creed 381. Okay, that's when they have this addition to the nyine creed. So, what we have today that's recited in most churches and even Protestant churches is called the nino constant creed. >> Okay? and it has the phrase one holy Catholic apostolic. >> Okay. Yeah, that's fair. Um I misunderstood originally. >> That's fine. >> Um but yeah, so I guess then now that I understand what the prompt is actually about, um >> yeah, I don't see myself to be bound by a quote unquote visibility of some church. I mean, you said yourself that you're not in communion with uh the Assyrian Church of the East. >> What does that have to do with one holy Catholic? How does how does that help your case? Well, how does how does how does this help your case? You made the claim >> because the literally the people that wrote this creed argued for one holy Catholic apostolic. We have and recite that same creed. We interpret it the way that the people that wrote it said. So, it's the Capidosians. >> Okay. >> They teach baptism, regeneration. They teach the uncredited energies. They teach all that. >> Okay. Well, where where does it say that um where does it say in the first three centuries that the church is visible? in this creed >> that's that's the fourth century. >> Well, but I'm saying that they're adopting the idea of one holy, Catholic, apostolic from everything that came before. So, do do you think that the church fathers in the first, second, third century taught that it was an invisible church? Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah. >> Where So, first of all, when Paul says to the church at Ephesus that they are one body, there's one Lord, one faith, one baptism, you think that's invisible? >> Yeah, it necessarily has to be. How would the So the church at Ephesus was invisible? >> Well, are you trying to exclude the church at Jerusalem, the church at Antioch? >> No, Paul is calling the entire Christian world and Ephesus one exp uh one microcosm of that. He's saying that they're all one holy Catholic apostolic church. >> Yeah. And that would be my position. >> So they're not invisible. It's visible. >> Well, it's not visible in the sense that you're saying that I have to be in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church. But the people who wrote the creed and who are teaching this theology teach Orthodox theology. So you're not in commune with them. You don't have their beliefs. >> I don't really buy that. But anyway, >> oh, so who teaches Protestantism in the first three centuries? >> The original apostles were more in line with the uh >> we're talking about the people that that said one holy Catholic apostolic. And you said, well, who said that the visible church was visible in that one sense before them? And I'm saying, okay, Justin Martyr, Erynaeus, let's take Erynaeus 180, right? Bishop of Leon. >> In uh books three and four of Against Heresies, he says that the way that we know the true church is through apostolic succession and tradition. >> Sure. >> You don't believe in apostolic succession? >> I might. >> Well, then you wouldn't Well, no. There are some Protestants that believe in apostolic succession. >> No, they don't. The only group The only No. Well, they claim to have it, but they don't believe it in the way that I'm talking about it. So, so how do you know how do you know that your your bishop right is >> because Anglicans teach branch theory and the Orthodox church does not teach that. So it's not the same ecclesiology. >> So how does how does this how does this idea of the one holy apostolic Catholic church like somehow discriminate against the Eastern Orthodoxy hypothesis? >> Does it >> discriminate against it? That's what I'm >> discriminate for it. discriminate for it like >> doesn't make any sense. Discrimination would be against it. >> No, no, no. In epistemology, there's such a thing called discriminating evidence. It basically means that it uniquely selects the evidence. It's not underdeterminative. It's not um evidence for multiple hypotheses. So, yeah. I'm sorry you didn't take a philosophy class, but yeah, that's fine. Um >> Yeah. Where did you go? Where did you study philosophy? >> I'm not going to tell you the name of my >> Because you didn't because you didn't go to No. >> Well, my friends I didn't take an epistemology class. Maybe not at like the not maybe not at like a high. >> Can your friends back up? Yeah, your friends can back up that you that you study philosophy. >> Yeah. Okay, good. >> They can. >> Um, >> and how is this going to help you? >> It's not. >> I never said it, dude. >> Then why are you bringing it up? [laughter] So, you just want to yab about your past and your history? >> No, I'm talking about >> Did you study literature, too? >> Did you take >> I'm talking about talking about epistemology. Well, what about Filipino history? Did you take courses in that, too? Did you take some homecck? >> What makes you think I'm Filipino? >> Cuz I'm a racist, right? >> Yeah. Okay, cool. [laughter] >> Um, yeah. All right. Um, so yeah. >> How is this helping your case? Where is >> Well, you're the one who made the claim. How does it discriminate for the Eastern Orthodox Church? >> How does what >> your your creed? How does it discriminate for the Eastern Orthodox Church? Because every church father and I gave an example of Irenaeus. He argues for apostolic succession and oral tradition that sets our church off against all the heretics and the sects of the second century. And I'm saying that you have all the same views of many of those gnostic sects as a Protestant. And we have the same views as araeus. So that's >> how you know that >> I never told you I never even told you my type of Protestantism. So, >> so you can't you can't say whether or not I believe in apostolic succession or not >> because no Protestants believe in the orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession. >> You literally just conceded that Anglicans do believe in a type of apostolic succession. >> Not in the orthodox doctrine and I said that's my point. >> I said they believe in branch theory. Well, your point that there's some other group that claims it has nothing to do with whether that's what the doctrine was at the 4th century. >> So that's what I'm arguing for. >> So yeah. So >> yeah. So yeah, you want to talk about home again? What what's the evidence >> talking about your full college class? >> What's the evidence? What's the evidence that the >> Okay, St. Cyprian on the unity of the church. You want another prening father? St. Crian writes an entire treatise on the unity of the church and he calls it a visible apostolic. >> But you're not in union with the Eastern Orthodox. So >> the oriental schism has nothing to do with this argument. It that would just simply prove that even the schismatics from that time are not the Protestant view. So that even refutes you. What? >> If the schismatics of that time aren't Protestant and still have our same view of absolute succession, then they're not Protestant. That's even against you. >> Oh my god. Did you Are you this stupidest protestant? >> You can't follow the argument. >> If the group that you're put If the group that you're using >> has the same view of apostolic succession as we do, then that's against Protestantism. >> How? Because no one at this time has the Protestant understanding of apostolic succession that you're arguing for. >> What are you talking about? >> You can't even follow the argument. >> You can't follow the arguments. >> Believe in apostolic succession. >> So what? >> If it's you literally just said, you literally just said, >> can you follow the argument? If you're going to use the Orientals, if you're going to use the Orientals as an example, and they don't believe if they have the same view of absolute succession as we do, that's an argument against you for this time period having a Protestant idea of absolution. You You can't grasp that. >> You're saying that What are you saying again? >> I'm not going to repeat it again. >> Okay, >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, that's fine. Let's go back to your college classes in home because that was really cool. >> You you you you said you you you said you went to college. So >> I don't >> and and so your argument is that I didn't go to college. Good one. >> No, that you did too. You did go to college. >> Your joke and your argument was that you didn't even go to college. >> Yeah. No, no, no. It's fine. It's fine. This prompt is that only the Orthodox Church continues the petristic teaching and New Testament teaching of theosis or deification through the uncreated energies of God. Uh and so since Protestantism and Catholicism in my view no longer consistently teach that we are the most faithful to the early church. >> Sprint, dude. Sprint for two feet. >> All right. So, >> are you sure you're not a Mormon? because you're dressed very Mormon. So, did you come on a bicycle? >> No. Uh, I just came from Utah. So, >> so you're a Mormon? I'm confused. >> No, sir. >> Everybody in Utah. >> They've got some They've got [clears throat] some style, you know. I'll admit that. >> Some of drip. Okay. >> Yeah. So, >> so Elder Caleb, go ahead. >> You know, um, can you define theosis for me? >> Yes. participation in the unccreated energies of God to become like God. >> Okay, that sounds Mormon. Are you sure you're not a Mormon? >> Mormons teach the Adam Godd doctrine that Adam was a man who became a God like God the Father who is a man with a body. >> So, they don't teach that Adam has become a man yet. >> No, Adam will become a God like God the Father was a man who became a God. >> It's exaltation. >> It's apotheiois, not theosis. Okay. So, >> it's the Adam Godd doctrine is what it's called. >> Okay. So, the Bible teaches this um you know theosis. >> It's not >> I mean I don't think we have the time to talk about essence energy distinction but >> in second Timoth or in second Peter 1 >> uh Peter describes it as partaking in the divine nature. And um even in Romans 8, >> Paul says that um I mean the creation has been waiting and growing for the revealing of the sons of God and that we will partake in the glory of God whenever the resurrection happens. So the Protestant church teaches that. >> And >> no, the Protestant church does not teach that you now partake of the glory of God. >> Well, yeah, we don't partake in the glory of God now because we're waiting for the resurrection. Well, but Paul says in 2 Corinthians 3 that those that see Christ face to face, he says, "Now we move from glory to glory." And he uses the example of Moses. He says, "Moses went up on the mountain." >> Yeah. >> Moses saw Christ and then he came down with his face shining. >> Okay. When Steven was preaching in the book of Acts, his face began to shine. That is the light and glory of God. >> Okay, I can see that. >> Okay. So it's not just an esqueological situation. >> Well, I'm not necessarily saying it's escatological. >> You just said that the resurrection. >> Okay. >> You said So you did. >> Okay. Sure. Yeah. Um so with with the doctrine of theosis, the the reformed uh tradition has labeled it as glorification. And sure, that's not a current state, >> but the passage in 2 Corinthians proves that the reformed tradition is wrong because glorification happened to Moses in this life. And that's a pattern for us in the New Testament. Glory to glory. >> So again, that that is before we have um you know, I mean that example with Moses is not the same time period as what we have now. >> But the example of Moses is to say it's the norm for us now. But God doesn't manifest himself physically anymore. >> Well, he manifested himself physically in the incarnation. >> Yes. >> And he appears in a theo theophanic way all throughout the Old Testament. >> We don't have we don't have theophanes anymore. >> Well, that's not I'm not talking about God as a theophony. I'm talking about our participation in Christ. >> Yes. >> Through moving from glory to glory through the New Testament grace. So that happens now and that refutes the ordo salutus of the reformed. >> Well, the reformed tradition would define it as sanctification where we are becoming more. >> I know I'm I'm ref I don't I know that I'm talking about glorification. Glorifi if glorification happens in this life then the reformed order is false. >> Are you perfect? >> I didn't say anything about that. >> Okay. But >> I don't think that glorification requires uh perfectionism in this life. But so that doesn't make sense. >> How could David say, "I am righteous and I've not committed sins." >> Well, because he's perfect. >> Because he's justified. He's he's perfect before God. >> Well, wait a minute, though. Justification. >> No. Well, I don't So, you think you think David taught justification by faith alone? >> Yes. >> Where? >> 100%. >> Okay. Then in Romans 4, why does Paul site Genesis 15 and not Genesis 12? >> Well, he does site Oh, yeah. Okay. I get what you're saying. Yeah, because he wasn't justified until he believed >> then. But he believed in in Genesis 12, three chapters before and he does three chapters of good works, >> Paul says. And in Hebrews, >> yes, >> in Hebrews, >> yeah, >> it's uh it even praises Abraham for tithing to MelkiseDC. >> Yes. >> Before Genesis 15. >> Okay. >> So, how could he not be justified? He's a he's a rep probate and he's still lauded for his good works and faith. >> Yeah. I mean even even James in chap or Yeah. James in chapter 2 talks about how he was >> just uh you we see that he was justified by his works in chapter 22. >> But if Romans 4 is teaching justification by faith alone, then he should have cited Genesis 12. >> When was the transition from wrath to grace in Abraham's life? >> Well, it it was when he believed God. So >> So that's Genesis 12. So Romans 4 is not teaching your view. >> Well, thus neither is David. >> I I'm I don't think that Yeah, I need to look back at the like exact text for that. So >> So again, from 12 to 15, you got three chapters of Abraham doing good works that are praised as faithful works in Hebrews when he talks about the whole of faith and all that. >> Yeah. So that means that he had to have had a transition from wrath to grace in 12 if you're reformed or whatever. >> Yeah. >> So that means that Romans 4 cannot be teaching justification by faith alone because Paul would have had to have cited Genesis 12. >> I I see. So yeah, and I do see that it was cited from Genesis chapter 15. So the works that Abraham did did not justify him. >> I didn't say that. Yeah. I'm just saying that even on your your view, Romans 4 can't be teaching your view. But how does this prove uh anything to do with theosis? I mean, St. Athanasius says that God became man so that man might become God. And he teaches the energies doctrine. So, how are you going to say that the Protestant view of justification or salvation or whatever you think glorification is? Yeah. >> Is faithful to the first, second, third century. >> Okay. So, God had given man grace so that he could so that he may become God. >> But is man becoming God on the earth right now? Is there any man that you know that is >> all of the all of the saints in the Orthodox church are deified? >> They are perfect completely. >> Well, they're they passed on. So, they're dead and then they are removed. They're released from their >> s they're presence of God right now. >> But yes, there are holy people who can be in a state of theosis. Yes. >> Okay. And I would I would in a way agree with that since people are in the presence of God right now as they are >> as as they are dead. I mean the res the bodily resurrection has not happened yet. But Jesus promises to the um to the man that was crucified with him that today you will be with me in >> par. But how does that show that there's no theosis in the first, second, and third century? Where's the Protestant doctrine of salvation in those centuries? Well, it the the Protestant doctrine of salvation is with uh Erynaeus when he says that when he when he says that justification is by faith alone. >> No, he doesn't say that. That's crazy. Okay. >> Erenus says that you have to participate in baptism regeneration. You have to live a life befitting of a Christian. Do good works. He teaches recapitulation. He teaches theosis. He teaches absolute succession. He doesn't teach any >> doctor. I would like you to decide where you're getting that from. So uh against heresies books three and four cover specifically orthodox ecclesiology and sacmentology and it's not protestant.