TIKTOK LIVE - DEBATING METAPHYSICS MIKE, COOKING ANTI-TRINITARIANS

[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Hey. Go. [Music] Yeah. Heat. [Music] Hey, Heat. [Music] Oh, so the camera quality is going to be a little goofy today. It's like very bright. Dang. I think, uh, maybe I use my other camera. It'll be better. Oh, classic. Hold on one second, guys. Turn my microphone up a little bit. Crazy, you didn't tell me I forgot again. All right, I forgot. I gotta fix this. Hold on. See if I can use that camera instead. This one's not doing great with this lighting. There. Boom. Crispy. What do you think? That one better? Turn that down even more. What's up, man? Yo, hello. What's up? I just got one question. What's your favorite? What's your favorite slur? My favorite slur? Um, I have to think about that and get back to you, man. I don't know. There's so many good ones out there. What's yours? Is that what you can say about, uh, I don't think I can say it. Oh, okay. Why'd you ask me? Yeah. Amigga, that's mine. I was just curious. Yeah, man. There's so many. Like, I just, I don't know. No idea. The damn, even the J shirt style, man. I've been rocking this since I started, man. I've been wearing Hawaiian shirts since I was like 16. Chill out. Uh, that just means like, like friend. Oh, yeah. Uh, it's an inside joke to a clip of me, uh, where I said "amigga" really quietly and it sounded like I said the n-word on stream. It was really, it was, it was a close. Yo, am I lagging? Yeah, a little bit. You good? Crazy, bro. Like, I'm seeing you in the past, bro. It's like I'm time traveling. What, bro? Okay. I think I'm Gucci now. You're good. Um, bro. Okay. Yeah. So, um, do you know what is what is a a relation of opposition? What is relations of opposition? Yeah. Uh, they're simply just, uh, two relations that suppose a, uh, suppose a secondary in a causal manner that, uh, the two terms that are applied are opposite or contradictory of each other. So like, you think like relations of opposition are necessarily causal? I don't believe that they're the only methodology in order to show a real distinction in the trinity, but I do think you could use. Yeah. But like, I'm just asking, like, do you think relations of opposition are necessarily causal? Um, I guess in the, in the, in the Western sense, yes. Interesting. Because like, in our view, like, we don't call it a rel, or relation of opposition. We just call it a contradictory distinction, which, in which, in our, in our metaphysic, that just claims that there's two things that have opposing definitions, but it doesn't suppose that there's some form of, um, that there's some form of causal link to why they have those definitions. But that, that's still a relations of, that's still a relation of opposition though. Like, there's four different types, and a contradictory relation is one of them. You'd have to show me. You'd have to show me where that is, man. Because like, as far as I'm here, here, I'll, I can show you a graph. Hold on. All right, man. Uh, hold on. Let me put it on my screen, man. All right. There you go. Uh, can you make me big screen real quick? Yeah. See the, the ones in the middle and on the top. So these are the, the two in the middle are contradictory relations because they are, uh, the complete opposite. Right. Mhm. And then also contrary, subaltern, subcontrary, and subaltern. So these are all types of relative opposition. Yeah. That type of, that type of usage of contradictory, we wouldn't really utilize because like, because like when it says "all S are P" and then it's contradictory to "some S are not P," that's simply just stating that the fact of "all S are P" cannot be this, cannot be true as well as "some S are not P." So that's why it would be contradiction. Like, when we say contradictory, we're basically saying that the definition of one, uh, actually cancels out the former. Well, that the contradictory, it's just like talking about like a negation of one. So like, one is, and then the other is just a negation of that. So they're, they're contradictory claims. Um, why is this a conversation? This but, uh, it's just the, the reason why we just use that terminology specifically instead of just relations of opposition is just to prevent word concept fallacies. Fries, that's why we have our own, uh, way of saying it. F I want the fries in the back. Same reason why when we say a real distinction, we have to clarify that we don't mean that in the scholastic sense of like a major reel, for example. Zero sugar. Hold. Oh, yo, he's yelling at his mom, dude. You see that? Mom. Wait, what'd you say? Mom, that [ __ ] is not yelling at him. I'm gonna whoop that motherfucker's ass. [ __ ] It looked like he was going. I was just like, damn, he's freaking yelling at his mom right now. A [ __ ] What kind of pop he wants? But, um, lemonade. No, I want a story. Want story? Yeah. All right. Thanks, Mom. Uh, what was I saying? Some gay [ __ ] Do you hear my mom? No, bro. I said, "What? What were we saying?" And then my mom said in the background, "Some gay [ __ ] bro. Talking about relations or something." Oh. Oh. Oh. Yeah. So that graph, it was just like demonstrating like one is a negation of the other. So they're just I got to bring you back up. Everyone's saying you can't. Well, two people said that. I think. Yeah. Come back up. No one knows what the trinity is. LMAO. All right. There you go back. Yeah. So like, uh, like that for that graph, for instance, is just saying like, because this claim is a complete negation of the other one, um, therefore they have like the way in which they correlate is that they are they can't be each other, really, and they completely contradict, uh, what each other thing says. I got a question for you from your perspective. Yeah. Do you believe that formal constituents, um, as a method of identity is in line with Leibniz's law? You say that like, bro, you got to break this down. My formal constituents, like, for example, the son possessing sonship, the father possessing paternity. Yeah, those are formal constituents of the beginning and the unbegotten. So, uh, do you believe that those prop, those formal constituents are in line with like a property for, like Leibniz's law, for example, to like determine whether or not to. Yeah, I think you can hold. I mean, I don't really, when I have these conversations, I usually don't really grant Leibniz's law when it pertains to the trinity because I just don't, I don't usually either. But you know, I have Catholics that use it against me all the time, and it's really funny. But like, I think relative, I think relative identity can like be in line with it. But I also don't think that this even applies that that law even applies to the trinity anyways. So, constituents, it's con, it's constituents, actually. Yeah, I know that the, I know that the law requires identical objects to share all properties. I understand that. The point that I was making, Don, was that, um, if, uh, for example, we have the person of the Holy Spirit and the person of the Son, for example, and then the Holy Spirit were to not possess the formal constituent of sonship, then according to Leibniz's law, it would not be identical, it would not be the same person. Just from that. That's what I'm trying to say. Yeah, I think like we can talk about like relative identity and absolute identity in different ways, um, you know, like law either. But people like to say freaking, you know, like, for example, um, one of the arguments that I think it was Legacy that he made against, uh, like the monopatriism, was basically saying that due to the fact that there's not an opposition between the Son and the Spirit, that therefore, according to Leibniz's law, um, they're identical. And I'm like, because they're semantically equivalent, right? Um, and so like that's why what's semantically equivalent? He made the claim that begotten and procession are semantically equivalent terms. No, that's not right. Um, that is crazy as [ __ ] because semantical equivalence determines that it's a symmetrical relation, right? It's symmetrically both ways. Well, he like semantically it would just be like the same thing. So like, Yeah. So like that wouldn't make sense though, because then you'd have to say like spiration and begettingness is the same. That just doesn't make sense. Yeah, that'd be wild. I mean, like, because then at that point, like, there wouldn't be anything semantically wrong if I were to say the Holy Spirit was begotten, right? It's the same terminology. So that's why like I answered it like in my book that I'm making, but like I also was kind of sitting here and I'm like, I've never actually seen somebody hold to this though. No, nobody holds that. That contradicts the fathers and the scholastics. Yeah, it definitely does, bro. Like, you look at all the fathers, and they're like, we know that they're different because one be is begotten and one proceeds. And but then like this argument, what is this? Oh, it was the fun. No, I mean, he holds to, he holds the like Bonaventurian Trinitarian theology anyway. So that wouldn't make sense. I don't even know what that, what that means. Like, like Bonaventure. Yeah, I know Bonaventure. I just don't know his model. Like, it's just, it's similar to St. Thomas, but also quite different at the same time. They all, they, they cook the Scotists, bro. The God of the Trinity is the God of Neoplatonism with a Christian mask. You're more than welcome to come up and prove that, man. But GG's about to say, come up here and yap or get or get muted, bro. All right, I'm gonna go, man. Um, submit the room. God bless. God bless. If things, uh, start off a little slow tonight, and I feel like going tonight, you know, pretty hard, I might do a big boost because I really want to get this topic, uh, kind of hot, you know what I'm saying? I think that would go well. Anybody who's in the chat, if you disagree with this topic, you're more than welcome to come up here and present an argument as to how the Trinity is illogical. Um, I'm pretty chill. So, you know, sounds like Liiano when he said John 1:1 is Neoplatonism. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Christianity has retroactively changed God's nature over time. You have to prove that, man. You have to make an argument as to like, actually how that is. It's a good claim. You need to substantiate that God is the only uncreated thing. Believe there's multiple uncreateds. What? You think there's more than one uncreated thing? And I'm Neoplatonist. Who are you debating? Uh, currently, I'm just, uh, acknowledging people in the chat that are sending messages, but I'm debating anybody who disagrees with the Trinity in some way, shape, or form. That was the topic tonight. Or just the Orthodox Trinity in general, the monarchical model. If you disagree with the monarchical model, you're welcome to come up here. Or if you just have questions about the Trinity, if you want to just ask questions about any of the doctrines within Orthodoxy that revolve around the Trinity, uh, like monopatriism or essence-energies distinction, something like that. So, how do you defend Christ's two natures? Um, well, first off, I'd have to ask them what their argument is against it because I don't see a problem on the surface. How can I explain God has a Son to my Muslim friend whom I love? Well, I mean, first off, you'd have to have them understand the scriptures, right? So, like, if you're at least able to get them to understand that the Bible is the word of God, right? You can show them very specifically where Christ claims to be God in the New Testament and where he also says that he's not the Father, but he's one with the Father, as well as the same principle for the Holy Spirit. Show that same principle. And when you show this, right, if you can at least come to the conclusion that the Son is the only begotten Son, you can come to the conclusion that the Son is eternal and he's co-equal and he coexists with God the Father because of the fact that if the Father begets the Son, he provides him the identical nature that he has. So, which is an out, which is, uh, atemporal. It's eternal, right? It's, uh, divine. So if he begets a Son, he begets an eternal divine Son. So, yeah, um, that's how you could do that. But you'd have to get them, get him to at least entertain the New Testament because we can't prove the Trinity without revelation. If you think that you can naturally reason to the Trinity, uh, you're an idiot. You know, you got to be very careful. Coptics argue that Christ has one nature, but the EO argue that Christ has two natures. Why are the Coptics wrong? Well, they're incorrect because they believe in one composite nature, which is not taught by the fathers, and it also leads to a lot of metaphysical complications after the incarnation. And even if you look into, for example, when Christ's body is glorified, uh, which aspect of the one composite nature was changed? Right? They end up admitting diophysitism, or they admit that God intrinsically changed as a hypostasis. There's a lot of different arguments get that kind of stuff. Are you going to go over the main arguments against the many forms of the? You talking about LPT? I'm assuming that meant LPT. LPT. Um, if I don't get any ops, uh, within the next like 10 minutes, you guys can put a one in chat if you want this. I'll pull up a little whiteboard and we can do a little class session about just, um, how to defend against LPT arguments if you really, guys, if you guys really want. I really don't mind. I'm chill tonight. I don't, I don't got like all this, uh, crazy stuff that, you know, I want to sit here and do, you know, you guys, uh, can put one down in the chat if that's what you want to do. If the ops don't come up within the next couple minutes, I can put up a little whiteboard thing and we can start figuring things out. Somebody's coming up. What's up, what's up, Husan? What's up? What's going on, man? All right. Um, why do you count, uh, one God instead of three? Because, uh, there's one being that's, uh, one in nature and one in act. So then that's why we count it by division. Right. You count by division. Okay. So, are you, uh, what model of the trinity do you hold to? Are you Eastern Orthodox? Yeah. I hold the monarchical model with the model of view on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Yeah. Yeah. Right. How many, how many human natures do me and you have? One. We have one nature, right? So why don't we count the same way with us? Why don't we say there's one human existence? Because you and I have two different energy tokens. You and I have identical energy types, which is the capacity for you to be able to do something naturally. Like, for example, you and I both have the natural ability to stand up, right? But then, but then the energy token is the actualization of said action or said capability or capacity. So, um, I have the ability to, for example, stand up, and then you stay seated, right? That's one of the ways that, you know, that we're completely separated from each other because you and I have different modes of actualizing our mind and our will, which then affects our energy that we're, uh, giving to this world. So in the trinity, it doesn't work like that. There's one energy type, of course, in terms of the natural capacity of God, and there's one energy token that is between all three persons as well. So, so anything that happens is done triadically in one identical act rather than three instantiations of an act. Yeah. Okay. So, so why does Gregory of Nyssa say that we should count one human if we count the same way as God, right? He says this when he gives the example of, yeah, it's in Adamius. It's in, it's in, it's in On Not Three Gods. I know what it is. He's actually, he's actually using that as a reductio, saying, let's not try to prove that God is one by talking about nature. That's literally the whole point of that because then everything that I just told you is from that writing, right? But he said, he says that like, he says that like it's out of God's mercy that like, and God like trying to understand, trying to help us understand that we count multiple humans. If we really to count the same way, we'd count one human being in the entire world. Yes. And that's why the rest of that work and his work that came after that, Adversus Eunomium, he then makes the argument of how we prove that God is one by energy. That's the whole point is that he said we can say that God is one in nature, but me and you are one in nature. So then it's better to count as one man. It's a rhetorical statement that he's actually using as a reductio to say that it's not a very good argument. That's actually the whole point of that. Right? So, and the whole point of the one energy, right? So, this one energy, like as Nicaea says, like the knowledge of God is inseparable, right? The knowledge of the three persons is inseparable, right? Yeah. So, now, can the Father affirm that he is the Son? Uh, that is that would be considered an indexical, and, uh, God does not have thoughts in that way at all. So the mind, there's one, there's one mind in God, meaning that all three persons of the Trinity also actualize the mind at once. So God would know that he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He wouldn't be thinking individually, right? So you don't, you don't believe that God the Father affirms that he's the Father? The Father does not have his own instantiation of mind. So that's not possible. So he doesn't affirm that he's the Father because he does not have his own instantiation of mind. That would not be possible. Right? So the Father has no idea that he's the Father. Uh, that's not how the Trinity thinks. Like I said, you're trying to collapse the Trinity into an indexical argument, and we deny index. I'm not, I'm not trying to collapse. It creates a logical problem with who did Jesus think he was praying to in his human nature? The Father, right? So Jesus, the person of Jesus, via human nature, right? Knew that the Father was the Father, right? Uh, yes. Because he also had a human mind. Right. And did the Father know that Jesus was praying to him? The person Jesus. Because mind you, natures don't pray. The triad would have known that Christ, uh, was Christ was praying qua his humanity, right? The triad would know. But now, now, now I'm starting to get confused. Do you believe that there was, there's a divine person and a human person of Christ? No. That's, yeah, that would be historianism. But then you're saying the triad knew, right? So Jesus, the person of Jesus knew that the per, that knowing knowing something is proper to your nature. So if Christ were to, for example, pray, um, in so far as his human nature, to the triad or to the Father in a proper sense, then that would that in a totality would be to the entire triad, and then the person of the, the person of Christ in so far as his divine nature would then be an aspect of that. Yeah. But the nature, you could say, as so far as the nature, right? But the nature is always predicated onto the person, right? The two natures are predicated onto the one person, right? Yeah. But the aspects of nature are utilized by a person. So if a person, for example, has a human mind and a divine mind, then if they're doing something proper to human mind, that doesn't necessitate that therefore it like mixes or something with divine mind. So you believe that Jesus possessed two minds? Right. And one mind was praying to the other mind? Uh, it would more like saying that he was praying to the divine nature in so far as the Father being identical to it. Right. But so, so in a sense, you could say that he was praying to himself. Right. In a sense. Yeah. There's nothing wrong with that. In a sense, but it, but it wouldn't be proper, uh, it would be proper to the Father because he's begotten of the Father. So it would be an upwards movement rather than a movement downwards from the Father. Yeah. But why in scripture does it not say like he was praying to the Holy Spirit or he was praying to, why, why does it say he was praying to the Father? Right. He, every single time he prayed, he specified the Father, right? When it, when it's proper to the Father, the action, the actions of God are triadic, but there's a proper, uh, there's a proper grounding in whatever that action is. So like, for example, the act of God incarnating as a man was a triadic act. It was something that all three persons had participated in as an action, but the Son properly incarnated because it was groundated or it was terminated, for example, in the Son. That way. Right. Right. But if you were to, if you were to say like, for example, when he says like, Jesus clearly knows a distinction between the Father himself and the Holy Spirit. He knows these prepositions because, for example, when he says, "Why do you call?" Believe that God has propositional knowledge. Yeah, I understand that. But he affirmed that he was, uh, the Son, and the Father was the Father. For example, when he said, "Why do you call me good?" Right. Uh, "Only the Father is good," right? Jesus is saying that only the Father is good. He's making a distinction that he, he affirms who the Father is, right? Yes. He affirms that. He's saying that in so far as his human mind. Yeah. He can still call himself the Son because it's still one person. But that's a human mind that he's making a proposition like that. Yeah. But the, but the, but the, again, because you're like, you're like making it seem like the natures are acting, right? You're making it seem like the natures are affirming, are acting in nature. Yeah. Yeah. But so the person of Christ, right, can, does the person of Christ, without specifying, can you say that the person of Christ knows that he is not the Father? I, I just told you that like knowledge is proper to nature, and and then your mind is proper to your mind, or your mind is proper to the knowledge obviously that you possess. So if Christ has two minds, then he would have two instantiations of knowing. Yeah. So he knows that he's the Son in a propositional way, then that is proper to his humanity. Yeah. And where, where are these, where are these natures and, uh, properties predicated onto the person? So then you could, everything that applies to the nature applies to the person, right? Uh, in terms of it being proper for the person to use. Yeah. So everything that applies to the nature then has to apply to the person. Correct. I mean, as it's utilized. It's not like everything, like it's not like everything of that, of the human nature, for example, is essential to be used if that's what you're asking. Yeah. Right. It doesn't have to be used. There's natural abilities that humans have that they never have to utilize. Right. But, but it's still, so, so continuing on. So then you could just, you don't have to keep saying natures, right? You could just say person. So as an action is still proper to nature. Action being done is proper to the nature it comes from. Yeah. But, but the person is the one that's acting, right? So we understand, I, I completely understand as so far as this nature, as so far as the human nature, divine nature, but the person is the still the one that's acting, right? So you could still say that the person of Jesus knew who the Father was. Simple. Uh, right. Yeah. In so far as his human nature, because the divine nature and God metaphysically does not have propositional knowledge. So then God wouldn't be making a proposition in terms of being proper to the divine nature. Right. Right. So, so when, when the Father says that he begot Jesus like before times, right? He begot the Son before times. Who is this "I" that he's referring to? Who's "I"? It's a triadic act, proper to the Father. Like I said earlier, every time that God speaks, he can speak in the singular form of one of the three persons of the Trinity. But this act was done from the Father through the Son and the Spirit. Whether or not there's a proper person that it's terminated in is, is not a problem. So by your logic, we, if we follow this coherently, right, it would it would entail that you could say that Christ is unbegotten. Correct? No. Okay. So now there's a distinction. No, because you said that "I," he can't be, he can't be unbegotten. Okay. So, so, so you said when it says "I," it's referring to a triune thing, right? So, when it, when, "I," I clearly asked a simple question where when God says "I," because I said that it's proper to the Father. It's a triadic act, but the person that, that the speech is proper to would be the Father. So then therefore the statement would be given to the Father. It's not pro, it's not proper to all three persons to say that. Right. So, so, so the, the person that's saying "I" is the Father, correct? Properly, but it's a triadic act that makes that statement. Okay, there we go. So, the Father is the one that's saying. Yes. So, the Father. So, then the Father knows that he begot Christ before the ages, right? It's a proper statement, but the knowledge of that is triadic. You're applying temporality to the triune God that doesn't exist. You don't, you don't believe God acts temporally in any sense? No, he does interact with creation through economy temporally in a sense. So God acts temporally, but there is an intrin, there is an intertrinitarian life that is out, outside of time and space that you're completely throwing out the window by. So he's, he's granting that part. He's just, he's basically making a propositional argument, a propositional knowledge argument. Schoolboy, uh, does the Father know something? The Son, like, does the Father know he's not the Son, for example? And that's, that's the thing I'm addressing. He's not really bringing like temporality into it directly. Yeah. He's conflating nature and person. Yes. No. Because the are predicated onto the person, right? So whatever, whatever is, whatever is true about the nature is true about the person. Yeah. An action, an action though is not proper, uh, is not proper or grounded in a hypo, in a hypothesis. It's grounded in and by that, by that last statement that he just made. I know that you're already importing toistic presuppositions into our theology. You're not familiar enough with our theology. I actually perform a proper internal critique. I'm chill, bro. Bro, so what, you want me to stop talking then? Like, you're good. Yeah, just keep going, man. You're fine. Um, so, so whatever is true about the nature is true about the person, right? So, and unnecessarily so, whatever, whatever, whatever the person, so, so do natures affirm stuff, uh, school, whatever your name is, schoolboy, what do you mean, do natures affirm stuff? Yeah, because they don't, right? Naturophical statement. Do natures affirm stuff? C, can, can a nature, can you say it? Yeah. The human nature affirms that he's the Son. Can you say that? No. Okay. So, the person affirms that he's the Son, right? What? Oh my days. He's trapping, he's trapping you into a propositional knowledge thing. Schoolboy. Yeah. I showed him the, the, the absolute, like, I'm trying not to be rude, but this is just absolute brain rot. What you're actually proposing. The Son would not make an affirmation that is not triadic. So then therefore, you could say that it would be in a proper sense, uh, the Son does make, make affirmations that are not tri. So far as his human nature. Yes. So then it wouldn't be God making that proposition in the proper sense. No, we just affirm that natures do not affirm stuff. So it's the person of Christ. This what schoolboy just said. Natures don't affirm stuff. So it's the person via his human mind, right? Via, it could be via his any mind, right? The person is still affirming something. I don't care if it's via, if an affirmation or a proposition is done in a human mind, then that means that it's still not showing that God in his own being or essence affirms propositional knowledge. How are you not getting that? Can you repeat that, sorry? Yeah, so how is it that I know that you're obviously going with saying that the person of Christ is the one affirming, confirming it? Yes. But if his m, if his human mind is the thing making the affirmation or proposition, then it's not properly applied to the divine nature or God having propositional knowledge in the divine nature. Yeah. So the human mind can make propositions. I agree. I, I 100% agree. It's not properly applied to the divine nature, but it's properly applied to the person. It's applied to the person in so far as his human mind. Yes. So I'm, we're talking about the persons right now, right? Yes, we're talking, we're talking about one person is proper. We're talking about one. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. We're talking about one person because the eternal Logos is the only one of the Trinity who took on human nature. Right. I don't know why you just said that to be honest. Because you're trying to write this into the divine nature, and you are conflating nature and person. I'm not trying to conflate it into the divine nature. How? Wait, schoolboy. How am I, how am I, um, conflating nature and person? I understand that natures don't act. I understand that natures are predicated on sub person. I understand that natures don't affirm stuff. I, I, I know that persons affirm stuff. How am I conflating? Because you keep trying to write these human attributes into the essence. No, I'm never tried doing that. I ne, I, I tried doing, I'm doing it to the person. I'm not doing it to the essence. I never. Then go ahead, then. Then make your, hey, make your, make your argument again. So I'm steel-manning you. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding. Yeah. I'm saying that the person of Christ, right, we could see from the all over the New Testament, the person of Christ is aware that he is the Son. He's aware of who the Father is. He's aware of who the Holy Spirit is. Right? He affirms these things, right? His human nature. I understand that. But natures do not affirm, persons do. Therefore, the person of Christ affirms that he is the Son, and affirms that the Father is the Father, and affirms that the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Persons actualize that energy, right? Yeah. An energy would be proper in nature, but it is actualized through, through a hypostasis. Yeah. It's actualized to a person. Yeah. Yeah. So, what's the problem? Right. The problem is that now, now that we, we're out of common ground here. Person, it can, we say without specifying, can we say the person of Christ affirms that he's the Son? You said without, you said without specifying the nature. Yeah. Just, just say, is this an incorrect statement if you say the person of Christ affirms that without specifying the nature? It sets it up to be a straw man, so no, I'm not granting you that. Okay, so you can't say that the person of Christ affirms that he's Son if you have the quantifier that actually is from where, where Christ affirms a proposition like that, then you can continue. Yeah. Because guess what? Your argument is not going to make any damn sense if you follow that because I know where you're going with this. I've been asked it a hundred times. Yeah. So, can you just answer it then? What do you mean? I answered it. I gave you, I gave you the answer that shuts your argument down. It's malformed. It's malformed. It's not an internal critique. In what sense? That that quantifier is necessary to understand that God does not affirm propositional knowledge in the proper sense like that. So because you're going to basically say that the Father knows something that the Son doesn't, blah, blah, blah. It's a dumbass argument. All right. I don't know why you have to use language like that, but I don't understand. You guys, pearl, pearl clutch harder. What do you mean? And I've been chill, I've been chill with you, man. Yeah, I've been chill, too. Yeah. So don't, don't pearl clutch over over one, one reference to a donkey. I'm just chilling, man. Right. When I talk about God, I usually keep it respectful. So, I don't know. I don't know what you guys do over here, but that's just my, that's just the reference that he was referring to wasn't he was calling your argument a dumbass argument because it's coming from a dumbass grown man, by the way. Anyways, um, I'm gonna continue. So, what is the conclusion to your argument if I say yes? Right. If you say yes, then the person affirms that he's the Son, right? Yeah. Therefore, therefore, the knowledge is not inseparable because the Father doesn't affirm he's the Father. The Son doesn't affirm that he, uh, the Son doesn't affirm that he's the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't affirm that he's the Father. Knowledge is not inseparable because they're different. Yeah. So, there's knowledge that each person has that the other one doesn't. Right. Yeah. Can guess what? Guess what? You just did the exact thing I said you'd do. Yeah. So, yeah. So the answer is me saying that due to the fact that the proposition is made in the human mind, it doesn't m, it doesn't follow. It does follow because the person still holds that proposition. Can you steel-man position for me? What do you mean? Yeah. Can you steel-man position? I want you to like, I want you to properly represent what I'm trying to give you. Like, you want me to, I want you to repeat back my argument to you, or I want you to repeat back my argument. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know why you want me to do that. Anyways, your argument is that Christ affirms these things qua his human mind, right? Qua divinity, he does not affirm that he's the Son. Therefore, their knowledge is still inseparable because it's coming from the human mind. But what you're, what you're already, you're already know that he's a divine person. It's getting good. It's getting good. So, in terms of, right, is knowledge proper to mind? Like I said, is knowledge proper to mind? Yeah. Were you cool with that when I said that earlier? Knowledge is proper to mind. Yeah. Yeah. And, and Christ, and Christ actualizes that proposition in which mind? His human mind. So then that knowledge is then based in which nature? His human nature. We already agreed that. Okay. So then, then trying to basically collapse the person of Christ in so far as the divine mind affirming a proposition is then therefore false. Your argument is gone. No, you'd have a, you'd have a, you'd have a case if there was two persons of Christ, but there's one, right? What are you talking about? What's your argument for that? My argument is that you're saying in so far as the human, human mind, right, he doesn't affirm it. He affirms it. In so far as the divine mind, he doesn't affirm it. Right? But the problem is that these two natures are these two natures are predicated onto one person. So the person, the person of Christ knows that he is. Did you agree that a, so is a proposition that's a form of knowledge, right? The, is a propos, yeah. Okay. And, and knowledge is proper to mind, right? Yeah. And mind is proper to nature, right? Yeah. So then the proposition exists in the human nature, right? Yeah. So then that propositional knowledge that you're then applying to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit saying they have different knowledge. That would be knowledge based in the divine nature. Correct? No, I'm, I'm properly putting it on because. No, it wouldn't be because it's, it's via the human, human nature. The Father, the Father and the Holy Spirit don't have the human nature. Correct. You're trying to make. So then, yeah. So then this argument doesn't work. Yes, it does. How? Because I, I gave you the example. How is the proposition somehow in the divine nature to make your argument work now? Right? Cuz I, I showed you where and you didn't really address where, how does the knowledge remove from the human nature to the divine nature to make this argument work? You have to prove that that proposition is made in the divine nature for this argument to make sense. Yeah, I did it when I said, when, when I said that that the Father says that "I begat" before. I already told you that that's a triadic act that has a proper terminus. Yeah. Yeah. So then you could, so, so in a sense, you could say that Christ begot Christ. No, because it's a triadic act with a proper person of the actualization. It's called, it's a ter, it's, it's a proper terminus. Right. You're just saying, you're playing words out. Did the Father beget the Son? I'm sorry that you don't understand what terminus means. No, I, I understand. Did the Father beget the Son? Yes. The Father begat the Son. Yeah. Okay. So why can't you say the, uh, that Christ, the Son, begat the Son? Because the person that's saying "I" is the Father. Yeah. Because the Son is not identical to the Father. To the Father. Right. So it's a natural, it's a natural act, uh, within the Trinity. Right. So when the Father is saying "I did something," the Father knows who he is, right? So like, in terms of like, are we talking about the beginning of the Son? Yeah. Are we? Yeah. So that action itself is only the Father to the Son. Do you understand? Okay. So when the Father says "I," he knows he's the Father, or no? The, the speech of the declaration of that thing happening is a triadic act that is proper to the Father. Do you understand? So, yeah, you could, it's a yes or no. Does the Father, when he says, No, it's not. Simple. Yeah. Yeah. Complex freaking question. Simple answer fallacy. GG's, bro. It's not complex. Yeah, it is. It requires. It requires semantics. You're you're requesting a formal argument or a formal argument without me allowing to cash out semantics. Like that's that's actually disingenuous, right? Okay. I guess apparently saying that me asking when the Father, when, when the person says "I" is that the Father, apparently, apparently that's like triadic. It's a triadic. The, the declaration of such is a triadic act. Yes. From the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. The actual act of it occurring was the Father to the Son directly. But him declaring it is triadic. Right? So I'm, I'm just going to conclude here. Does the, you guys affirm that the Father doesn't know that he's the Father? Right. But God does not have propositional knowledge. So that's not the way his knowledge actualizes. Right. Do, do you know that the Father is the Father? I do because I have a human mind. Yeah, exact. Okay, so your human mind can make propositions about God. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Watch this. Watch this. I, I don't understand how you guys don't see a problem with this. You know something that God doesn't know. GG's. No, that's not how that works. Because God is. Oh yeah, he got me. Absolute cinema. He got me, guys. GG's. It's over. I already love tonight. This is awesome. I don't know if you saw my comment, but I said, "W brain rot prompt." Oh yeah, this is a brain rot prompt tonight. GG's. This is going to be great. I will try not to interrupt often with rhetorical insults. You said, "Thanks for the clip." GG's. I mean, don't worry, man. I'm going to upload our entire conversation onto YouTube later, so in case your clip goes viral, they can watch the, you know, you stumble over every argument you had. So, it's all good. And by the way, it's, it's not, it's not an ad hominem if I call you a dumbass because your argument's stupid. It's only, it's only an ad hom if I throw your argument out because I call you a dumbass. If I prove your argument a dumbass argument, it's not ad hom. I'm gonna have to go away for a couple weeks, y'all. Freaking, I got clipped by the Hassan Zakir. I'm screwed. Can you, can you play that, uh, Sufi video that I posted? That sounds horrible. What are you talking about? It's pretty funny, dude. That dude's not connecting. All right, go to the Discord and just search, uh, attachments or or whatever that I've posted in the past 24 hours. It's hilarious. Which channel? Just general. If you do from schoolboy, it'll probably be one of the first like 15 or 20. I didn't, I didn't post many messages in general. Uh, that's not true at all. That's me. I have more time on my hands than I'd like to admit. That's the one. [Music] [Laughter] [Music] Pentecostal Muslims though. The chat must be freaking out, not know what's going on right now because they can't see this video. Oh yeah, they can't see it. I'm sorry, chat. I completely forgot to show it to you guys. I'm sure that that probably sounded insane from your point of view. My apologies. Yeah, my bad. He said Indian 9/11, dude. That's crazy. No. Pull, pull it up and show them. They still can't see it, Bryce. Oh, they can't see us still. Oh, no. It's just, it sounds like horror to them. Hold on. Sorry. My bad. My bad. Let me, let me put this up. The mystery might actually make it better. Yeah. Yeah. [Music] [Music] You got to see what he's doing. Look what he's doing to the cable. [Music] This is insane, bro. This is actually insane. That's such a wild video. I can't believe it. That's real. That's actually insane, bro. So, within like 45 minutes, I got a couple messages of people sending that to me yesterday. And I'm guessing, you know, one of them, I won't mention him, but Maximos messages me and he goes, "Oh, you're liking that video, huh?" And I go, "Yeah." He goes, "I've been laughing at it for an hour straight." Yeah, that's a, that's a video, man. That's the video of all time. Not going to lie. Okay. Here. I actually watched the, uh, debate now like between like Danny J, Andrew Wilson, actually like. Oh, it's terrible. I actually watched the whole thing now. It's terrible. Yeah, it's definitely not great. That's for sure. Zero substance. Yeah, there was zero substance to the arguments and it was just a like, I, I couldn't tell like, I mean, think, think about it this way though, it's Piers Morgan. Like, what, how much substance do you think that is really supposed to be brought to that? Like, Piers literally, like Jay has talked about how like Piers Morgan actually like instructs his guests to like bring the chaotic energy. Like he wants clips. He wants, he wants the, you know what I mean? Bryce, remember when we argued about if toll houses were dogma like a year ago? I do remember that. Yeah, that was my, that was catechumen affirmations. All right. That was. Which position, which position were you taking? Um, I actually said they're not dogma, so you don't have to affirm them. Like, I was just saying that like, but like declaratively. Gotcha. Right now, I hold to toll houses and I basically say that like, I actually hold a position now that theologically, if you don't affirm toll houses, then none of this [ __ ] makes sense. Yep. Because like our theology has that embedded in it with like, in regarding how limbo would work, regarding the ladder, all of that stuff requires the toll houses to be the case, bro. I would avoid the term just for the implications. There's literally no other word that can, that you can use, bro. Like, there's no other word. I mean, do you want me to just say on Earth still? I mean, like, I, it's just, it's, there's no word that can be used. That is fair. I just say like, it's just, I've seen people say Yugo. I would say ination. I can say purgation. Yeah. But then of course, people are going to be like, purgatory or contact. No, I'd rather, I'd ra, I'd rather say purgation and then hash it out. Yep. Hashing out limbo is a little weirder because limbo sounds like a third place. I will thank you, Michael, for, uh, showing me a lot of the stuff on the toll houses.

Though because you were one of the people that definitely changed my mind on that. W Michael for affirming toll houses. L Michael for hating tag. I basically just used my AI thing, like my music AI thing, and I just spammed like 35 just 90s boom bap instrumental music, and now I just have it running. It's It's amazing.

Toll houses are not like purgatory in the sense that you think it. No, think of toll houses like the attempt to get out of purgatory. How about that? It's not the purggation itself. It's more like trying to run the ball up the field. The demons are trying to tackle you. It's Sisphus and you get tackled, you have to go back to the start. Yeah, it's Cisphus. But the only thing that can get you out of that is your faith in Christ. Yeah. So if you die without faith in Christ, you're basically going to be infinitely trying to do the sysophus moves until the day of judgment unless the prayers of the church miraculously get you there. Think of it like that. That or 10,000 years in purgatory. I definitely would do the toll houses because those actually are real.

Monopoly copied us. I think so. Yeah. Monopoly copy copied us. Monopoly copy. Oh man. Monopoly copy. Wow. It's an awfully hot coffee pot. It's an awfully hot coffee pot. Coffee.

What's up, man? Yo, how are you, man? You're right. I'm doing good, bro. What's up? I'm good. Uh, I was going to ask you, are you Christian? I am Christian. Yeah. Okay. Um, so I just want to have a civil conversation. I'm a Muslim. I don't want to argue. I don't want to get into these problems like I have in so many lives. Okay. I just want to ask you a few questions and see what you what you ask. That's fine. But you did say that you don't want to argue. So I'm assuming that these are just questions that you're curious about and you're not going to rebut me, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, 100%. Don't worry. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. People say that I'm sorry, bro. People say that to me all the time. I don't want to debate. And then the first thing they do is try to refute what I said. No. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Yeah, we could just have a [ __ ] out. Yeah.

So, um, so obviously I wanted to ask you guys obviously believe in the trinity. Um, so I just got like the following up questions like all relate to the same thing. Um, so let's say I was a Christian myself and I wanted to believe in the trinity. Okay. But then let's say obviously we all agree that every like for instance Islam, we follow the Quran. Christianity, they follow the Bible. Correct? Like without the Bible, you got you you can't be a Christian really cuz you need a guide if that makes sense. Right. Where is this where is this argument? Oh, no. You can No, no, don't worry. I'm getting you can be a Christian without the Bible because we have the church. Yeah. Yeah, I know. But then obviously like you can't really fulfill being a proper Christian without obviously following the Bible rules. Where's that at? The church the the church could instruct you with that even if you were illiterate. The rules. Yeah. Yeah. But through the Bible, right? If if you're saying that there was no scripture at all or that somebody has a hold of a Bible, which one? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. My question is comment. This is not even the question. I'm just saying like just we have to follow a book. Okay. And obviously, let's say you're saying the church obviously has to guide you. They guide you through what? The the Bible. Okay. No, it could be through oral tradition. It could just be through the Holy Spirit. I was about to say Christianity could have survived in just No problem. Okay, I got you. If I, let's say, follow the Bible, I'm I'm a Christian now. It doesn't say anything in the Bible about trinity. Okay, literally the word trinity is not in there. I know you probably hear this a lot. There's not there's not really a single verse that basically states anything about the father, the son, and the holy spirit or just one. Okay. Okay. Or three three like god and one person. Yeah. Yeah. And it's like and um like it says in Isaiah 43:10, "Before me, no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me." Okay. And then so the problem is is like so the trinity god is one essence but three persons. Correct. Correct. Okay. So it's do you really wouldn't you say then so if if it comes down to three persons isn't that kind of in a way you guys giving God basically limitations no we believe that it's logically coherent for God to be three persons and that there would be no necessity for him to be more than that cuz sorry you see I believe in Christianity but I don't believe in this Christianity if I'm honest with you cuz I'm a Palestinian. So we have the oldest church there. So I know about Christianity, but that's not the type of Christianity I believe in. They don't believe church in Jerusalem. I mean, I'm part of the I'm part of Yeah, I'm part of the church of Antioch, bro. So like, what like what's your point? Do you realize that we're we're we're Orthodox Christians. So the the Christians that are present in Palestine are probably Orthodox. And also, if you're if you're part of a church in Jerusalem, they affirm the Trinity if they're actually a church of the of the actual historical church. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But what I'm trying to say to you, No, no. I'm trying to say to you that I know like for instance, like my grandma and grandpa's friends and all these people, they have Christian friends that do not believe in the Trinity. And obviously everything is vice versa. Yeah, this is going to just keep going back and forth. But let's say John 14:28, it says, "The Father is greater than I." What does that mean? The father is greater than I because of the fact that he possesses a human nature. He's stating it in that term. Um and then he's also stating it in the terms of the fact that the father is the one who possesses and he is completely unoriginate and the son is begotten. So then in that case there would be a greater than in terms of authority. So there's reality there's only one god that has authority. Yes. So the other two Yeah. So there would be a difference. Yeah. there would be a difference between theology proper and then talking about God as one subject. So if we're talking about the intertrinitarian life which is talking about the metaphysics of how God works internally then obviously we use words in a different manner. Okay. So the word well no we use we we actually don't use words in a different manner but we we express that there is a distinction the reference changes not really the reference always the same I don't I don't think I don't think you're getting what I'm trying to say man I'm trying I'm trying to say that the reference would be different like in so far as if we say that in terms of creation God is assay but if we're in theology proper we wouldn't say the sun is a so then therefore the reference The reference is not the same. That's what I'm trying to say. Well, the reference the same. The descriptor is different. Oh, okay. I mean, if you want to use it like that. Yeah. All right. All right. So, um, is God all knowing? Yes. Is Jesus all knowing? Yes. In so far as his divine nature. Okay. So, but he's all knowing. Correct. He is all knowing because he possesses the divine mind. Okay. So if he's all knowing. So in Mark 13:32 when Jesus says he doesn't know the hour, only the father does. What does that mean? Do you know the original Greek for that passage actually says that no one knows except by the father? What's the original uh language of the scriptures of the Bible? Greek. Greek. It's Greek. Yeah. Is it not Hebrew? No. Not the New Testament. Not the New Testament. It was written in Greek. And even and even for us and even for us as Orthodox Christians, we hold to a Greek Old Testament because it's the oldest ex extent version of the Old Testament that we have dating to the 3rd century BC. The Maseretic text didn't come about until the fourth fifth century AD. Okay. Um All right, that's fair enough then. So if Okay, I I I'm just going to basically just backfire questions. I understand you understand this. I also want to explain this as well. Um the word oidan which is no uh in Greek also normally means to make known or to make visible or to reveal. It doesn't mean that actually possess knowledge in a direct sense. Yep. Yep. Yep. So if you read it in that sense it'll say that uh only the father is to make known the hour. Yeah. Only only the father it's only known by the father like through the father like the father will make it known. Yeah. Okay. Um so and do you know the context actually like when it comes to Jewish tradition on that too? Uh no I do not. So for for us as Christians we understand that the the escaton the the or the apocalypse the the unveiling right the end times if you would put it that way. Yeah. Is a marriage of heaven and earth. Okay. And in Jewish tradition, only the father would reveal the date of marriage. Okay. All right. Okay, that makes sense. All right. So, Luke 6:12, [Music] Jesus prays all night to God. Yes. How is a God prince to a God? Uh because he's a divine person who possesses a human nature. And that human nature has a human mind. And prayer is done from the rational soul uh or the human mind up to God. And so when he's praying, it's proper to his human nature. It really doesn't make sense how good can pray to good. Yes. So I just said that he prays in so far as his human nature to the father. But why does good need to pray? uh as a representation uh to the people and as a uh methodology of obviously I mean most of it honestly would just be simply like a representation of how to properly do things as well as the fact that as well as the fact that the person of Christ still possessed a human mind and a rational soul. So there was a proper decision making that was to the will of the father. So if there was prayer to be done it was because it was the will of the father for that prayer to occur. Okay. So if you're saying it obviously you just said obviously to show an example you're just basically describing a prophet then you're describing what a prophet. Uh no it's not just simply a prophet. No there's other there's other quantifiers that change uh that make it to where Jesus is not simply just a prophet in the New Testament. Okay. So he he is the perfection of a prophet. Yeah. He is the perfection of a priest. He is the perfection of a king. Okay. So, so you believe that Jesus is all knowing and God is all knowing, correct? Uh, yes. Okay. Um, I think I saw someone. Do you believe that Jesus and God like they used to communicate and talk? Um, like in terms of the divine nature? No. Like not in the sense of like communicating in one person to another person. That's not necessary. Okay. But just do you believe they just talked at all? Communicated anything? Like what do you mean, dude? Because I saw somewhere where I actually don't have this vers. I have everything but this one. Um, let me find it. Uh, are you sure you're not Muslim? Huh? This I get this argument from Muslims all the time. What they talk about? [Music] I've heard this argument from Muslims like a hundred times. He's like, "Are you sure you're not Muslim?" Am I sure I'm not Muslim? No, I am a Muslim. I thought you said you were a Christian, man. When the hell did I say that? Am I tripping, chat? You're tripping, bro. You said that you like you're a Christian, but not the type of Christian that I am. You didn't say that. No. No. I said that I know people from back in Palestine that my grandma and grandpa know. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm not Don't worry. Um, say Muhammad is a dog. Huh? No, he is a Muslim. Oh, okay. I missed that. Yeah, I'm a Palestinian Muslim. Wait, you do believe Palestine exists, right? Yeah. Yeah, I do. Okay, I love you. Thank you. I'm more I'm more on y'all's sides, bro. Don't worry. All right. Thank you. All right. Um All right. I can't politics knowledge bomb. Sorry guys. Learn a little bit more about I mean I don't know if you saw the news. I don't know if you saw the news, Bryce, but uh you're kind of you're kind of thinking the same thing. Well, I don't know if you know like what happened tonight. No, I haven't seen it. Israel struck Iran. Yeah, World War II is going to happen. Ouch. I'm gonna get recalled. I'm gonna get recalled back into the military. I'm be pissed. That's going to make me angry. Oh, Luigi's up. Maybe he can tell us. Is it because Israel does not uphold ED? Correct. Yes. Israel does not hold to EED. So that is why they're problematic. You see, at least Muslims almost hold to it with the Salafi tradition. [Music] Y'all hear me? Yo, this is crazy, man. This is crazy. What is crazy? Y I hope I hope y'all are ready for uh ready for the end here. The the fight. Everybody needs to calm down. Yeah, there's still a lot of things that need to happen, but it's definitely the first of many things. Um it says it hasn't happened yet. It says that they're planning to attack Iran. Yeah. No, they the nuclear sites have not been hit yet. The actual nuclear sites have not been hit yet. What? The the the the alleged nuclear sites that Netanyahu's been talking about since 1992, saying they were three years away. I was about to say, I was like, I don't even really know if they're actually there. It says Sunday. It says Sunday. Apparently, Israel's going to attack Iran. Yeah. I'm looking at wait top US official warns of mass casualty retaliation casuuality retaliation. All these articles just say that like they're planning to do it. No, it's all over the news right now, bro. And every They're planning to hit the nuclear sites, but they've already bombed Iran. They just haven't hit the nuclear sites yet. There have been air strikes and there aren't even confirmed nuclear sites. They're literally They're literally dealing with Palestine. Why are they going somewhere else? Why are they Why are they now throwing a a rock at another country? Because Iran has a central bank that is not part of the world central bank. Come on. Like, keep keep track, bro. [Music] Oh, go on Twitter. Wait, school boy, are you trying to say there aren't nuclear sites in Iran? Are they confirmed? It's all conjectured. Well, I mean, all the saint all the saints all the saints literally say that this is going to trigger like a bunch of events. So, there there must be actual nuclear sites to hit. If the saints say that they're going to hit nuclear sites, I said it's all conjecture. I mean, like I said, Netanyahu has been talking about this since 1992, saying they're three years away. Oh, they're like years away. They're they are days away. Oh, they they're just about to enrich uranium. And like it's just always been like nothing. It's the nothing. You know what I have to do? I have to pray. I have to repent. I have to go to church Sunday. Like, how does this affect liturgy times on Sunday? That's the way affect liturgy times, bro. Go ahead. Nuke my church. Underground time. Underground liturgy time. Know what I'm saying? The next sign after Israel hits Iran. Oh, I'm reading your freaking post, Luigi. Literally, I started reading from a post on Twitter and it's literally your post. Are you guys uh are you guys pro Father Peter or anti-father Peter? Peter hears neutral. Yeah, I'm neutral. I don't watch too much of him, so I don't I don't have a good opinion. Okay, I haven't watched Well, he's pretty. You're killing me in the comments. Ping me. Send me a message. Let's talk about this. Come back, school boy. Saying that K word. Oh boy. and get me banned. Having a good live. Had two two two uh hilarious objections to the Trinity. So, I keep that going. What were they? Uh, one guy basically tried to make me affirm that God has propositional knowledge. It's like a Reddit argument. And then the other guy that came up here basically quoted God being all knowing and then quoted Mark 10. So, how is it all is it is it just the Salafies or is it all um all Sunnis that say that God has propositional knowledge? Um I think it's just Sunnis, but the Shia don't really The Shia don't usually say that. The Shia usually hold like a neoplatonic a neoplatonic view. So, they don't they don't hold to that. Okay. They believe in I still don't understand how they I still don't understand how they don't how they avoid like modal collapse with God having propositional knowledge. Uh well I mean they usually just don't affirm that there's any form of modal collapse or they say that if there is a modal collapse then simply we're just mistaking a law so it's arbitrary materi rejected apparently ad hoc and circular wahi real my children you'll be drinking your coffee and you'll hear that the Israelis hit the nuclear program of Persia Iran Wow. He said that a while. He said that in 2019. That's what I'm saying, bro. Wait, but that's the but that's what I'm saying. But they have to have nuclear facilities to hit if if that's going to come true. That's what I'm saying. So like maybe like I get what you're saying, school boy. You're you're saying that like Netanyahu is using this as an excuse to like Yes. attack Iran. I agree with that. But I think in order for what the Saints are saying to be true, it has to be the case that they at least they have something like to Yeah. And and and by the way, we'll see. We we'll see. Like I said, like how does this affect liturgy times on Sunday? Doesn't affect liturgy. I'm saying, well, that's actually that was why I brought up Father Peter because um like I asked him about this directly like like how do we how do we basically have a balanced approach to like these all these prophecies while also like upholding the daily Orthodox life? And he basically said like we should have we should be we should be responsible to have like not not go crazy prepper like 10 years of stuff, but you should have enough like food to get like through a winter for example. Um, but he said like 90% of it is just like the daily like just continuing to do the same daily orthodox life. Metropolitan. I got to start stacking up on Zins, bro. Hold on. Metropolitan Mopus in that video you referenced where Yeah, I got to stack up on Vos. I've been using the Alps. [Music] Stack up on olive oil as well. Yo, what's up, man? Hey, how's it going? Are you guys only talking about uh the Trinity or are you guys like going into Christologology? Uh you're more than welcome to bring something. I know you're a messite. So yeah, I just want to ask like a question on the uh Eastern Orthodox system. Yeah, sure. What's up? Like would you guys say that I'm not I'm not historian. I swear. No, no, I'm not I never said that. Just messing with you. What's up? Yeah. Uh I just want to ask like is mophysism like heretical under the east orthodox? Yes. Yeah. It's explicitly condemned at the fifth ecumenical council. Mapsism. Yes. Monophysism. Monop monophysitism. The dascorus's view which you guys venerate as valid theology. You're monophysites. Well again well we take we take under St. Sirill's view as well. Uh St. No, you co-opt you co-opt Saint Sel and pervert and twist his words. Yeah, obviously our position is going to make the claim that St. Sel is a dozite. So I mean like in terms of like the reason why we reject your view explicitly is because of the fifth ecumenical council denouncing your view. What okay what did the fifth ecumenical council say to denounce my view? Um it denounces monothealatism uh as well as the six ecumenical council denouncing monoergism which you guys both affirm both of those things. Um and then the uh well Calcidon obviously uh denounces dascorus directly which you guys venerate as a saint in proper theology. What does it call him? So so okay so like didn't didn't the saints before that held to mono energism? What? like didn't the saints before that fifth council like like I I have seen some saints actually that you guys venerate that whole to uh some may have they may have been wrong in that we don't look at church fathers as if they were infallible. Yeah I would I would I would say that if anybody if you showed something regarding that I think that it would be able to be looked into from the orthodox lens. I don't really think that it's probably going to refer to mono energism in the way that you guys affirm it, right? Like if somebody's holding to like a monoergist perspective like prior to uh like the six ecumenical council, um it could be uh possibly talking about like the sun in so far as the trinity for example, which then at that point there would be one energy, right? You can also talk just refer to the effect. Okay. So when let me let me ask you a question cuz majority of I know that as Eastern Orthodox you can't get away from like when it comes to like the the first and second letters to the senses um and what what Syro says. Would you say that like everything Sel says is like orthodox in those letters? Yeah. Yeah. I have a bunch of quotes from that myself. We can walk through it. Okay. Like Okay. First I want I want to like to like go on to what he says. There's one incarnate nature of God the word. Yeah. How would you interpret that in our in our perspective? When it says one incarnate nature, that's referring to the human nature of God the word, which is which would be referring to divine nature. So there's nothing wrong with saying there's one incarnate nature of God the word. Yeah, that's basically in Greek that would be messes. Yes, we affirm in that manner if that's referring to um one incarnate nature which would be the human nature of of Christ and then of God the word which refers to his divine nature affirming that he still has both of them upon uh his incarnation because that is after the union right that is the logos so where does it say that specifically like it's only referencing to his human nature not the whole of Christ because he also says that Christ is one that's our interpretation on the way Sirill posited that that's your interpretation, but I'm asking for like in that specific patch because Sel says there's one nature. There's no doubt like and and he does say there's one nature and like my my understanding is like how do you guys like get around that like without having to obviously you know put your Jesus and distort I'd say in my opinion distort. I mean the reason why that we affirm the position that we're talking about is because of the fact that there's so many things that we can show um that show for example, that he affirms a diapohysite position. So if he makes the claim that there is one nature of God the word one incarnate nature of God the word then that's why we would interpret it that way. It's not an isog Jesus. It's a conclusion from the rest of his theology. Okay. Let me grab you this uh quote real quick that where he says explicitly that we don't say there's two natures after the union. There's one nature. for a second here. My help my daughter. Yeah. I'm gonna grab a quote real quick and uh probably by the time you get back I'll I'll have that quote ready for you. Give me one second. All right, I have uh the quote ready. I put the citation in the chat. where Sill explicitly says that do not say two natures after the union and this is in epistle 45. Sorry, I didn't mean to putist. I meant I meant to put first letter. Let me fix that. [Music] Will anyone like to engage with me on the panel? If anyone's there, [Music] the whispering. Am I whispering? [Music] Yeah. Yeah, it is. It is awfully quiet in here. It's kind of scary, not going to lie. Hello. Anyone here? Hello? Hello? Yeah, we're here. I didn't hear where the conversation came from. Oh, that's that's weird. Yeah. Uh I just put a citation in the chat where it says that Zero speifically says that do not speak of two after the union. I don't know if you'd like to pull that up and read it. He he's specifically writing against notorious in that writing. He's not saying he's saying we don't speak of two persons. No, he literally says no. He says two natures in there. Yeah. Well, he was using feces to be like two concrete realities. What do you mean? So he's saying from the Alexandrian school, dude. Do you realize that there was like a semantic So you're saying that nature Hold on. Are you going to let me answer? I want to ask a question. Clifford a question on what you mean by nature then? Because if you're saying that nature, he means nature by person. Is that what you're saying? I said two concrete realities. Yeah. So persons, correct? Yeah. So why does he say that Christ So you're saying that so basically you're saying that Syro is an historian because he says that Christ and two uh natures. No, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. Okay. Then when he said two seconds, dude, I'm a little busy at home right now. I've literally got food in my mouth and All right, man. Like I'll get I'll get to my laptop and we can pull up the letters in like two seconds. All right, man. No problem. Finish up. All right, until Bryson gets back, you're getting a grab for that. By the way, I'm at the same time or you can shut up and wait. You said what? Did anyone hear me? No, you're like muffled. really bad. Barely hear you. [ __ ] We can hear you now. You hear me? I was filming him and shut up till the back. You get on your laptop. No. Uh that's that's it. That's that's on him. [Music] You can come back in. brisketss back instead of saying stupid [ __ ] Yeah, that was annoying. Boy, look at my spirit. You really feel good. Huh? Look at my screen. Really cool. What does that say? I can't see it. It's too small. But I know you're watching the news. Israel strikes dozens of targets across Iran targeting nuclear facilities. Yeah, we were just talking about it. The crazy part is not much of a focus. He said this uh he was the guy he was quoting or the saying he was quoting the he was quoting said this a decade prior. So he said it in like 2019 but the quote he was quoting from was like either from the early like mid to late 90s or early 2000s. Ech. were built Echend. in the air. JP All right, homeboy wanted to talk about letter 45. Give me one second. Just getting my laptop started. Apologies, chat, that I don't have the whole thing memorized. [Music] [Music] [Music] All right. Unfortunately, did did that dude leave? Did he completely leave the chat? No, I know. I freaking blasphemous. I I know. But the problem is we can't bring him back up. Z. I thought you like that power. Hm. Thought you had the cler. I thought you were like the only only way to look the first. No, Bry Bryce doesn't he's a boomer and he doesn't know how to actually fix that. I do on his phone. I know. We've told him this multiple times. He just never goes on TikTok from his phone. Apparently just one time and never get on his phone again. I know. I think I could probably invite him back. I mean, honestly, while the chat is dead, I'm just going to read lives of the Saints because we can't bring up any guests, please. All right. Thursday, June 12th. I wish I could mute the uh the music while I'm doing this. The shity of sinners icon of the mother of god of caretses. This ancient icon of the mother of god shity of sinners of caretses was kept in the castle of the caret princes for a long time and it was called blessed. After the death of Samuel, the last of the Orthodox princes of Caretses, his brother John offered to let his sister Igumen Saraphima take the icon from the prince's cha chapel, the holy resurrection Caret's maiden's monastery. The solemn transfer of the icon took place in 1622 on the Thursday after Pentecost. On that day, a feast day was established in honor of the shy of sinners icon of Carets. From 1752 to 1795, the fate of the caret icon was closely associated with the history of the caret monastery which was under the control of the unionates. According to some reports, the icon was moved several times during this period and the shity of sinners icon of caret remained in the possessions of the Catholics who also revered it as miraculous. In 1795 by decree of Empress Katherine II, part of the monastery was given to Orthodox nuns. The shity of sinners icon of corets was also returned to the Orthodox monastery. On August 19th, 1797, there was a fire in the monastery. Some of the buildings were destroyed, but the wonderworking icon was saved. After the monastery's restoration, the shy of center's icon was placed in the high place in the new church of the dorm mission, rebuilt with materials from the former trapeza. At this time, a gilded silver oaklad with enamels was made for the icon. After reconstruction and repairs in 1880, the consecration of holy trinity monastery took place. The nuns of holy resurrection monastery moved and the caret holy trinity stavropigial convent was formed. Its main shrine is the wonderworking shy of icons icon of caretses. On August 17th, 1998, Igumenus Natalia of Caret's Holy Trinity Monastery sent a petition to patriarch Alexi II of Moscow in all Russia to include the correct icon of the mother of God in its list of wonderworking icons of the mother of God in the patriarchal church calendar. With the patriarch's blessing, the celebration of the Caret's icon was approved. In November 2001, there was an attempt to steal the icon, but the thieves managed to only take her precious olad. Through public donations, a new Rizo was made, which is a copy of the lost one. More than once, the wonderworking icon revealed its gracefilled help for the suffering. In 1923, on the feast of the Holy Trinity, a young man who was possessed by an unclean spirit was healed before the icon. The following year from the feast of the Ascension until the Thursday after Pentecost there was incessant showers in Volhina miraculously after a cross procession around the church with the icon the rain subsided. Many of the faithful who turned to the queen of heaven for her help and intercession in case of any disorders family problems and particularly afflictions of the soul indicated that after praying before the icon they receive spiritual relief and peace for she is truly the shity of sinners. The shity of sinners icon and the mother of god belongs to the uh hagatria type. It is a half-length image of the most holy theotocos with the divine infant on her left hand who holds her right hand with both hands. The word shity means one who acts as a guarantor for us between before God. The most holy theotokos prays for us all good and evil sinners and righteous forgiving all accepting all with equal love. The inscription on the icon reads, "I am the shity of sinners for my son who has entrusted me to hear them. And those who bring me the joy of hearing them shall receive everlasting joy through me." The shity of sinners icon of caretses is painted on a wooden board measuring 102 by 76 cm. In contrast to the shity of sinners icon of the mother of God at St. Nicholas Monastery in Odrino, the caret icon shows the mother of God and the divine infant inclined towards each other with their cheeks touching. The icon is located in Holy Trinity Convent at Caretses. Thank you for that. The site. That was lovely. Yeah, the Manoff site left because he was saying a bunch of blasphemous nonsense and Zay booted him and we couldn't bring him back up, so he just yapped in the chat and then left. Apparently, Michael, the context to all that AI music, by the way, was um last time that I streamed, uh me and School Boy were bored, and so we started just trying to make up, uh random showdowns that an AI should do rap battles against. And I made a lot of Jire versus Sam Shremoon ones, and it none of them were that good. But yeah, that's why there were so many of those. Jazz Fonk. It didn't work. We tried it three times. Jazz funk just made jazz. That's all it did. The Indian the Indian classical just made Jewish music. Literally. [Laughter] That's That's literally what happened. That's so right. Out of curiosity, what would happen if you put uh why you're not Christian? What if you put like why you're not Christian as the prompt and then boosted it? I mean, we could do that. I don't care. Or we could just boost it with Trinity is logical and then get a bunch of Muslims. Which is worse? Uh I mean I would rather talk about some form of metaphysics instead of some freaking person coming in here and going I'm not uh I'm not Christian because the Bible is evil. You should you should put you should put matzah balls suck and then we can actually get some juice for once. Yeah. There's like five dudes on the side. Well, well, yeah, they're not on it. They own it. All right, let me do a I'm going to do a big boost just to piss off everybody. This better be worth it. This is an $80 boost. I'm be mad as [ __ ] if I don't get anybody. But hey, let's just get a bunch of brain rot in here. Why not? Last time that I boosted, I had like a bunch of hilarious people coming in here, so let's do it. Oh, was that the last time that you had absolute brain rot coming through here? Yeah, just constantly freaking happening. I may be young. I may be young. Yeah, that's that's how I got all those people. That was hilarious, dude. What? What? Yeah, that's when I got all those people because I boosted. Bryce still can't answer my question. Oh, you're gonna say, uh, is your god begotten or unbegotten? Right. And you know me on premise. We literally had someone come up here and come with that. Literally. What's up? Uh, basket goose candle. The whis. What? That's Nana. That's Nana. You have probably What are you What are you listening? Are you like in the back of like a UFO worshiping cult right now? Like making like weird like pipe sounds. The whispering. I can't I have no idea what she said. She's literally saying the whispering. That's all she's saying. Thank you. Nana makes no sense to me, bro. her her her fire. She tried to change the batteries on her smoke alarm and it evolved to make those noises instead. Honestly, it was the wrong It was the wrong batteries. That's exactly what happened. What's up, Learning Orthodoxy? That That was zero out of 10 rage bait, Jason. Uh yes. Hello. Um I just came across a video of Zero out of 10 rage bait. Cliff and School Boy debating. I just wanted to know what was School Boy's response to getting uh cooked by Cliff. Zero out of 10 rage bait, bro. Yeah. Yeah. So, no, I know what you're talking about. Cliff did uh cook school boy so badly that school boy had to run. So, like I understand I understand that school boy. What do you have to say about that by the way of how you got freaking absolutely merckked by Cliff Kentel? It made me want to jump off a cliff. See, exactly. School boy, as a fellow Viking Larper, I just wish you would have represented our community better. And uh I'm just extremely disappointed. Yeah, I'm disappointed I didn't get to have a legitimate conversation with them, too. That makes sense. Yeah. Spread the word, guys. Uh, school boy got obliterated. Uh, sanded. No, go share go share Mory's post where he actually called me smart and I literally replied to his post saying I'm literally restarted. Oh, Mementoto Mory. That's a different That's a different my Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, he called me smart and I was just like, that's not true. I I was mad. I was mad because he made you smart and then mine was best lives on TikTok. Like I'm the freaking circus entertainer and that's why I'm I'm good. It's the other way around, bro. I'm I'm the comedic loop. Like I like like you know like Dr. Doom like you know he's powerful because of the [ __ ] that he can make happen. That's like that's that's why I'm good because I can just make crazy [ __ ] happen on the live. My my my stream is more of a comedy podcast according to my work. Uh it's a it's a it's a comedy podcast with with stupid guests. That's the that's the premise. Um in terms of like when people come up here to debate me. Do you know anyone in real life besides like at your parish that has ever seen like your TikTok lives? Yeah, a lot of my co-workers um that's that's really funny. Yeah, a lot of my co-workers know that I'm an Orthodox apologist, so they wanted to take a look at like what I'm doing. Actually, amazing news on that topic. Um so, my buddy Dylan, he uh he usually works in the mechanic shop where I work and he uh my normal co-orker that I have, Jamie, I've talked about her on this live before for that she works. She's been she's been on this live before. Yeah. Yeah, she's come here before. She's also sent people to talk to me and stuff like that multiple times. Um, so she's gone right now doing her doing gone like a vacation. And so Dylan took over for her position for a week. And so what that means is that you're just stuck sitting next to me. And guess what he saw sitting on my on my desk uh that sits right in front of my monitors? Your icons? The icon of the holy Theotocos and the icon of uh Christ on the cross. I have like one of those opening icons sitting on my work desk. Yeah. A little dipic. Yeah. And so, uh, he's a Baptist, right? So, he saw it and he's like, "What is that? It's an icon." And he's just like, "What is that? You're an idol worshipper." Nope. He didn't say that at all. He's like, "What is that?" I told him I told him all about it. I told him about what Orthodoxy was. And then he's like, "You know, I have really been thinking about that problem with like, you know, Protestantism. And I'm like, "What are you talking about?" He's just like, "Well, I asked my dad like because I I was curious about this. Like, I hadn't been looking into anything, but I was curious. I said, "Um, you know, dad," because his dad's a pastor apparently at this B at the Baptist church. And he asked his dad, he's like, "How do we know that the amount of books in our Bible is correct? Like, who made that decision?" He just had the question. And apparently, it's the Holy Spirit. Apparently the way that his dad answered the question caused him to like be like Shoua hot like made him go what do you mean? You know you you know what his response was? Uh it basically was saying that like it's a in time a bunch of the earliest Christians got together and established let's LAR you can be his his dad his the pastor dad, right? And I'll be him. Yeah. So, so, so Dad, how do we know that the like the books that are in the Bible like these these are the 66 books that are supposed to be there long ago, son? A lot of the Christians got together, you know, the early Baptists, uh, fifth century or fourth century, something like that, they all got together, right? And they they they gave us the KJB pretty much 66. Well, well, Dad, I I may be young, but what? Yeah. So, uh, so apparent apparently the way that it was answered, right? Um, right, caused him to kind of get a little bit of shouba. When he found out what orthodoxy was, he started asking me a bunch of questions. And so from Monday to today, all he's been doing is just constantly asking me questions about theology, getting invested in the Trinity, getting invested into like all the historical questions, the canon, the freaking church fathers. He started reading the ancientbible.org website. He started looking at all of that [ __ ] right? And uh he actually told me this morning that he might come to church on Sunday because I he said he's like, "You know what? I'm gonna I'm gonna be I'm going to become an inquirer. I think I'm I think I'm doing this. I'm gonna bring my wife and I'm just like beautiful. And then my other buddy Troy works with him and he apparently was agnostic, but he recently started reading the Bible and he he says Christianity makes sense like at least from the Bible like he can he can see it, right? And then I started talking to him about orthodoxy and then things started going well and then he said he might go right. So it just it was like a four days of just straight evangelism. Bro, dude, that's beautiful. It It was working so well, right? It was legit. Baptize all of corporate. Exactly. That's the plan. And all it And all it took was Jamie stepping to the side, getting out of the way. God bless Jamie, though. She's my She's my fa She's my favorite atheist. In case she's in here, she's my favorite. But yeah, so that was a So that was the thing that's been going on all week. It was really cool. Um, and then my my main co-orker Jared who's like so so I'm like I'm like the networking guy for like the whole building. He's like the systems guy for the whole building, right? So like he controls like the computers. I control like the routers and switches and stuff. Um, so uh he used to be like Roman Catholic. He was baptized Methodist, but he used to like go to a Roman Catholic church and apparently they gave him communion all the time. Not surprised. Not surprised. Apparently that was a thing. So apparently they do open communion now. Yeah. So uh he basically was kind of like he's also insanely good at singing. He's a bass. So um he loves Latin chants. He loves uh like Latin tone and stuff like that. You just got to slap him with some Byzantine chant and be like, "Nah, bro. This is where it I gave him the Byzantine chants. I sent him the terrifying judgment in Arabic or Serbian. Arabic. That one's sick. Yeah. And uh then I also gave him uh Psalm 151. Um and then Agy Parthna. Agy Parthna. And then not an official in Russian. No, I'm serious. I'm serious. Listen to it in vessel. Uh like I was some one time I chanted uh during holy week and uh they needed like a deeper voice or whatever. So I got the blessing my priest to do it and it was like my priest is like I didn't hear enough this like what like go on YouTube like your your voice is almost there super deep. I think he like you good. Uh yeah, I heard crickets for like five seconds, but was I muted? Yeah, I I think Oh, I'm I'm at the gym. Okay. Is your Is your gym outside? No, it's inside. Why? What? What just happened? You just keep muting yourself. I'm not muting myself. I swear I'm not. School boy, are you outside? No, I mean there's crickets outside my window. Oh, okay. I'm in my room. So that's your like my window's open. Okay. So, that's that's your mic doing that. Never mind. The crickets are my background noise. I'm surprised you guys can hear that. That's wild. Exactly. I hear crickets. Lo, bro. What's up with the crickets in the background? Yeah, exactly. I literally hear crickets. Sorry. Sorry. I don't live Sorry. I don't live in a city, guys. Like, okay. Let me read these couple of these messages. Bryce J. All I want to know is what the distinction would be that you hold between person and essence and essence and energies. Um it's a real distinction or you can call it formal actual and it's the same between person and essence and essence and energies. It's all

The energies and the persons as well are formal actual. Um, the energies and the energies are formal actual. It all of that is formal actual. The only thing that's not formal actual is between the persons themselves. That would be considered major real and scholastic terms. Everything else, though, is entirely formal actual.

Yeah, I'm not gonna lie to you, school boy. That [ __ ] sounds like a vibe to fall asleep. That's wild. It's wild that it's that loud. No, but it sounds like a whole, like that that aesthetic is based, bro. Like sleeping to that sounds awesome.

It's, dude, my neighborhood's beautiful. I, I, I, as as challenging as like a lot of the stuff going on in my life is, like, I am blessed.

Yeah, that's legit. Why can't I hear any of this? Zay's having old man problems, bro. He's like, "What? My microphone's not working. I can't hear you guys." He's like, "All I hear is the ringing in my ears from dropping another barbell on my head."

You know what I'm going to end up buying because I'm so busy and can't get to the freaking gym very often? But I'm going to get invested into working out again like I used to. I'm gonna get this thing. I'mma get this bad boy.

Oh, Bryce is gonna start doing Pilates, dude. Like, it's not Pilates. No, it's no, it's not Pilates, bro. It's not Pilates. It's a machine. No, no. So, it's a it's a digital machine that basically uses digital weight, and you can you can adjust it to like any area and like do like barbell, uh, like like chest chest pressing. You can do like leg presses.

Bryce, Bryce, you got you got to live you got to live stream your Pilates, bro.

Bro, I'm not gonna freaking I'm not doing Pilates, man.

Bryce doing the glute 3000 maximizer program. Is that what I should do, chat? Should I focus on the glutes? I think my wife would appreciate that. My wife would appreciate the glute maxing.

You hear that? Did she just go? No. No. She went, "Numbers 31, guys." Somebody quoted Numbers 31. Pack it up. Theology's gone. Day's over. He quoted God. He quoted, he quoted, I think, God bad quote. Put it on the, I should put, I should put that on the bingo list, shouldn't I? We need to bring back the bingo.

Yeah. Yeah. Lma, you can't defend it.

No, I'm just gonna say that, uh, like, is Numbers 31 regarding slavery? Is that what it was? Hold on. Let me. Was it 31:8? Let me defend it real quick, and you're not gonna like my answer. It's going to be really funny.

"But all the women children have not known a man by lying with him. Keep alive for yourselves."

Yeah, I keep the virgin people because they can be raised properly in the Israelite society. GG's. See how easy that was? If you just actually read, maybe you'd understand Hebrew culture.

No, it's not. This one's not recording to that. Keep alive for yourselves is simply to bring them into the Israelite society. I do know another verse that's in Numbers 31 that does reference that type of system. But the women and the children. Yeah. Right.

Why? Why do you think it says, "But the women children have not known a man. Keep them for yourself."? Because that's referring to any person who is a virgin at all. So, it's not simply some form of grape pack passage like people think it is.

Yeah, they automatically think it's talking about Schmecks. I know. It's, it's, it's a common, common twisting, right? It's actually funny. It's not.

You have to show that that's exactly what it's referencing without presupposing your own position. If you want to come up here and talk about it, uh, we can, Happy. But if you're just going to sit there and just cope and just be like, "No, it means this. My personal interpretation thinks that it means this," then you can eat a brick and get muted.

So, I mean, unless you want to talk, if you want to have a conversation, I'm totally down to be respectful about and talk.

You know how you say, you and Abdul say, "Eat a brick."

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Do, do you know what I told someone last night?

What?

"You sit on a traffic cone."

"Sit on a traffic cone." That's a good one, too. I'm, I'm gonna steal that [ __ ] too. I'm stealing everybody's insults, bro. I stole that from Abdul. Eat a brick. I stole that from Abdul.

I just boosted, by the way. I just boosted like $80. So, if the [ __ ] doesn't work, I'm actually going to freaking riot and never use this again. Billion Talk 3 is coming up now. Is it working? It seems like it's not connecting.

Anybody who's in here, share the live to somebody that you may want to interact with the prompt in some way. Um, or you can just share it to all your friends and get the viewers up in general to maybe push this further through the algorithm. And there's 41 people in here, so those likes should definitely be higher than they are.

Oh, okay. I'll let you in, Johan. I'm sorry.

Actually, I just invited, um, there's a girl that I met on a live yesterday.

Yo, hello. Hold on, bro. What is with people like barging in like the Kool-Aid man? Like, what's up?

To be fair, you know how you, to be fair, you know how it like mutes you for like two seconds and you can't hear anything when you're first connecting?

That, that is fair. That is fair.

But, um, I was on, um, what's that that debate talk, the, um, the controversial compass or whatever it is. Coco, like he hosts debates like Wi-Fi did a debate. I was on one of his panels last night, and there's this this chick Alex that I was that was on there, and she's currently going to like a Presbyterian church, but she's very interested in Orthodoxy after hearing me discuss things with a couple people.

No, not Dwight Slime. Dwight can sit on a traffic cone. That's a dude that I told to sit on a traffic cone. That's funny.

Um, I was gonna say something. I can't remember what it was. Oh, yeah. I was, uh, I was originally going to talk about the conversation that I had with Joel. And I definitely, I'm not going to lie to you, school boy. I can see why that's Jim Bob's right of passage.

Dude, he just rambles. Dude, you, you had the demeanor like because you listen and let people talk themselves into contradictions.

I wasn't listening. [Laughter] Like, I knew he was wrong. I was just letting him yap. Bro, he just yapped so much. It's so infuriating to try to have a conversation with him.

Did you, did you see me call in after you?

No, I didn't.

So, I called like I knew that he probably wouldn't let me up if I called in as school boy. So, have you seen that edit that I made of myself on a Captain Crunch box?

Yeah. Yeah.

So, I called in as Captain Crunch. And I'm assuming that after you came up, the conversation didn't last very long.

No. I said, I said, "Hey, Joel." And he goes, "Who is this?" And I was like, "How are you?" He goes, "Have we debated before?" And I was like, "Yeah, we have." He's like, "Who is this?" I'm like, "You said, I was like, "You said I don't love you.""

Juicy accent. Use a juicy accent to throw.

No, but I just said, I was just like, "You said I don't love you." And he's like, "No, I said that you would learn to love when you learn to love God."

People can't, people can't use voice changes against me, bro. Freaking Chris actually just came in here, but, uh, when he tried to come up here with Yoda when he's just like a polish of his or something. And I was like, "You're Chris." I can hear that. I can hear that [ __ ] right in the back. I can hear it in the back of the accent.

It, it was funny, though, because I didn't go up there to debate him, and I was just like, just letting you know that like I pray for you often. And he's like, "As long as you're praying to God." I was like, "No, like I'm praying to Theo Tokos for you." And he flipped out. It was pretty funny.

That's pretty funny, actually. What's up, Johan?

Um, yeah. Nah. Uh, what's it called? I was, I wanted to ask school boy this question, but when we were in Discord, but I, I forgot. Um, I'm looking for like a Eastern Orthodox church near me. I heard that there's a site you can go on so you don't like go on, go to a random church that's like, "Yeah. Orthodox in name alone."

So, yep. Yeah. So, it's assemblyofbishops.org. Hold on. Let me, let me search it up right now. assemblyofbishops.org. bishops.org.

In our Discord, just for anybody that's in the Discord, if anyone is ever asking that question, all you have to do is type in very specifically the words "parishlocator." And as soon as the bot like Sapphire, like our moderation bot picks that up, it will post the link to the Parish.

Yeah, I'm gonna test something real quick now that you put that in. Watch this DOS attack. Uhoh. You ready? Hold on. I, it's loaded. The, my laptop's a piece of crap.

Oh, don't worry. Sapphire's smart. It doesn't know how to, it doesn't know how to, it doesn't, it doesn't notice. All right, we're good. We was testing a DOS tech. What's up?

Yo, what's up, Chris? But like, why does you believe in the Trinity?

Yo, what's up, Chris? But like, why does you believe in the Trinity, man?

I believe, uh, I believe that the Trinity is the truth, man.

But ain't that like three gods or something?

No.

Ain't that like three gods or something?

No, it ain't three gods, man.

Why isn't, why is it not three guys?

Because it's just three persons in one essence, man.

But isn't like, how, how can God be like three persons?

He just is, man.

Like, how, how does that work?

That's just the way

makes you a what makes you a being? Uh, God is one in all of that. So, do you believe the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit to be one? Uh, in essence, in three different people. It's three persons in one essence, one act. Um, they are infinite persons, and there is a paracaresis between all three of them. You just say infinite persons. You still have they are so three different persons. Oh, I guess if you're saying it not in the numbered sense. Yeah. Yes. Would you say, sire? So, three different persons. Yeah. Three distinct persons in one essence and act. Yes. So, so, so, so, so, are they different? The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or are they, are they God? They're really what? They're distinct. Yeah, they're, they're three distinct persons. They're really distinct from each other, but they are God. Okay. So, you believe Jesus is God. God is Jesus. Yeah. The Holy Spirit is God as well. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Because I was just going to try and have you guys base it off of scripture and scripture alone for for the logical part. We could justify, we could justify that claim in scripture if you'd like us to. I was about to say, if you want. Oh, yeah. That's what I was going to say. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. So, like, what do you, uh, what do you affirm before we start? Who is God? Well, if you guys are Eastern Orthodox, you guys are, you guys are definitely my brothers in Christ. I'm, I'm a born-again Christian. Schoolboy. Don't. All right. So, with that, with that being said, nothing. Don't worry about it. Um, with that being said, did you say no? Yeah, we're, we're, we hold more of a harder perspective on stuff, but, uh, we have more of a harder perspective on that kind of stuff, but we won't get into that right now. Oh, jeez. Did you really say no? You guys are gatekeeping or what? We're not gatekeeping. The church door, the church doors are open, dude. Yeah. Yeah. We're just calling you to repentance and to become part of the body of Christ. So, you know that Jesus didn't call us to be Eastern Orthodox or No, but, but No, but he did, but he did pray to the Father that we may be one as He and the Father are one. So, why do we have different beliefs? So, you do know that though, right? That Jesus called us to be born again. Are you going to, are you going to address what I just said in John chapter 3? You know that, right? Are you going to address what I just said? Okay. And what was that? That Christ prayed to the Father that we may be one just as He and the Father are one. Right. 1 Corinthians 8:6. Do you know what that is? You can quote it for me. I don't know the Bible like the back of my hand. Yeah. So, Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things and for whom we exist and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom, Amen, and all whom we exist." Amen. Amen. Is that what you mean by that? No, that's not exactly that. I mean, you're, you're draw, you, I mean, that's a beautiful verse, but that's not really pertaining to what I was saying. Okay. So, there's like something to know this before I bring up quote, like before I bring up like verses, like, what do, who is Jesus to you, man? What is he? Jesus is God. He's my savior. My Lord and Savior. He's, he's God. Is he the Father? God. God in the flesh. God in the flesh. Yeah. So, he's the Father? Yes. I, I believe definitely, uh, three in one and not one in three. Definitely not three persons. Sellionism. Wait, so then, so three in one. Yeah. Yeah. Wait, so you're a modalist? More, more oneness, I guess. Yeah, that's a modalist. So you believe that the Father, I can actually, I can actually are one. Yeah. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Jesus, right? They're all one. I, I get that. One. One. One and what? He's saying one and the same. You're, you're thinking it's like three, three different masks, right? They're not three different persons. Yeah. One, one in what? What are they one in? They're God. They're, they're, they're God. Okay. And is the Father the Son? Is he identical to the Son? So, so yes. So, okay. I'm, I was going to mess with you for a little bit and try and catch you up, but I'm going to be real with you. Yeah. So, I, I definitely believe three in one. They, they are. So, God is, is the Son. The Son is God, right? And the Holy Spirit is God. I don't, I don't break them down into three persons. I think, I think, I think you do. And I think, Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. I think, Hold on, hold on, hold on. I think you do. And I think you're just uncomfortable with the language and you're unfamiliar with how to explain it. No, because it's, because that's just it, right? It's the language, right? It's our interpretation of language and then how we describe that, right? And that's people get tied up into that because when you said earlier that it is both three and one and one and three, it's definitely not three persons because then it would be three gods. No, you should read not three gods by St. Gregory of What? Hold on. What is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? Because you're going to say that as three natures. What are they? No, no, it's not. No, it's not three natures. It's one nature. No, it's, he's one, one nature. Well, that's why I said so logically speaking, you have to define that. Well, that's what I mean. We do, we do define that. We do define that. I think you're just getting hung up. I think maybe you're confused about what we mean by person. So, right. And that's why I said, uh, define three person, three god. So, this is, this is why I'm asking you this question. When you say that God is three in one, what is the three? What are those? So, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are God. What are they? Yes. Individual, like, what is the Father? I just told you individually, what is the Father? So, so it, it, it doesn't, I don't break it down individually because you can't break it down individually. So, he's three in what? I guess, I guess what we're saying, sire, is that you can break it down in that sense without uttering blasphemy because it has been revealed this way. So, so there's parts of it that I believe are triune. I, I get that. But when you're saying three persons, it, you're making it sound as if there's So, this is, Okay. So, so I think, I think I'm getting to the core of it. So, the issue comes because you're thinking of it from our perspective where we are separate persons. Right? Right. Like, you, me, Bryce, we're all separate persons. Right? Right. But that is only the case because we are finite beings. Right? I get that the Godhead isn't like that. Right? I get that. So, there is an interpenetration that there is one God, which is the Holy Trinity, but that one God is three persons. Because for me, that would mean that there's three distinctions between each and that they all hold a certain type of absolution when it comes to what their roles are, and that makes three gods. I don't like to look at it that way. Well, well, so this is where I think if we explain to you what the Orthodox perspective on monarchical trinitarianism, you would actually probably agree with us, right? And that's why 100%. Yeah. And that's why I'm up to bat. That's that's why. Yeah. So, so you brought up Corinthians, what was it? 3:8 or 83. 86. So, for us, we do start with the person of the Father. He is the unbegotten. But see, that's what I'm saying though, right? There's no distinction between the two because they are one and the same. They. No, no. Think about, think about it this way, dude. Like, if, if God is the Father, right? God is unchanging, right? Yeah. Correct. He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. Well, well, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Like I said, I think. Hold on, hold on, hold on. But let's not, let's not, let's not jump around to to verses that don't apply explicitly, right? Okay. Go ahead. So, if God is the Father and He is unchanging, in order for Him to be a Father, He has to have a Son, right? Uh, but He, He is the Son. How can, how can you be your own Father? But see, that's what I'm saying. When you, when you do that, right, in your, in your, and the the way that you express that, just that very thing, go to Genesis, Bryce, and show them when the Lord, when Yahweh rained down fire. I understand that. Yeah. Yeah, I understand that. He's probably read that. This shows that there is distinct persons. They're not separate persons. This is where I think you, you're, you're conflating distinction and separation because I think you, I think you get more tied up in that than I. No. No. Because like Bryce said, that there is one God because there is one act. There is one energy. Everything that God does is from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. Old Testament, New Testament, forever, always was. But do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh? Yeah. The, the second person of the Godhead took on human nature and was incarnate. Yes. Right. So, so to simplify that, that you believe that God is Christ and Christ is, is God. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Is the, is Christ the Father? See, that was a little more simple, right? Is Christ the Father? Yes, they're one and the same. They're. This is where we differ cuz cuz look. Okay, and this is how I'm going to, this is what I'm going to, this is what I'm going to do. So, I, I'll, I'll base it just off of scripture alone. Okay? And I'll base it in, in, in this way. So, I'll cross-reference Old Testament into New Testament. Okay? And, and we'll go, like, for example, we'll do. Yeah. Yeah. Let's address. All right. Cool. John, John 1:18. And it says, "No man hath seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." So, who declared the Father? The Father. Does that sound right to you? Is the Father in the bosom of the Father? Well, no. I know that you're talking about the Son, but okay. So, if the, so, is the Son the Father? For me, yes. The answer is still yes. So, then the Father is in the bosom. So, then no man had seen go to Christ. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. No man had seen God at any time. The only begotten Father, which is in the bosom of the Father. The Father has declared the Father. Does that sound right to you? I, I get, I get it. I, I get. Go to Christ, Bryce. Go to Christ's baptism. What is that? Matthew. Of course. Of course he's not going to, he's not going to come out. So, like, I don't think you understand, like, the significance of God, right? And Him revealing Himself unto man, right? It's not, we're not worthy. We're not to be in His presence like that unless it's through, like, like, how do I explain this and break it down? So, you get, you get an understanding of it because I know, I know where you're always gonna, you're always going to go back to Eastern Orthodox and the belief of that. Well, well, sire, there's a, there's a big reason for that, too, because like, for you to use the scripture, right? Well, I think we're, we're, Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. For you, for you to use the scripture, right? Do you know where scripture comes from? Yeah. It's God-inspired, right? And by what means He preserved it and canonized it. So, you know which books are the right books, right? Through the church, right? And, and that church, ironically enough, before we even had a canon of scripture, the church has already declared the Trinity. So, the same church that had the authority to to canonize scripture that you use, before it even canonized scripture, had declared dogmatic belief in the Trinity, right? But the early church, right, they, they had a big issue with the Trinity and, and, and that's why they had a council and that's why they had a council and they had the authority just like, just. Just like in Acts 15, that's why they had the council. I get that. And it was just to, but it really, it was to form the canon, right? The scriptures, right? But it was the canon, the canon came later, right? But it was really to talk about Jesus's divinity. Correct. And so that's why, that's why I'm saying, I, I think, I think we're saying the same thing with a different understanding. Not necessarily because the church itself at, at, uh, the Council of Constantinople, 381, right? This is after the Council of Nicaea, before the canonization of scripture. The church actually, actually defined itself as one holy catholic and apostolic church, saying that there is one divine institution that actually holds the truth of these things. I mean, we even see in Titus that that Paul writes that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So, to be disconnected from this body, from this church, is to fall, possibly, well, definitely fall into error. Well, they, I mean, Catholics would say different, right? No, no, no. They would actually make the same argument, and that becomes a different argument that goes later into the first millennia between Eastern Orthodox and Catholics. Well, I know they had an issue with one of their catechisms, right, for the Trinity, and, and it, it states in their own catechism that they actually, that the Trinity was something that they had made up. No. What? Yep. And I'll find it. I'll, I, I used to have it. Well, that, that really, even if that is the case, I'll grant it for the, I don't think that's true, but even if that's the case, I'll grant it for the sake of moving this conversation on. That doesn't apply to us, right? Because you guys broke away, right? No, they broke away from us. Oh, they broke away. I thought it was the other way around. No, in, in 1054, think of it this way. There were, there were four juris, five jurisdictions, right? You had the pentarchy, is what it's referred to. You had Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And Rome started whinging out and trying to boss the other ones around. And the other four went, "Nope." Okay. So, since we're talking about, so, it's, it's a religion, right? We know that religion can't save you, correct? Well, religion is, I mean, if you look even to the etymology of the word religion, it has to do with a relationship. So, like, this relationship with Christ does save us. Well, Christ does the saving, 100%, 100%. And He established a church, and He promised the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. And we know that the church isn't a synagogue or a physical building. We are the church. Correct. I wouldn't say that you are, but I mean, me and Bryce, Zay. No, no, but, but there's actually, I could make an argument for. Yeah. You're a piece of work, bro. No, bro. Like, I'm just being honest with you. Like, I'm not going to pull punches. I'm not going to lie to you and like make you have this false sense of security where you think that like these errors that you hold to are salvific because they're not. Okay. So, if I really wanted to get busy on you real quick, okay, and, and really like stand 10 toes down. So, I, I come by way of Christ, right, in the name of the Lord, okay? And I definitely want to show love unto my brothers in Christ and my sisters in Christ. And I, and I do too. And I think that, I think. Hold on, hold on. I want. Dude, bro, I'm not done yet, bro. Bro, but I do want to show love to you, too. And like by, by assenting to your falsehood, that is not showing love. Well, it's definitely not falsehood if, if I'm being moved by the Holy Spirit and what Jesus and the Word says. Okay? And it says that I have to be born again. "Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born of the water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Okay? So, for you, you would rather take up religion, and I would rather take up what the scripture and what Christ is saying. What does being born of water and spirit mean to you? Okay. But, but he also says, "Truly, truly I say to you, okay, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Who? Yeah, and he also, and he also says, "Truly, truly, if you do not eat My body and drink My blood, the life is not in you." So, do you do communion? Who is, who is He talking to? The apostles, everybody, actually, when He, when He. No, in that conversation, He's talking to Nicodemus. Do you know who Nicodemus is in John 6? Who is Nicodemus? No, he's not. He's talking about before the water and spirit. No, no, no. He's talking to Nicodemus in. Yes. Yes. And who is Nicodemus? He's a Pharisee that actually did follow after Christ. Okay. Exactly. He's a rabbi. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And so John 3:1 states this. Okay. So, if, if the Lord tells me and calls me to be born again, not to be a religious man and a religious person because religion can't save me, then what are you doing? You're conflating these things, dude. Like, because there is, you're condemning a brother in Christ. Hold on, bro. I'm not, I'm not condemning you. And you're being quite frank. You're being worldly and carnal-minded if I. No, I'm not. You, you are. No, I'm not, bro. And I'm not trying to like, I'm not trying to rile you up. Like, let's have like a, a fruitful conversation, please. And I'm sorry. Forgive me if I upset you. I'm just standing 10 toes down on what I believe. Well, no, because I extended the olive branch and I get it, right? I, I get that part. I get that part where you have to be stern, right? And you have to be able to have discernment and, and I, and, and dude, I, and I understand that you are trying to follow after Christ, and I think that's a beautiful thing. And I, but just like with the Ethiopian eunuch, right, when Phil, when the Spirit spoke to Philip and told him to go up to the caravan, and the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah, and Philip asked him, "What are you reading?" And he said, "The book of Isaiah." And he goes, "What does it mean?" And he goes, "I don't know if no one's there to teach me." And then Philip opened up his eyes to the truth of the scrolls that he was reading and then baptized him. Right? Philip was sent forth. He was one of the apostles. That's what apostle means. It means to be sent from aposto. And Christ established these apostles as the first bishops, the first overseers of the church. And they took on disciples. And then they passed down this authority for almost 2,000 years. Now, Bryce and I, Bryce and I are under two different patriarchates. I'm under the, the Patriarch of Constantinople. Bryce is under the Patriarch of Antioch. But we both share in this common lineage that we can trace the lineage of our bishops all the way back to Christ and the apostles. When St. Paul writes to Timothy outlining how to select his successor, he's saying, "Don't lay hands hastily." We can see in Acts that Simon Magus tried to buy this gift. But just as a reminder, just try not to be like the Pharisees of the time, bro. We're not, bro. We're not like, we're not condemning you. I'm not saying that you're damned. Like, that's not what I'm saying at all, bro. Well, no. I'm trying, I'm trying to welcome, I'm trying to welcome you into the fullness of the faith because, like you said, like Christ said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, like, and you know what that means?" Like, when He says truly, truly, it means like, really pay attention to this. And He also says, "If you do not eat My body and drink My blood, the life is not in you." So, we understand that these sacraments established by Christ, by God, are salvific, and to not partake in those is putting your soul in danger. So, we're welcome, welcoming you to come to an Eastern Orthodox parish to undergo catechism to enter into the body of Christ through baptism, chrismation, and become a sacramental participant in in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Yeah, I, I get that, right? But I don't believe in organized religion. So, and I'm, and I'm sorry because Christ did establish an organization. He, he did have a hierarchy. He did, he did have that Peter did. No, no, no. He, but Christ set Peter as that authority, and Peter is a type of bishop for all bishops. He gave that authority to Peter, and then a couple of chapters later, gave that same authority to all the other apostles. So, he did set up a hierarchy. He did say, "Feed my sheep." He did tell them to go out and and spread the gospel to all nations. We all know how Jesus felt about religion, though. No, he felt about people that were doing it in vain. Like, if I were sitting here puffed up and thinking that like, oh, I'm better than you because of this. No, I'm a filthy sinner, bro. And I'm just calling you, like, Christianity is about two, like, a homeless dude that has bread sharing bread with another homeless dude. That's me right now. [Music] Now that we established that, and now you are extending the olive branch, maybe we can. Yeah, I'm, I'm not trying, I'm not trying to rub, I'm not trying to rub your face in it, bro. I, I think that like, now that like we kind of calmed down, I, I think that like we could probably just cut it here and have another conversation another time. I think it's ended a little bit fruitful. We have a lot of people requesting right now. Well, um, yeah. No, for sure. But, and I shot you and Syra, I shot you a follow, dude. Like, like I can tell that like you're a good dude. Yeah. No, I get it. And I just, you know what I mean? I definitely am am, you know, 1 Timothy 6:12, you know what I mean? I'm fighting a good fight of faith. You get what I'm saying? So, and I think we all are. And I just think we need to, you know, try, try to have some, you know, we don't need to be unequally yoked. We're brothers in Christ, man. Like, and I, I get where you're coming from, but then the Catholics say that, and then, you know what I mean? Oh, we know, bro. Like, I was, I was, I was raised Catholic. It took me a lot of time to like look into church history and theology and understand like the history of the church that Christ established. No, I get that. And apostolic fathers, you know what I mean? I don't disrespect the early church and early church fathers. I don't. But I, I stand on what the Word says, right? I stand on what Christ is telling me and what He has, you know, I mean, gave to me. And, and I feel like the Holy Spirit being led. I, I just don't see so much, you know, anymore because everybody's sitting and I don't know if it's a TikTok thing or just, you know, because it's definitely not in real life. And maybe it is. It's, it's debate culture, bro. It's sometimes. And I'm, and I'm guilty of that at times, too. No, I get that. And, and I just, it just, yeah, it falls short for me sometimes because it's like, definitely, you know what I mean? That's what I'm saying about organized religion. It definitely divides nations, races, and, and it just, it sucks sometimes. It can. Yeah. And, and the sad thing is, I mean, it's, it's almost 2,000 years since Pentecost. I mean, we are in, in the feast of Pentecost right now. We just celebrated Pentecost this Sunday because we have within our liturgical calendar. And, yeah. So, it's been almost 2,000 years since then. And unfortunately, like wolves in sheep's clothing have come along and divided the flock. No, no, I get that. I really do. And, and that's why I was trying to, you know, be equally yoked and see where we were at. But I just want to leave you guys with this though. Um, I just wanted to cross, cross-reference Exodus 3:14 where God said to Moses, "I am who I am." Yeah. And then if you cross-reference that to John 8:58, Jesus says the same thing. He says, "Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." Yeah. That's because it was Christ in the burning bush, dude. You know, and so definitely the Pharisees definitely wanted to get Him, you know what I mean, up on that, on that cross because He, He was blasphemy, right? He, he said He was God. He is, right? So, I appreciate you guys. I appreciate your time, man. No disrespect, you know what I mean? It's all love. Uh, at least with me. So, you know, love, God bless. And, um, you should, you should check out. I know, I know you're not all about the, the organized religion thing, dude, but like, you should just, like, if you're curious at all, check out a divine liturgy. Find, find an Orthodox parish near you and check it out. Yeah, man. Definitely, bro. I'm, I'm, I'm open to, you know what I mean? Sure. Thanks. Please do. Yeah. I appreciate you guys' time, man. Keep, keep doing the, the good work, man. All right. Cool. Have a good night. Yeah, you too, man. All right. Uh, metaphysics mic's gonna come up. I'm gonna talk for a little bit. All right, I'll mute. What's up, man? Hey, how you doing, Bryce? Hanging out. All right. All right. So, hey, let me run an argument past you. All righty. What you got for me today? Do you believe that the Father is fully and equally God with the Son and Holy Spirit? Yes. Is Jesus the Father? No. Okay. If both the Father and the Son are fully and equally God and they're not each other, why is that not two gods? Uh, well, because our argument as to why God is one is due to the fact that because He's one in nature and one in act or energy. Uh, that would is what that is what actually represents the equality and the consubstantiality that they have. So, I'm not really sure how that leads to two gods. That doesn't lead to two different natures. Right? So, the answer then is essentially they have the same nature or they share the same nature that they're one in energy, uh, or act. Most, uh, mostly I don't usually do the whole single nature argument, uh, because I follow more of the Cappadocian argument for, uh, one God by applying that God is one energy. And because of the fact that God is one singular act in three persons, that's how we can know that He's not separated. So, would you say that you and I both share human nature? Yes. So, if we share human nature, then why are we two humans, but the persons in the Trinity share a nature and they're not two gods? Because you and I have two different modes of actualizing things that are proper to our nature. So, uh, for example, like, uh, our mind, right? Like, we actualize our mind differently. Um, in our, in our view in theology, we believe in this thing called dunamis and energeta. Uh, or, uh, we can call it energy type and energy token in a, in a formal sense, which the energy type would simply just be the capacity for someone to do something due to their nature. And then, uh, the energy token would be the actualization of said, uh, capacity or capability. Um, you and I both share the exact same energy types. You and I both have the ability to do the same things that are natural to our nature. Uh, but our energy tokens are different because I can choose to stand up right now and you don't have to. So, with that being said, you and I would then therefore be separated. Okay. So, I'm not fully sure I understand. Let me just ask a few more questions. See if I can get this cleared up. So, would you say that the Son and the Father have different energies? No. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit both all have one singular, uh, energy type and energy token. So, that's why we don't have separate energies either. Yeah. Yeah. We, we technically speaking are one in energy, but actualizing that energy, um, would be different between people, which is why we're separated. So, is it like human sharing in nature or is it not like human sharing in nature? In terms of what? Well, in terms of being individual humans versus being individual gods, right? So, because we are finite versus the persons being infinite, this is where the distinction comes. So, because we are finite beings, we do share one nature. We do share. In fact, Mike, you and I have the same mind and same energy. But because we are finite beings, in the mode in which we actualize that mind, that energy, that will, that is why we have this separation because we are finite. But in the presence of the Trinity, they are infinite. And there is a paracaresis in everything that the Trinity does. The one God does is from the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, which would be the one singular energy token. But then, for example, if I were to perform an act as a token, uh, you could choose to seize that act and not do it, or you could choose to do the opposite of what I'm doing. So, I forgive me, but I really wish you'd be a little bit more direct. So, are you sure? What do you, what do you want me to say? Share a nature like the persons in the Trinity share a nature, or or do they share it in a unique and a special way? I mean, I would say that us sharing in the same nature would be analogical to the nature of God because the nature of God is, uh, unknowable in its totality, of course. So, it would be, it would be an analogical. Okay. So, then the persons in the Trinity do share a nature in a way that we as humans don't share a nature. Yeah. I'll, I'll put the quantifier saying in a sense because we don't fully understand God's nature, of course. Okay. So, how come if humans cannot share a nature in any way like the persons do, how do we know what you're saying is like real? There's nothing, there's nothing wrong with saying that we share in the nature in, in a, a similar or, if, in, in a sense, the same way as God does. That's why I don't make the argument that God is one because He's one in nature. St. Gregory of Nyssa specifically in his writing Ad Ablabium, or on not three gods, specifically actually uses a reductio on that exact argument, saying that if we are one in nature, we might as well just say that we're all one man. That's a reductio argument, basically saying that it's not, it's not really worth using as an argument. That's why the entire writing of on not three gods then goes to say that we can see it in God's energy. We can see it in His act due to the fact that you can do something I can't. That shows that you and I would be separated, and God does not do things like that, as all three persons are one token as well, in terms of the act, while you and I have different tokens. So, then in order to make it analogous to the Trinity, what I would have to do is demonstrate that there's something that the Son or the Holy Spirit can do that the others can't. And then that would, in your view, prove that there is this difference between them. Yeah. You would have to, you'd have to prove that the Holy Spirit is capable of individuating energy rather and doing something that the Father and the Son does not participate in. Okay. Does not participate in? Can you explain that more? Yeah. In that singular token of actualization of something. So, if you were to say, for examp, if you were to try to make an argument that the Holy Spirit does something, um, that the Son and the Father doesn't, you would have to show obviously that that's not still sharing in a triadic act in some way. Could you give me an example of any type of act that would be equivalent to paracaresis done by human persons? Uh, done by human persons. That's, that's the reason why we're not absolutely identical to it because human persons are not in a parachetical relationship. We, we're not all indwelling and interpenetrating each other's hypostases. Right? So, listen, the reason why I ask is because it's a part of the problem for me that there is no way to describe the way the persons share this nature like humans share a nature. You believe special pleading, right? You're just like appealing to this thing that's happening and taking place, but there's no way you can conceptualize that on our reality. You believe that we should be able to understand the totality of God's modality, as it relates to logically possible things. Yes, logically possible things. Yeah. Do you believe that God can do the logically impossible? Um, I would say that it's against His nature, right? Me too. I agree. So, so what's logically impossible about paracaresis? Well, it's more that when you say that the persons are truly distinct from each other, right? What that's going to do is take at something, some set of characteristics or traits and make them individual to them. Right? That's the, as I mentioned earlier. So, I'd have to present something that shows that one is truly different from the other, like humans, right? Like you were talking about about having individual mind, but they don't because they, uh, participate in paracaresis, right? This mutual inner penetration. Yeah, there, there's individual hypostatic properties in the persons. So, we don't have a problem with that. Okay. Could you give me an example of what one of those individual hypostatic properties would be? Yeah. The Son is begotten, and the Father's not. The Holy Spirit's also not begotten. Okay. So, if the Son is begotten and the Father is not, you're going to attribute that only to their person? Like a hypostatic property? That's essentially what you're saying. That would be a hypostatic property. Yes. Okay. Why would being begotten be attributed only to their hypostasis and not their nature? Because being begotten is something that is proper to the personhood. Right? So, like, if, when, when you were begotten by your mother, uh, you were not, like, your nature was not begotten. Your person was begotten. In metaphysics, Mike was begotten as a person. So, that constitutes you. Okay. So, am I a separate human than my mother? You are. Yeah. Okay. So, then yes, she did produce a nature as well. She. So, you, you don't believe that we all have one human nature. You believe in individual human natures, like a nominalist then. So, it, it does depend on what sense we're talking about. If we're talking about universals, then, yeah, of course, there is only one human nature. But when we get down to speaking of particulars, u, which the persons in the Trinity would each be particulars, such as humans are particulars. Well, then no, of course not. Right? We count human beings, uh, plural for humans. So, that actually wouldn't be, I'd reject that. That argument would then be applied by energy. That's the reason why we know that we're individuated and separated because of that, because you and I have different modes of actualizing said things that are natural to our nature, natural to our, uh, to our persons, or basically a natural property or possessing something of human nature. The fact that you, that we both have the capacity to do things naturally, we share that same identical capacity for natural human acts. But like, for example, possessing a body and a soul, but what constitutes your soul to be the way that it is is not the same as me. Yeah. So, I, I'm following you here. Let me, let me tell you what the problem is. Okay. So, when we say that the Son is begotten and the Father is not, that's not so much the issue as much as it is that the Father cannot be begotten. That, that's really the problem here. Because if they were truly identical in their nature, then both of them should be able to serve the same role. The fact that their roles are different is best grounded in a difference within nature. What's your argument for that? Well, I mean, we should start with a say. I think that's probably the best example we could go with, right? So, if the Father has a say, why, where does that come from? Because He's only to claim that something like the ability to self-exist in the person wouldn't make sense because a deals with existence. It deals with with being. If you don't exist, you have no being. Right? So, to be self-existing is a property of being. Yeah. A property of being, in turn. But then the actual mode of existence or the way in which you exist is hypostatic. So, how the mode in which the Father exists is a say. Well, how could you justify that the Father's a say arises from His hypostatic properties and not His, His nature? A say is not a positive property, man. Okay. By positive, do you mean essential? No. By positive, I mean by, by positive, I mean that it's simply declaring a negative or it's that like it not being a positive means that it's simply declaring a negative feature or a negative trait of said person. Okay. Is God by nature eternal? Uh, yes. Okay. So, then being eternal derives from possessing aity? No, it doesn't. Understand, right? You can't be eternal if you're not a say. What is, what is your argument for that? What's my argu? Are you, are you denying that you're rejecting that you, you can be God but not be eternal? You can be eternal, but I'm denying that all three persons must be individually a say. So, to me, that's a problem on both sides of this fence for you. So, how are Jesus and the Father equal if only the Father has a say? If only the Father has a say, then again, what did you say? How are Jesus and the Father equal? If only the Father has a say? Because they share in the same nature and one singular act. Just because the Father is hypostatically a say doesn't mean that He's, uh, that He's not of the same nature as the Son. You'd have to provide an argument for that. Well, I, I would start by making a claim that a someone's being and their person is just a formal distinction. They're co-extensive, meaning they extend over the same time and space. So, you're not actually describing two different things. A formal distinction. A formal distinction is in like a formal constituent or like a quidity. What do you mean by that? I'm talking about properties within the same thing. So, if being and person are formally distinct, they're two aspects of the same thing. They're not two different things. Yeah. I mean, right. So, for me to speak of your person and to speak of your nature is to speak of the same you. Yeah. So, in terms of something being a formal identity or something, uh, not, for example, being the entirety, right? Like, do you believe, uh, that in terms of like nature and person? So, you believe that that's it? So, you believe nature and person is a formal distinction then? Is that what you're saying? Oh my gosh. What's? Yeah, that's, yep. That's literally what I just said. Okay. But, but you're saying it in terms of a quiddity, like a formality or what do you, or a form as in like a Platonic sense? Definitely not in, in terms of forms. No. Though, I mean, listen, we could maybe draw some parallels. I mean, something's not wrong just because it, it arose from Plato. The issue here for me is more the theology, right? So, if you're going to claim that Jesus is equal with the Father, but Jesus does not possess a say, to me, that's a problem that must go down right to their nature because the Father has the ability to exist based on His own existence. Okay? Where the Son doesn't. He's dependent. What makes him dependent? So, they can't be equal is the point. I mean, something, something being dependent, uh, implies that that thing's not perfect prior to its dependency. So, like, what's your argument for that? A thing is not perfect prior to its existence. Say that again. Something, so, in order for something to be dependent, it would have been considered imperfect prior to its dependent thing, prior, like its dependent thing. Okay. Would you say that the Son is dependent upon the Father? No. Okay. So, then the Son is not begotten. He is begotten. It doesn't lead that he's dependent though in philosophy. Okay. If the Son, he's naturally, he's naturally intrinsic to the Father. All right. Listen, that, that actually wouldn't change anything. Now he's just eternally dependent. That would make him not dependent. Intrinsicality is definitely not identical to dependency. Yeah, I know exactly what you're saying. You're, you're basically saying that in all possible worlds, the Father will generate the Son. Right. You're just making the Son's generation, um, uh, something essential. And so, then with that, with your logic, then, like, if you were to grant that for the sake of the argument, then the Father would be dependent on the Son for the Father to be the Father. Okay. So, I don't believe that Jesus is equal to the Father. So, it's not a contradiction for me to believe that the Son doesn't have a say. You do believe that Jesus is equal to the Father. So, that would only be a problem within your paradigm. Yeah. They're equal. They're equal in not having. How can the Son not possess a say but still be equal to the Father when he's dependent upon Him for his existence? Well, one, he's not dependent. I said that it's an intrinsicality, which is different because intrinsicality is simply just saying that he's naturally existent from the Father. There's not some form of dependence where the Son needs something, uh, in terms of like being lower. So, that's why I'm saying that we're using the wrong terminology here. So, can the Son exist apart from the Father? No. And the Father can't exist apart from that say that the Son is dependent upon the Father for his. Because with that logic, the Father also would be, would be dependent on the Son. Okay. I, I already addressed this. No, he wouldn't because there's nothing tying them like intrinsically to each other. Again, for, for me, if I don't believe Jesus is equal, that's not like. Okay. I appreciate if you let me finish, but, but maybe I think I cut you off, too. So, sorry. You, you finish, and then I'll respond. I was saying that what makes that intrinsic is the fact that the Father is the Father because He has a Son. Okay. So, I'm not sure if you mean that in like a, a metaphorical way or or a literal way. When you're calling the Father the Father, is that literal or is that metaphorical? I mean, literal, not in the biological sense, but by nature. Okay. So, is the Holy Spirit the mother? What? How does that follow, dude? Okay. If you're saying that the Father is literally the Father of Jesus, and therefore He can't be a Father if He doesn't have Jesus, well, then, is the Holy Spirit the mother? What is your argument for the Holy Spirit being the mother? Okay, you're not answering the question, Bryce. How does the Holy Spirit come to be the mother with your argument? The point is that if you are claiming that the Father can only be the Father if He is literally the Father of Jesus. Okay, that, that's your claim that He's literally the Father. You can take that back if you want. But if He is literally the Father, well, then how, who would be the mother, literally? Can you, can you have a Son without a mother and father in ter, in terms of like God begetting this Son? So, again, if you can laugh at this, but why you're presupposing that a mother is necessary, man. Oh, of course, because you said He's a Father literally. Yeah. And I said not in the biological sense, and you literally avoided that and ignored it. Okay. So, Okay. So, if He's not, uh, if He's not a Father literally in the biological sense, then that is to say He's a Father in more of a metaphorical way. No, it doesn't, it doesn't automatically lead to it being metaphorical, man. How does

That fall? Okay. If it's not literal, then what is it?

It's not literal in the biological sense, man.

Okay. So, it's literal in what other sense?

In the nature of God himself.

In in the nature of God. So, nature's just automatically produce sons. How does that follow?

Yeah. What you're saying doesn't make sense. How How does that follow?

What do you mean? You're the one making these weird these No. How how does what you said follow from what I said? I'm asking for that.

Okay, listen. My argument at this point is is pretty simple. Okay, so I I'm saying that the best explanation for the fact that the person's roles are not interchangeable. For example, like the son being begotten and the father not. Mhm. Is their nature and an example of this I'm giving is from a well.

So if so where does the necessity of a mother come from?

Okay. Well, this is called a summary. All right, we're we're trying to summarize and get there. Okay, so I'm arguing that if the son does not possess a sad, then he cannot be equal with the father who does. And that's how we got to dependence.

How is the son dependent?

You're saying he's not dependent.

No. And that's how we got to in what sense is he a father? Right? because you're you basically claim that he would have to the son is intrinsic, Mike. Yeah, I've said that. He's saying he's saying that the father would have to produce the son, right? And so I'm saying, well, in what sense is he the father? That's how we got here. So I'm not Does he produce the son? Yes, but that's that's metaphorical is the point. That's not literal like you said.

Thank you. Thank you for your position. You're asking about my position and then you're and then you're bleeding your position into my position. It's not even an internal critique anymore. All right. So, I'm I'm sort of confused at where where the disconnect is here. So, you said that he's not literally it's between your brain and your mouth. Mike, you you're saying that he's not the father literally in a biological sense.

Yeah. Because God does not Yeah. Because God in like God in of himself in his essence is does not have biology, bro.

Okay. All right. But then so then it it can still be literal without being biological. Okay. So then what other sense is it literal?

By his nature himself being a father.

Okay. What does it mean to say that by himself being a father? Is father something you are by nature?

uh the father is the father in terms of him being god but it's hypothatic to him that he is the father because he produces a hypostasis of the son. So honestly uh it really just appears like evasive to me. I'm not sure why you okay with saying it's metaphorical if the only way it's literal is just attaching the name father or the term father to the nature. Like I I don't I don't see how that would make it not metaphorical.

I mean, the father's materially identical to God's nature. So, okay. Is is the divine nature material or immaterial?

It's immaterial.

Okay. So, then to say they're material identical means nothing. How is your name How is your name metaphysics Mike, bro? And you don't understand what material identity is.

Okay. Name for me something that is two things that are materially identical. Name name. Name two things like what in creation.

So you're asking for a created analogy again.

Oh, is is there a problem with that? Uh yeah, because God cuz God is analog like the way that we actually predicate anything of God is analogical.

Okay. So then name me things that aren't physical material that are materially identical that aren't the persons in the Trinity.

That's literally That's literally unique to God's being.

Okay. So, we're back to special pleading then. You don't actually have special anything else that's materially identical.

That's not an argument. Bryce, can you hear me?

Yeah, I can hear you. What's up? The angels materally identical to what?

Other angels. I guess if you're saying by nature in that case, but he's I'm talking like so I'm talking about it in the sense of like he asked for a non-material example. So the subtle bodies of the angels. No, you wouldn't you wouldn't really say that because when I'm saying that it's materially identical, that's saying that it's of the same thing. The angels are not all of the same thing.

Yeah. Also, angels have a body anyway. So, a physical body.

Yep. Angels have a physical manifestation. It could be some form of divine embodiment. It wouldn't matter.

Is it matter?

Yeah. I think the scriptures would support that angels uh do compose matter of some type.

So, they're are they made of like atoms?

Yeah, I would assume so.

Okay. I'm not Can we put Wait, can we put Can we put angels under a microscope if we wanted to? Like what's their atomical composition?

What What is that? You're You're asking me what is their atomical composition?

Yeah, like under a microscope. Like if we can put them And if you And if you can't if you can't describe Well, then you're special pleading Mike.

Interesting to think about. You're special pleading, Mike.

Special pleading. Yeah. You Yeah. You can't show how that's possible.

How is it special pleading? Yeah. You can't show how that's the case. That's special pleading. Like how you said to me, you can't show how what's the case that angels would have a body that they're made of matter in Adams.

Okay. So when the angel appeared at the empty tomb, what did the women who first saw it? What did they took on the form of matter at that time?

They took on the form of matter at that time. Nothing wrong with that. Noetic perception.

Okay. So So those angels, they just appear to have matter, but they didn't actually have matter.

Yeah. They don't exist in matter. They don't exist in matter. It's knowetic perception.

Okay. What What would they exist in?

What do you mean? What would they exist in? They're immaterial. What do you expect me to say?

I suppose they need a material composition. Are they are are they are So, you're telling me that angels have a like because of the fact that they're bound by matter, you're telling me that angels are bound by spaceime and that they have a position in spaceime.

It does appear like angels are sent from different spatial places. It it does. Uh angels traveled. Uh they even ate, I believe, at times in the scriptures.

How do you know that's all metaphorical? This would infer some type of material position.

How do you know that's not all metaphorical? Well, if if an angel um ate with Abraham, uh I think that would that would mean it's that's like a something that actually happened. I don't think that was a vision.

Yeah, I understand that. I mean, in our view, we believe the angel of the Lord is Christ, but yeah. So, I mean, hey, we we could totally get to that, but I would I would definitely like to home back in here. So, if Jesus does not have a say, then how is he equal with the father?

If how is he equal? Because he shares in the same nature. Ay is something that's proper to a hypoasis. So, if they both share if they're both consubstantial, then they're still equal with each other.

Okay. How is the ability to exist in oneself a hypoatic property?

Uh because it's a mode of existence. It's not just the existence itself. The way that the father exists is assay.

Okay. So what is a say?

Um not having anything constituted prayer. Not having anything to constitute you.

Right. And so you're saying not having anything to constitute you is a mode of existence.

Uh yeah because you exist asset you exist with no origin. That's a mode of existence.

No I think that's a category error. Okay. If if a say is the ability to selfexist right. So if an entity has a say they exist within their own self. Okay. You're saying that the existence is the mode of existence.

Uh no. So like in terms of them by nature like if somebody like if we were to say for a hypothetical scenario that like that would be some like assay by nature right because we could say that God in totality by nature would be considered assay to the created order because we are the thing with sayy from God. So then in that case God would be assay but if we're talking about theology proper or the intertrinitarian life the father causes the son and the spirit. Therefore, in the intertrinarian life, the father would only be the one who's aay.

There's a distinction between theology proper and uh the way that god is constituted from or the way that god is seen from the created order. So I yeah right and then this is how we went we got back to the other point. So I'm not following how you could justify a sad being just a hypoatic property by calling it a mode of existence in terms of theology proper it would be okay by theology proper again are you basically just saying it's an essential attribute

I'll say it's essential to their hypostasis I mean like I told you already assay is not a positive property. So it wouldn't be considered like an actual property that constitutes the father. It's considered it's literally a implies that there's something with say to reference to. So it wouldn't so it wouldn't be some form of like I'm not really sure like why you're trying to attribute it as a positive property.

Well, it would have to be um a property of nature since God by nature would have to be self-existent, right? That you agreed to that that God by nature is eternal.

Yes. Also a property of nature.

Yeah. So if they're assay by nature, they're hypo their hypoasis does not necessitate that they're assay hypoatically. It's not the same thing. Because because within that nature if they are given existence eternally by the father then hypoatically they wouldn't possess a

listen could you could you just like do me a favor and just like dumb it down like maybe just one or two notches and just restate that because like I'm really not trying to misjudge you. I'm truly not. But what you're saying is just down if you remove metaphysics from your name.

Okay. I guarantee you I know more about metaphysics than both of you. But no. So I won't I won't remove that from my name. So could you go ahead and just dumb that down and say it more simply?

Okay. So um naturally right God would be assay compared to the only other which is creation. So they would be they would have say they would have something that constitutes it. It does not self-exist and of itself. But then if we're talking about the intertrinitarian life and we're talking about the hypoasis internally to the nature then the father would be the only one who is assay because he causes the son and the spirit to exist.

Okay. So how does that then make them equal in nature if nature would presuppose some type of eternality though they're all eternal?

You're dude, you're basically hopping back and forth. In one sense, you're saying that being aay is a pro is like a hypoatic property, right? That's what you're saying on one hand. But then you're also saying that technically the the son is still aay in this sense because he's like materially identical to the father. Like again, then you're making it like an essential property like it is a part of their nature. Yeah. But then when we're talking about the hypostasis itself, when we're talking about its mode of existence, it wouldn't be hypothatically aay. It wouldn't be hypostatically aay.

So So if Okay. So funny about that. Well, because because there's such like this is just such a word game. The trinitarianism is such a word game. I understand that you don't I Yeah, that's cope by that. That's not an argument at all.

Okay. So, it listen I created my argument. You guys keep I know you're not both sides of this fence. I know that you're not like enjoying the fact that I'm not giving you the classic, you know, trinitarian owned answers, but that's because I actually study the topic. I don't I don't I don't debate, you know, I don't I don't debate people that don't know what they're talking about.

Yeah. Maybe maybe Mike to help us out, could you provide this in a premised syllogism for, you know, your argument and provide to

Okay. So, God by nature is dependent upon no one. Okay. Dependent on someone.

Can you give it in a syllogism? Like, do you know how to do that?

Of course I do. What are you even saying, dude? I'm I'm literally

What's the first premise? What's the first premise?

All right, listen. I'll I'll rephrase this. We'll we'll go if then. Okay, rule of inference here. Okay, so if the son is equal to the father, then the son must have a say because the father has a say. What's the argument for that? What's the son does not have a say? Therefore, the son and father are not equal.

What is the what? Like what is the instrument rule you're using here? Is this like uh I believe this would be modus ponins. Okay. So P1 is what? Like like the rule of detachment. I'm just going off the cuff off memory here, but I believe that's what it would be.

Yeah. Yeah. So premise one is what?

Okay. If the son was equal to the father, he would possess a sity like the father.

I deny P1. Okay. So then how can Jesus not possess a say and still be equal to the father?

Because he's still consubstantial. Just because his hypostasis, his mode of existence is not the same as the father doesn't mean he's not consubstantial with him.

Okay. Consubstantiality is essentially them being fully and equally God. It means of the same substance.

Yeah. I I understand from Homoius. Okay. So that is to this is a statement about their equality though.

You agree with that? Yes. Uh it is a statement about it.

Yeah. Okay. So then you're just making a claim. You're just saying that they're consubstantial. I'm asking you how the son could not have a say and still be equal to the father because of the fact that the father being assa is a hypoatic thing and that the son possessing say would be hypostatic to him if they both still share in the same nature which is assay ontologically in that sense and there's nothing wrong with that the hypostasis itself in its mode of existence possessing anxiety.

So I still don't think that you have justified can you steal man?

Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. So for for it would start with it would start with a sadi being uh a hypoatic property. That would be the first in theology proper.

Yes. Okay. In theology proper. Right. So I'm rejecting that. Right. That's that's rejecting theology proper. He's saying steelman him. I asked you I asked you to steelman my argument and I just gave you the first premise that a sad is a hypoatic property.

Okay. So first off I never said it was a hypothetic property. I said it's something that we can use to see with the father. I already told you it's not a positive property of the father. So it wouldn't be considered an actual constituted hypothetic property. It's literally just saying that the father is not something.

That's not a property. Okay. Is God by nature self-existent?

Yes. Okay. So then being self-existent is a property of nature. What are you not getting?

Yeah. That's why I said that God in totality is assay. But when we're talking about the hypoases themselves in their mode of existence, the sun does not possess acai.

Okay. Look, if a sad is a natural property, then all who possess divine nature must have a say. But the son and spirit are not self-existent. They are begotten, right? They proceed from the father. Therefore, they lack a say. Conclusion would be they do not fully share the divine nature. Or I guess you could just redefine what you even mean by divine nature.

I mean I I already like explained that when we're saying that the father is aay that that is specifically for his mode of existence of the father himself. It's not actually denoting the natural existence of God in as a being.

Okay. So this and then this would go back to basically me rejecting uh you being able to segregate God's being from his person. That's if that's just a formal distinction then you can't actually assign any set of properties to one or the other.

What what what's a formal distinction again?

Person in nature like which one? Yes. Okay. Listen, a formal distinction you could just Google it. Historically I know what a formal distinction is like Dun Scottis, right?

Dun Scottis. Yeah. Dun Scottis. Yeah. A a formal distinction is going to be the difference between two aspects of a thing, right? So when we're talking about what someone is and who someone is, it's the same someone. That's my point. So you can't actually ascribe any type of set of properties or characteristics to just one of them.

Yeah. So when you that's why when I say that he's assay, that's not denoting an actual positive property of the father like I've said about five times. It's it's denoting that the father is not something that the son is.

Okay. All right. It is not it is not a a a proper property or or excuse me, how exactly did you say that? Say one more time.

It's not a positive property of the father because it's denoting something that the father is not.

Okay. It's not a positive property. Got it. Okay. Is God by nature self-existent?

I already said yes to that. Okay. So then it is a property of nature.

uh in terms of being selfexist by nature selfexist does not just mean you you do realize that assay means comes from nothing right meaning there's no origination not not really no the Latin would be from itself not from nothing so what is say

I'm telling you it's a is from itself what is sayy what is sayy existence existing from oneself self say what did what did I did I not get that right say

so sayy and assay are identical to each other no okay so what is sayy I mean it's what it regards to basically what like some type of quality of individuality if I possess if if I possess say what does that mean it means that You're unique and individual something like that.

So assay means what? So you are existing by your indiv. How are they entirely different definitions?

We can hear you clicking. You can hear me clicking. Who's Who's clicking? That's a That's not me clicking. And I just heard someone click but that's not me.

So aay right from self meaning that you are not from anything right? Yeah you're self-existent. So then what is sayy?

I just told you it's it's like a I do you want me to repeat myself? What what am I not missing or something? What what am I missing here? Uh your definition of say doesn't even match the opposite of a which those are opposite definitions right when you put ah in front of something.

I'm following you. Okay. So then what what is say is from another it's from something that's not yourself.

All right. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to give me a second. Got to look something up real quick.

Yeah, just give me a moment. I'm going to sit down. Yeah, take a No. I'm gonna Yeah, I'm going to look this up right now. So, a Say GBT, please save us. Please save us. Chat GBT. So, Miam Webster says, "Sady is a a quality peculiar to oneself." How is that not fitting what I said earlier about being something individual or like unique?

One second, guys. I'm going to fill my daughter's water up. Everyone, please stop tap the screen for like up. Yeah, I don't Not you. Hold on. Not you. Not you, buddy. Hold on. Okay, sit down. Everybody, please like the live. Tap the screen if you so please. We'd appreciate it. father is filling up his daughter's water bottle. It's admirable. Top screen. Okay. So, so I'm I'm lost here. You see the man is not back yet and you're still talking. That's crazy. You see the man's filling up his water bottle. Where's his daughter? And yet you start talking. That's crazy. Well, I hear you talking. I'm just trying to like still here. That's crazy. I'm just sort of trying to be with you. Hold on. He's not back yet. That's crazy. Hold on. He's not back yet. I'm talking to the audience. Hey, can you can you sort of just chill out and be respectful, man? Take a chill pill. This isn't your panel. Calm down. Sit down. Relax. Dude, I I am calm. You're just like kind of being rude, right? I I was trying to engage with you, right? We can wait for Bryce to come back. Yeah, we're waiting for the host. You're engaging with him. You're chat GB or whatever the case may be. I'm talking to the audience. I want them to get the lights up. Calm down. Oh, audience, please. You so please tap the screen. Who Who is Who is talking right now? your conscience. I don't I don't see anything uh lighting up. Is it Jay? It's your conscience. I'm a material angel manifested coming to chat to like the scream. Think uh school boy is also another material angel. He's a little bit lower than me, though. Like 35k likes before he gets back. I want to see 40k likes before he gets back. Pretty ambitious. I mean, considering that the stream is the trinity is logical. Prove me long. I want to see 144,000 likes and we can we can attract all the Jehovah's Witnesses. I almost said something crazy. I don't know if I can say that joke though. Can I say it? Good boy. You know what I'm about to say. Can I say it? Would the lives get bad if I say it? If I say that over. 271,000 likes, guys. All right, I'm back. What are we What are we doing now? Same argument. asking for 271k likes. But anyway, that's a lot of likes for what we currently have. Dude, you're very very tyrannical. It would be crazy. It would be crazy if we only had five viewers and we were asking them for 6 million likes, but All right. So, anyway, um can you are you ready? Are you ready to steal me? Yeah. So, I came to my computer and I looked up Say and it's saying a quality peculiar to oneself. This is from Miam Websters. So again, I you asked me what is say and I said it had to do with like being unique or like individual and I think that lines up perfectly with what I'm seeing here. But you said means something else.

Yeah. Because a simply means that you do not come from another. It means that you are self-existent or that you are independent of nothing for your cause of existence.

Right. Okay. Is the father another to Jesus?

What it just answer the question. Do you enjoy Do you enjoy word concept fallacies? Like do you enjoy them or something? I say one thing and you look for like some weird poison. Uh, okay. You know, you know that I'm not trying to say something that like you think I'm saying.

Okay. Is the father another to Jesus? Are they the same person or are they two persons?

They're two persons.

Okay. So then when we're talking about something having a say according to even your definition of existence be true because the sun is dependent upon another for his existence.

No dude you still don't get it. Like literally that that's not that's not a rebuttal. If Jesus is not the father it can't be a rebuttal because I've given you my argument multiple times. I've given you the exact understanding that we have multiple times and I've asked you to steal me and you still have yet to do that.

Okay. So, you're you're just again changing the subject. You haven't answered my questions. I have Steel man your argument. I did the the first thing I listen I started by telling you I said okay you're saying that it's purely a hypoatic property. That was the beginning to the

How many times have I told you it's not a property? How many times have I said that?

Okay. And how many times have I told you that if God is by nature selfexistent, then it must be a property of the nature. That's what I'm telling you. My gosh.

A say refers to something that is say that that possesses sayy. You understand that?

Yeah. Of of course. So then it's not a positive property.

Okay. So if it was a negation of a positive property, a positive property would be possessing say.

Okay. So is the father and son one self or two selves?

Self being what? uh self being a an individual person as in if it's just to refer to person then they're two persons like I said over and over right

okay so then the son is not selfexistent his existence is dependent upon the father

in theology proper it's if it were talking about the hypostasis themselves and the mode of existence of the persons then yes intr intrinsic intrinsic dependent. It wouldn't be it wouldn't be dependent because in our view as well the father with that logic if we were to use the word dependent would then be dependent on the son to be the father. The son it would be considered that to be to have a father or sorry to be the son would have to be begotten of a father. But we don't use the word dependency because dependency in philosophy normally does not denote things the way that the trinity is. They're introd here.

What is a property?

Uh I mean like I I guess if we could say that it's a a quality or an aspect of something.

Okay. So self-existing existing within your own self that is not a quality of something.

Being self-existent refers to not coming from another.

Okay. Do you also agree that it also entails existing within oneself?

I understand that you can apply it in a positive manner but it is not a property in of itself because it is referring to something that does not exist from oneself. If you are assay, it's referring to the things that are.

Okay. So, that's a negative property, man. Like, do do you know what that is?

Okay. So, uh listen, of course, but I I keep rejecting that and then giving you evidence for that, right? So, I can steal Bryce's position like do you understand what aphatism?

Okay. So, I have please don't just try and and change this here. So, I have tried to steal man you. Um, you steam him right now. Do it.

Oh, dude. We're literally trying to do that right now by just you've been strawmaning me for an hour or not. You've been straw maning me for an hour. I'm asking you to steal what I said. Accurately represent what he is positing as a position.

Okay. He's saying that in theology proper, you wouldn't say that some type of negative is essential to the nature, right? You wouldn't say that. And so to to him, there's no issue with saying that the sun is begotten because that is not derived of the nature. It's pertaining to their hypoasis.

Listen, I'm almost positive earlier, too, you verbatim said that it was a hypoatic property, but now you're saying it's not a property.

No. No. I said I said that. So, if you want like an actual hypothetic property of the father, we could have a formal constitutant of calling it a uh calling it paternity. Or if you want another negation, you could say that he's unbegotten.

Okay. Okay. Sure. So, so do you agree though that at least the first half there that's a proper steelman of your position? Um, when you said that it's not essential to nature because we're talking about the persons, that part was fine. But when I'm when I'm talking about what we are currently talking about the mode of existence of the persons themselves. So when I that so that is what we are currently on. We are not on whether or not that it's a that it's a a property of nature in any way. I have already told you multiple times that we're talking about it in the mode of existence of hypoasis.

Okay. Do you know what a mode of existence is?

Oh my gosh. Yes. We're that's subsistence.

Okay. So listen, if theology proper defines God as you know, one being in three hypoasis and they're all equally God and a say is an essential attribute to the divine nature.

Oh my gosh. What are you oh my goshing here? What was that? You or was that Jay? Because you're repeating yourself again for the stuff I just explained. Dude, if the son and spirit are not self-existent, they are begotten, they proceed from the father, then the son and spirit do not possess the full divine nature.

What is your argument for that? Okay, let's try again. Ple please don't just laugh it off. If theology proper if if theology proper defines God as one being with three hypoasis and they're consubstantial they're equal and a say is an essential attribute of the divine nature and if the son and spirit are not self-existent that would be to say they do not possess the full divine nature aka they're not equal.

right so you're rejecting you're rejecting premise You're saying it's not a property at all. It's not an essential property, right?

I'm pretty sure I rejected premise one. You theology proper doesn't define God as one being and three hypoasis who are consubstantial. We're on a new we're on a new syllogism now. That wasn't your first argument.

Yeah, that's that's true. But that was like 15 minutes ago. Yeah, I'm I'm rephrasing it because we're in the conversation right now, right? You said I rejected PT. So, dude, you didn't even like state that you were making a new syllogism. So, like what what's P1 here?

Okay. So, hey, that's fair. That's fair. My bad, Bryce. I'm not I'm not trying to uh be confusing for you genuinely. Okay. So, I'm really trying to rephrase this in terms of your language, right? So, we can actually get somewhere. That's what I'm trying to do at least. Okay. So, theology proper, right, defines God as being one being, three hypoasis, and they're consubstantial. Now, I'm arguing this is P2, right? A say is an essential attribute or property of the divine nature. And I'm saying that's where you would disagree. You don't you're saying it's not even a property at all.

I wouldn't say I said no. So, like if we're talking about nature, when if it's referring to the created order in terms of how like the difference between the created order and theology proper, right? There's nothing wrong with saying that God entirely is assay. I already said that.

Okay. So, so then self-existence is an essential attribute of the divine nature.

I don't want to I mean I guess for the sake of the argument I'll grant you that to see where it goes.

Okay. Cool. Hey, I appreciate that. So, all right. If it is an essential attribute of the divine nature and the sun and spirit are not self-existent, therefore the sun and spirit do not fully possess the full divine nature.

You just collapsed person in nature for the 500th time.

Okay. I'm not collapsing person in nature. You did because I'm not saying that the persons are each other. I'm not trying to collapse them into the one nature. That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that that's exactly listen. I'm saying that pardon me. That's exactly what you're All right, let's try this again. So if a say is an essential attribute, you just said you're just going to grant it, right, for the sake of the argument.

Yeah. If it's an essential attribute of the divine nature and the sun and spirit are not self-existent, then they do not possess the full divine nature. Hypothetically, self-existence is an essential property of that nature and they don't have it.

You just you just made you just collapsed it again.

Okay. How? Because when you said that God is assay, right? And then you say, "But the son and spirit are not assay." Therefore, they're they're not the same nature, right? Am I am I wrong what you said?

I'm sorry. Say it one more time. I just want to make sure. So you So I granted you for the sake of the argument that acay is an essential attribute of God.

Yes. an essential divine nature and what okay yeah well that's that's what an essential attribute is essence right so yeah so then you then concluded that the sun and the spirit because they don't possess that they are not of the divine nature

correct yeah y that collapses person and nature

okay how I just dude if the per could Because the mode of existence of the persons themselves does not always denote essential attributes that's collapsing them together. If you think that is the case.

Okay. So in one sense I think you you would be correct. Actually I actually think you would be correct. I'm just saying that the hypothetically the father is a and the son and the spirit would not be assay. Hypoatically that does not mean that they do not possess the essential attribute itself of acai.

Okay. So God God help us in this moment. Okay. So did you or did you not earlier deny that a sad is just a hypostatic property?

Are you serious right now? I told you that I'd grant it for the sake of the argument. Now you're going back on me like a snake.

No, no, no, no. Earlier when you said that uh the audi is a hypoatic property that that was you're saying that's not what you're saying.

Yes, I said because that's a negative, right? That's a negation.

So, so, so your your solution to the argument I've just presented you is to make it a hypoatic property though.

No, it's not because when I say possessay, I'm saying that for the sake of the argument that we're having right now. It is still not a positive actual attribute that is possessed by that hypoasis in a proper form. It is denoting it is denoting something that the that the son and the spirit are not or that the father is not.

Okay. So earlier when I asked you is God uh eternal or self-existent by nature, you said yes. To me that disproves that point then Bryce because if God or the father specifically, right, does have a say by nature. Yeah. And you're saying the son and spirit have the same nature. Then they should have a say, but they don't.

I said by I I said by nature a hundred times. I said by nature that they possess it in totality of being God because it's by nature. But then when we actually talk about the persons themselves in the way in which they exist, the mode of existence of those persons, they would not possess it hypoatically. So your argument is collapsing nature and person together like you say you're not doing.

Okay. So, so I think so, so as I tried to tell you just a little bit ago, I do think that you are right in one sense. I do actually. Okay. So, this would be the sense where person and being are truly two different things and and I see that argument. I really do. However, I'm rejecting that. Right? So, that's something that I think you would need to prove sufficiently for your argument to be sound. So again, I am rejecting the idea that being and person are two separate things. Rather, they are two aspects of the same thing.

So instead of instead of that, would you be willing to live stream a boxing match between you and me?

You know, I boxed once when I was a teenager for a bit. It was fun. I'm not so much into it. I would rather prefer to use my hands for other things again. I would rather fight you than debate you again.

Well, I don't think I I we're debating. I'm speaking with Bryce, though. Okay. Anyway, oh, you say something about a formal distinction. You say that person and being don't really there's not a real distinction between the two.

Yeah. So, when if I in terms of like person and nature, right? Like when we say that there is a real distinction in some way, shape or form, that's also regarded as a formal actual distinction, right? which in a sense is also a formal distinction but not in the way that you're positing it because we believe that that distinction isn't like so do you believe a formal distinction is entirely prior to the intellect?

Yeah, I probably would say yes. Yeah. So it's entirely prior to the intellect. Uh well I mean by prior are you essentially talking about a dependence of some form?

Yeah. So in order for the distinction to be complete must there be a human mind to make it?

Yeah, I would say yes. So it is dependent on the intellect for sure. Yeah. That the the difference between someone's being and person exists only in how we perceive them with the human mind.

That is correct. Yeah. So with that being said, if you say that there is nothing prior to the intellect that shows a distinction between person and nature, you're collapsing them.

N Bryce, just collapse them in collapse them into solopism. He just said it. He said the thing.

Okay. So, can can persons do individual things by nature that other persons don't do?

I think I want to say yes. Can persons actualize things of their nature that other persons don't do?

Yeah, I will say yes. Are there two then are there then two natures?

Yes. With humans. Yeah. So, so we don't have a So, we don't have a common nature.

So, so listen again I I said this earlier. So, if you're talking about universals then the answer would be no. But if we're talking about particulars and we are you're talking about persons individually, right?

Yeah. Bryce allow me to ask this question though. So, would you say there's how many people on this? Eight billion. Are there 8 billion instantiations of different natures? So they don't share a common universal.

I I wouldn't say they're instantiations of different natures. They are an instantiation of the same nature. However, we do count the natures with the persons, right? In in uh in terms of human.

Wait, how does that work? You're like you're wait. You're like adopting universalism and then dipping out and going to uh rejecting universalism. Okay. So, so how how many humans are you and I? One or two?

We're different instantiations of humans, but we share a common universal human.

Okay. Notice how you aren't answering the question. You guys not answer that question. Are you are you and I two human beings or are we one human being?

We're two particulars that share a common universe of human nature. Thank you very much. So, when we're talking about that's called hypothesis the same way.

Yes, we are in fact talking about Yeah, it's exactly. You see, man, you guys want to sit here and play, but that's exactly what you are doing. That's not That's not That's not an argument. You just conceded my point. What are you arguing with? You just argued for 8 billion instantiations of different human natures that don't share a common universal human.

Okay, I told you. Are my left hook and my right hook two different instantiations of whoop ass? I told you if we're talking about universals, then the answer is no. But if we're talking about particulars, then the answer is yes. You just conceded by acknowledging that we are in fact two human beings part two but we're not count that's called a hypostasis Mike.

Oh my gosh. Okay. So I reject this distinction between being and person as though they are two separate things. They are two aspects of the same thing. So if the persons of the trinity are truly persons that is to say that they are three natures because a person and their nature are inseparable.

Are two are two persons formally distinct as well?

Persons of the trinity or human persons? Human persons? No. Is uh is human nature and human person is that a formal distinction?

Yes. So then there's real distinctions in persons, but then it's all of the same thing, right? When you're saying within persons, that would technically be wrong. It's within one person, right? I'm talking about two two persons are separated from each other, right? They're really distinct.

Okay. And then and person and nature is formally distinct, right? So are we all of one thing if they're collapsed into just a formal distinction like that?

Okay. So if we're talking about humanity, humans as a universal category, then I I'm not sure we would call that collapsing because there is one human nature. But if we are talking about the particulars, these specific instantiations of the nature, that's called a person. And yes, we we do in fact count the natures. That's literally the definition of a hypothesis, by the way.

I know. Yeah, of course. So then we don't have individual natures. That's just a hypoasis.

Okay. So listen, that could be true if the distinction between my being and person was real, but it's not a real distinction. It's just a formal distinction. These things are inseparably linked in reality.

Do you know what co-extensive means?

What does co-extensive? My right hand and your jaw are going to be inseparable in reality. All right, school boy. I'm trying to trying to stay on this.

All right, so so what does it mean to be co-extensive?

Uh, enlighten me. Okay. So, if you don't know what it means to be co-extensive, then you haven't thoroughly studied the rebuttal to your position, dude. First off, extensivity. Okay. Being co-extensive. I've given you definitions for everything, bro. And then I I haven't I haven't demeaned you for not knowing something of my position. Okay. I All right. Listen. Things which are co-extensive extend over the same time and space. So being in person extend over the same time and space. Earlier I said that who someone is and what someone is is the same someone. So it's two aspects of the same thing. They're not two different things. Okay? Mhm. So that would mean that if the persons in the trinity are fully God and they're each distinct from each other, there is no amount of distinction between person and nature which could get you out of three gods.

Okay. Well, actually that's that's not true. If you accepted modes or parts, I would totally grant it. But if you reject those things, oh then absolutely. Yeah. So, regarding nature and person, you said that they're co-extensive, right?

Yeah. Okay. Extending over the same space or time. Yeah. And Yeah. And they the the the distinction between them is something that exists only in how we perceive people.

Mhm. Yeah. So, do you know somebody by their nature or by their hypoasis?

Okay. So, that is to presuppose that they are two different things. They are the same. They are two aspects of the same thing. So to know someone's person is equivalent to knowing their nature. This is nominalism. That's that's literally that's literally nominalism.

Okay. So let's just go ahead and say it is nominalism. What's what's the problem? The fact that you don't now have the ability to show any form of universals at all.

What? So so like is this universal is the universal nature constitute all of the individual natures? Does the universal nature constitute all the individual natures?

Yeah. I mean by constitute are you talking about like an instantiation?

Sure. Yeah. Is the universal nature a compendium of all the individuated natures?

Compendium. I'm not sure I know what that means. Like so the the universal nature I'll dumb it I'll dumb it down two steps if you remove metaphysics from your name.

Oh this is this is the goal. So is the universal nature that you're talking about the common nature of all humanity is it a collection of all of the 8 billion un uh uh individual natures in terms of reality?

Yes. Because natures don't exist apart from persons, the instantiations.

Okay. So then the universal nature is is then in that case a collection of all of people's individual natures, right?

What is my camera doing? I mean I I think again within the sense I've defined I think it's it's probably okay to say that. Yeah. Would you would you would you say that an individual nature, right? You said it's formally distinct from the person. the individual nature is formally distinct from your person. Would you say that like for example part of like an individual nature would be to have a beard?

If you're talk about if you're talking about uh like a predicated attribute or property then yes. So it's predicated then to the that individual nature right?

Yes. But not by identity.

Yeah. Okay. So then with that being said, if there were no human beings on the planet that had beards, would it then be unhumanlike to have a beard?

I think the answer is no. So then having a beard is universal to human beings.

Uh so if we're talking about just the potentiality of it, then yeah, of course. Okay. So I'm bas I'm basically giving I'm giving hypothetic exist apart from persons right you agree that natures don't like exist in the ether apart from a person

I'm okay with that what I'm trying to give you though but the problem is that you affirm individual natures that's the issue because then if I were to give you said the universal nature is a collection of all individual natures. So with that being said, if we were to if I were to give you a hypothetic property of me, but then in your view that would be a natural property, individual natural property of me, then if

Yeah. So if that, if that didn't exist, if nobody had that property, is it unhumanlike for somebody to then possess that property? Yeah. Right. I'm following you. Okay.

So there are two different senses we have to understand here. If we're talking about the universal, then again, as I said, I think the answer would be no, because we're really talking about humans, humanity, as just like a category, right? It's just a description of what something is. However, if we're talking about the particulars, an instantiated nature, then the answer would be yes. Of course, why wouldn't it be? Because a nature, when instantiated by a person, can have all the attributes or qualities of the nature.

That, dude, that proves my point that these things are inseparable. So, like, if a beard, for example, like I possess a beard right now, is that natural to me? Yes. As a predicated property. Yes. Not by identity. So, so if I were to remove my beard, I have a new, like, I now have new natural qualities. Both of them are natural. You wouldn't say it was new. I don't know why you'd throw me. Where, where are you getting that from? The universal nature. We're talking about in state. Listen, if we're talking generally speaking, humans can have beards. If we're saying, say that again, humans can have beards. Okay. But when we're talking about specific instantiated nature, you said humans. Yeah. If we're talking about a specific individual, right, the particulars. Well, not all humans have beards, but having beards is, uh, perfectly consistent with human nature. Do you see the point?

Uh, no. Because within your view, it basically makes it to where our natural, uh, our natural qualities, our natural properties change, which doesn't make any sense. Okay. So, what's the difference between an is of predication and an is of identity? Um, an is of predication is that your identity is based off of what you are predicated to or that what you are of, right? And then the is of identity. Predicated. Yeah. And the is of identity is what you are in and of yourself. Exactly. Okay. So, what I'm saying is that having a beard is not something you are in and of yourself. It's a predicated property. Okay. So, there's no problem. Okay.

So with, so yeah, but with an individual nature, right? If you say, even if you say, even if you say that it's a predicated property, it's, it's predicated, that's not essential to nature. Yeah. Do our indiv, you don't have to have a beard, is the point. Yeah. Do our individual natures have an is of identity attached to it? Do our individual human natures have an is of identity predicated to it? Okay. Is what's the identity? What are we talking about specifically? Beard still or something else? Properties. Well, then the answer is no, right? Just because you're human, you don't have to have a beard. I'm just saying properties in general. Is there any properties of your individual human nature that is the is of identity rather than a predication?

So, I think the answer would be yes. Uh, we would say that it is being human by itself, right? So universal. I am a human by identity. That's a, that's the universal. That's not the individual human nature. So, so actually, you can say individuals do have something by identity, like human nature. You could say that I'm a human, uh, by identity. That's, that's you possess the universal human nature. Yeah, because they possess the universal human nature. So then I ask you, are there is of identities that apply to the individual human nature?

So it depends on what we're talking about. You don't agree with that? Like, you're, you're speaking generally, so I'm finding it hard just to give you a straight answer, right? Because it depends. If we're talking about predicated properties, uh, well, then it would be no, right? Because not all humans have to have some set of predicated properties, like having a beard. That's is of predication. I'm asking you for is of identity. Is there is of identity in the individual human nature? For what is it? For what is what would be what would be the identical? Uh, I'm asking you property by identity. I'm asking you if there are. I mean, hypothetically, I'd probably say yes. Didn't I just answer that in regards to human nature itself? Like, you could say that you are human by identity. That's that's the univer, that's because you have the universal human nature. That's what makes you human. That's not the individual human nature. Okay. It's, and I'm not talking about predicated properties. I'm talking about the general. I said is, I said is of id, I said is of identity, and you keep saying predicated properties. So what, what is being confused here? Am I not, am I not understanding you?

You're literally, I, I keep asking you, I, I keep, I keep asking you to show. I don't think it's a, what, I don't think it's a, what is being confused. I think it's a who is being confused. And that would be you, Mike. The individual human nature. I keep asking you to show me if there is a is of identity to it. You then said, well, we're not talking about predicated prop. That's the is of predication. That's not what I said. Do you understand? Uh, honestly, no. I'm, I'm confused at what the problem is. Uh, yeah. Because individual human natures doesn't make any sense. Okay. How many humans are you and I? One or two? Two. Because we're two hypostases. So then in what sense are we two humans? Our hypostases. Okay. So then what's the problem? You are agreeing that we do count natures, the beings with humans. You're agreeing. So, so like, you're, you're agreeing now. You are positing that there is an individual human nature that constitutes Mike, right? Yeah. Yeah. I'm a human. Yeah. That is literally just a hypostatic property. That's not a na, that's not a natural property. If you say that there's an individual human nature of you, then there has to be a natural property to that individual human nature. It's nature, natural. What is the natural property to Mike that does not constitute the general, the universal human nature?

Okay. So, did I not answer this when I told you that we could say that? So, me specifically, I am a human by identity. You, you don't think because, because of the universal, right? Yeah. So, yeah, bro. So I'm asking, where's the contradiction? What's the P and not P, bro? You're just the P and not the P and not P. Are you serious? You were the one that made the assertion. Where's the contradiction? Person. I wasn't positing a contradiction. Yeah, you kept. You think contradiction is the only way something can be wrong? You're, you're, you keep asserting that when you're asking me about a universal, that I'm jumping to predicated properties, right? But you were the one who used the example of beards. You believe that? Do you believe that natures have natural properties? Do you believe that that's a thing? They can, in the sense of human being, right? I am a human being by identity. That is a natural property. That's not jumping to a predicated property. I wouldn't say that human is just something predicated to me, right? Yeah. And that's in that, and that identity is constituted from the universal. Yeah. Yeah. So, so, so what's the problem?

So, the natural, so, so your, your hypo, your, your hypostasis has natural properties from which? The individual nature or the universal nature? I'm sorry, can you say it one more time? Yeah. As your hypostasis, does it possess natural properties from the universal human nature or the individual human nature? I reject the distinction between them as two different things. So I would say both. So you don't agree that there's that there is individual human natures, that it's just one thing. Okay. There are individual human natures, but that is not the same. Is that, is that really distinct from the universal? Is that really distinct from the universal human nature? Of course, you can have predicated properties. You asked about the hypostasis, Bryce. See, this is why it's confusing because you're the one who's speaking of these things fluently. In one sense, you're talking about hypostatic properties as something, uh, specific and individual. But now you're asking me if there are hypostatic properties which relate to the universal. This is, this is actually very similar to what God logic is talking about. Drop me for Abdul, essentially hypostatic properties. Right. Yeah. So the reason why that I brought up what I brought up is you said that you don't, did you, did you or did you not say that the individual human nature is the same thing as the universal nature? Did you say that? No. I said they are two aspects of the same thing. So now they're formally distinct from each other. That's, that's what I said since the beginning. Being and person are formally distinct. What the individual human nature and the universal human nature, right? You said that the, that the, for the formal distinction is in the person and the, and the individual human nature. Yeah. Did you say that? I, I think the answer is yes. Yeah, I think so. Okay. And what is the, Yeah. So, what is the distinction between the universal human nature and the individual human nature?

Okay. So, dude, we've already answered this. The distinction would be in one sense we're talking about universals, like being a human, right? And in the other, we're talking about predicated properties which apply to the individual. This is why I asked you about the difference between predicative and, uh, an identity. Right? Because the example were beards. Not everyone who has a beard, uh, is the same human. However, they are both. Well, I don't understand why you're laughing at this. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position here, Brian, because you're, you're. No, listen. In one sense, I'm totally acknowledging that there are predicated properties to individual humans who instantiate a nature. That's fine. But then you're saying that's somehow an issue in regards to the universal. But like, I'm not allowed to say that you can be a human by identity. So I'll ask, like, what's the contradiction? What's? I'll ask, I'll ask one more. I'll ask one more question, Mike. I'll ask one more time. All right. And then I'll let Abdul ask a question because he wanted to ask something before I end the stream. I, I, the distinction between person and essence or or nature, right? In terms of, uh, the individual human nature. Is that a formal distinction? If by individual human nature you mean hypostasis, then yes. So, oh my gosh. So, they're, so they're the same exact thing. They're identical to each other. Hypostasis is individual human nature. Yeah. So, no. I've told you that they're two aspects of the same thing. So, someone's being and nature are not. This is rage bait. This is actually rage bait. Abdul, go ahead. Rage bait. They're not the same aspects. Mike, God bless everybody. I hope everybody's doing well. Mike, um, when you were talking about formal distinction, how are you defining a formal distinction? Do you think like the, the individuated nature is a formality? By formal distinction, I'm saying that they are, it's a difference within the same thing, right? Not two different things. Okay? Things as in like, like reses, like reality. No, in in terms of, uh, the person's, uh, being in their hypostasis, right? Someone's being, who they are, and what they are. That is only formally distinct of someone. Someone is, is both who they are and what they are. Those are like inseparable in reality across our time and space. They function as the same. Okay. And when you say individual nature, do you mean a particular or like somebody is his own nature? A particular. Okay. Particular. Okay. And in the case of humanity, that, and the universal comes into like a natural synthesis with, um, peculiar accidents. Does that, how is that how we differ from one another by our accidents? I think the answer is yes. Yeah. Okay. And we are, we one the same in respects to nature in terms of the universal and not predicative properties of nature. Yes. What do you mean predicated properties of nature? Okay. So again, same example, just going in circles. Okay. So Bryce used the example of a beard. Okay. Not all humans have to. Let me finish. Not all humans have to have a beard. Right. Not all humans have to have a beard. But having a beard is natural to humans. Is a beard an accident? It could be considered an accident. Yeah. What do you mean? It's, is it an accident or is it totality in the whole sense of it? Is it an accident or is it a natural property? Is it necessary to be a human to have a beard? Dude, I just told you you don't have to have a beard to be human. Okay, so it's an accident. I just told you. Okay, so then it's an accident. Then it's not a natural property. Is an accident. And I, I just told you you could call them accidents. I just told you that. But you said, you said it could be an accident, brother. It could be. Doesn't mean in any sense it's an accident. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes, it's an accident. Having a beard is not necessary as a human by nature. Okay. But the natural property, what necessary makes you a human differs from the accidents, right? I, yes. Okay. Good. Now, how is this a formal distinction between the accidents which makes the individual, that said particular, between the natural, the nature which makes the individual what he is, because nature-wise we're one and the same. You agreed when we come, when we talk about universals, but the said nature comes in a natural synthesis and is, is gets, let me use instantiated because you like that term, instantiated from the said universal. What makes us what we are is the said human nature. What we all have in common, universal, the are this peculiar accidents differentiates from one another. How is this a formal distinction between the two? Because now you're, you're bringing formalities. So is the particular a formality of the universal?

Okay, here we go. I'm going to debunk your whole line of questioning right now with a simple question. Ready? Can a person have a beard apart from having a human nature? Dude, can a person have a beard apart from having a human nature? No. No. Okay. So, that is the sense in which they are formally distinct. Thank you very much. What? How does that debunk? You just. What are you, what are you, what are you laughing at? Listen, if you cannot have a beard apart from having a human nature, then you can't actually call that merely a hypostatic property because such a property is dependent upon its essential nature. Okay. Okay, Mike. Does a goat have a beard? That's a dumb question. Can you answer the question, Mike? Yeah, I think goats have beards, Abdul. Yeah. Oh, wait. Do they have to be? You don't have to be a human to have a beard. Huh? It's an accident, bro. It's not natural. It's not necessary to be a human. It's an accident. It's different categories. You're conflating the categories. That's the problem. Okay. All right. Tell me when you're done. I don't want to cut you off. I'm done. Okay. All right. Ready? Uh, goats and humans are not the same nature, bro. That's not my point. Goats and humans are not the same nature. Are those natures formally distinct? Yeah. No, you literally said that I'm doing a category error while you just tried to apply something related to human nature to goat nature. No, that's you actually making the category error. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. No, my point is an accident doesn't make the nature what it is. You're conflating the two of what is proper to the individual. Okay, dude. You just cut me off. Don't cut me off, please. I just apologize for cutting you off. Let me finish. What's proper to the individual is an accident that makes the individual what it is. As in a beard or crooked nose, I don't know, colorful eyes, skin color, those are accidents. They're not necessary. An accident is what we call an anhypostatic. The nature itself is necessary for the individual. But just because somebody has a beard doesn't mean they're not, they're more human or less human if they don't have a beard. This is, you're conflating the category. You're said this is a formal distinction. I'm asking you, are these accidents formalities of the universal? You have yet to answer this.

Okay. So I did answer that and I don't think you're tracking because I actually agreed with like the whole first half of what you said, Abdul. I'm in like agreement with that. Okay. Uh, and I think that's actually demonstrated by my example, right? So I agree, just having a beard, okay, is as like a predicated property, is not essential to being human because humans can also not have beards, right? Okay. So I'm, I'm acknowledging that. I don't know why you keep saying that there's some type of conflation going on. I agree. No, my point is then how is the accident from the nature a formal distinction?

Okay. All right. I'll try one more time. Okay. Are you ready? Can you have any predicated property for humanity, like having a beard, okay, apart from a nature? I don't even know what that means, honestly. What the hell does that mean? Can I have any predicated? Can I have a beard apart from a human nature? A goat has a beard. Doesn't have a human nature. These are accidents. They're not necessary to have a human nature. Oh my gosh, dude. Okay, just a second ago, you had no problem saying no. Now, now you want to add on more. Listen, if, if, if. Okay, you cannot give an example of a predicated hypostatic property that can exist apart from a nature. Then my argument follows, dude. Okay, now we're talking about accidents. Again, goats have beards. Beards are accidents. That doesn't mean they have to have a human nature. Okay. Do goats have a nature? Yes. Okay. So, so, so then, so then this still applies because goats have a nature, right? You have, you'd have to give an example of something who could have a predicated property like a beard that does not have a nature. Can you give an example of something? Abdul, let me, let me do something. Is the, is the accident that's in the goat nature for them to have a beard, is that formally distinct from the accident from the human nature? Uh, category error. Human natures aren't the same as goat natures. That, that wouldn't be a category error. You would just say no because they're not the same nature. Yeah, that doesn't make it, that's not a category error. This is not real. This is not real. Dude, you just, you just asked if if a quality shows a beard that. Please let me finish. You just said that is. You asked me if a property within goat nature is formally distinct to human nature. That's what you asked. I asked if it was formally distinct from the accident of having a beard in the human nature. Yes. And I'm telling you that's a category because we're speaking of two different categories, right? Okay. Human nature and goat nature. Listen, the problem, the problem we're talking about universals there, Mike. That's not a different category. Guys, the problem is not really what the predicated property is. You could fill it with X. It could be anything. The problem is if it can exist in reality apart from a nature. Did you, did you really ask us to show a beard that exists outside of an instantiation of a nature? Listen, you guys as Trinitarians are the ones who attribute certain properties just to the hypostasis, right? So if I'm arguing that the, the who someone is is formally distinct to what they are, then I'm actually on point to question you guys to give an example of how a hypostatic property could exist apart from in nature. If you can't give one, that supports my position that they are formally distinct. You know that we do have things called formal constituents, right? Uh, I, I probably read about it. I'd have to think, think more about it, like look, things like paternity and sonship. Those are formal constituents of the hypostatic relations. Okay. So, in other words, you're saying that those are just hypostatic properties. Oh my gosh, I can't do this. No. Oh, is that, that's a. Before you kick him off the panel, Mike, when our boxing match, do you want, do you want headgear, gloves, or are we going bare knuckle? All right. So, so listen, you're just an insecure guy. All right. So I actually. You're talking about fights because you're insecure. All right. No, I actually want to fight you. Because you're insecure. All right. No, it has nothing to do with insecurity. So Bryce, oh my god. Listen, if, if I did misunderstand you, if that's not what you're saying, I'm genuinely sorry, Bryce. I'm not trying to misrepresent your position, man. The, the real distinction between the persons is based in the fact that one is unbegotten, one is begotten, one is spirated. That would be their real distinctions between each other. Those are things that constitute persons, right? In a real sense. And then there's formal constituents that are on the persons, like for example, possessing paternity and sonship. Okay. So, uh, would you mind explaining that in, in like what that means in terms of the relationship between the person and nature? Because what that sounds like to me is you're saying things like paternity are like hypostatic properties, right? In terms of a proper, in a proper term, a hypostatic property would be unbegotten, begotten, or spirated or procession, if you want to use that. That, that is a hypostatic property. The distinction between those is real. That's a real distinction. A major real distinction that if I use scholastic terminology and then in term. What? Oh no, please finish. My bad. Didn't mean to cut you off. I'm talking about formal constituents. Those are formal formalities of the persons from the real distinctions. Do you understand that? I mean, I think I do. Essentially, you're saying that him being unbegotten is, is like formally gives him paternity. Okay. For formally, wait a second. If it's formally, that means it wouldn't be real. You just said it is real, though, bro. There's no way. There's no way. All right. Well, I got to go, man. Cuz it's like midnight and I'm not even supposed to be up right now. My wife's going to unalive me if I don't go to bed. Hey, that's fine. No, that's totally fine. I get it. That metaphysics, mind metaphysics. If you actually want to understand what he said, read St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 29. He explains exactly what Bryce just said. The term father is a relation to the son. His, his hypostatic property. Gregory the Theologian answers in Oration 20 that is unbegotten, unoriginate, causality principle, all amounts to the same thing when we're denoting the father. St. Gadio Scaladdio says the same thing. But brother, Lord have mercy. Rise. All right. So here, let me write down that citation. What was that? I'll check it out if you think it'll help me understand. Yeah, St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 29, specifically what I'm, what I just quoted is paragraph 12, what when he talks about what Bryce just talked about about the former constituents, that's paragraph 12 of the 29th Oration. It's the third theological oration if you want to read the whole thing. He also goes of the father's relation with the spirit as in he's the emitter and the spirit is the emitted. That's paragraph two. But really, you can read Oration 29, 30, 31. He explains our view of the triad perfectly. So then you could actually understand what we mean because this was crazy. Is that you? That sounds good. I'll, I'll check it out. I got it written down and, yeah, I will. I'll check it out. All right, cool. God bless you. God bless you, Bryce. Have a good night. Yeah. God bless. All right. Night, Bryce. Yeah. Sorry, I accidentally kicked out. I didn't know you were going to say something. My bad. Good stream tonight, guys. Uh, my, my, my patience, uh, was tested. But hey, all good. Give a speech. Uh, keep praying. Go to church. Take that dang Eucharist. You're baptized. Cool. Stay thrifty. I think people say that. See you guys later.