AlgoOPC

The Dividing Line is LIVE right now! Join us!

Tomorrow on the Dividing Line, 5pm EDT: in-depth discussion of what debate is supposed to be about, rules, means of evaluation, and responses to the Orthobros online. Then, close examination of Craig Truglia's attempt to use such texts and Galatians 3:1 to establish apostolicity, his claims about Pseudo-Dionysius being "established," his use of scholarly sources, and then a response to @StephenBoyce333 on Basil's words in De Spiritu Sancto 18.45 and the reality that EO's (and RC's by extension) must sacrifice authorial context and original intent to create "principles" upon which they then create dogma. Here is a screen from that presentation:

Appreciate everyone who came out today to an early morning debate. Was really surprised that folks flew in from far away! Amazing. Lots of great conversations afterward as well. So the Orthobros are very actively demonstrating that their mutual maturity age is about 9 right now on line, dancing around and claiming victory---just as expected. I mean, these guys think Jay Dyer wins every moment he opens his mouth to order a pizza, so what do you expect? It never crossed my mind to even worry about them. I noticed as I looked briefly at a string of their "bloodbath" comments that the average followers number was less than 100. Serious folks! But I am keeping my eyes on two topics from the debate that, if there is a serious bone in any of their bodies, will eventually come up---HAS to come up, because Craig fumbled those topics badly. So far...not a whisper. So, I am hoping some more good comments will be posted so that when I take the time to go over the non-engagement with key elements of my presentation we will have a few illustrations to add. Oh, I do have to note this one just in passing. Saw someone, seriously, suggesting that the reason Peter knew who Moses and Elijah were on the Mount of Transfiguration was because...the Jews had icons of them! Think that one through for a second. I really think the person was being serious. Honestly! But I would like to respond to one clip going around that is very illustrative of the mindset of the Orthobros. During cross-ex Craig repeatedly interrupted me, mid-sentence. At one point I was explaining the difference between the concept of veneration (προσκύνησις) as defined at Nicea II and the use of a picture of a lost child at a funeral. Craig interrupted me mid sentence and this time I did not stop speaking. I was talking about how the parents knew the child, but the veneration of icons did not have that element of personal knowledge in it. As old as I am, I never met Basil or Gregory or Chrysostom (the men in the icon I held up at the end of the debate). So I do not have personal knowledge of them. While I was still talking Craig asked about personal knowledge of Christ. I did not hear him because I was still talking. And now the entire net (including Jay Dyer) are saying I have denied knowing Christ personally. The absurdity of it is stunning, but, these are the Orthobros we are talking about here. Absurdity is the oxygen of their six hour long mutual admiration society webcasts. But what is really funny to think about is this: given their own standards, does this mean that every Orthobro who has venerated an icon of Christ is qualified to be an apostle? I mean, since they have "seen the Lord" and hence "know" him in some special way, that means they can be an apostle, right? Uh huh. Got it.