Minaya024

The issue is that it causes people (myself included sadly) to bring up sloppy crappy low tier arguments against the EO Church. Anybody can bring up dirt against another Church, it proves absolutely nothing. He’s causing discord at best between Churches & causing EO inquirers to stumble at worst. There is no upside to what he is doing. He should rather stick to interviews or his own spiritual life. There is no reason for a Catechumen to publicly go on the offense when he himself is “unable” to defend himself or his position. Or at the very least if he were to get offensive at the very minimum he could bring actual substantial arguments to the table but he’s incapable of even doing that.. that’s the issue with him.

@YariLogos @C2Antiquity Yes, I know that's your opinion, you're just repeating yourself. That still doesn't tell me what his catechumenate has to do with his opinions on non-Orthodox faiths. Even if he truly was ignorant about non-Christian practices, why does that matter in regards to his position?

The chorus of bad takes doesn’t change the fact this started with @C2Antiquity confidently talking about something he clearly doesn’t grasp. That’s exactly why the catechumenate exists so people learn first and speak later.

Exactly, I layed out a small example here. Obviously I think anybody that uses these types of arguments to “attack” a Church is mistaken, like you said there is ugly anywhere we look since we’re sinners and ultimately the Church is a hospital & we’re meant to strive for perfection but end up falling short

Ben (Cleave to Antiquity), is a catechumen and shouldn't be bashing other ancient groups like this. Especially when he doesn't understand the full context of an issue. Also, Eastern Orthodoxy is far from perfect! We have flaws too, and I hope he comes to see that before becoming Orthodox, because he's going to be heart broken and traumatized if not. Some of this stuff is going to come back to bite him because every ancient church struggled with native culture medicine, which was often closely welded to native witchcraft and superstition (to some degree), as well as with being influenced by Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Even in Anglican history we can see the practice of Alchemy by some of its clergy, and so one has to be nuanced, educated, and careful when talking about this kind of stuff. A catechumen shouldn't be talking about this stuff!

The irony is that Copts in the US and Western world incorporate Western Christian praise music while fully preserving Tradition, Liturgy and worship in order to accomodate and relate to Americans and Western culture without compromising Orthodoxy. Don't you guys believe that American culture should be respected and cherished?

I don’t understand why Cleave is throwing around such low tier slop arguments.. and people are actually buying it.. The same type of arguments could be made against him but it wouldn’t even matter because it does nothing to prove/disprove the Church as a whole. Just to give a few examples youtu.be/7ky2xFFth4g?is…

We did and are

It’s both.. a word can develop in its usage over time. It’s possible a few hundred years from the now the word trust could mostly be used for God alone. That doesn’t mean if I were to say that I trust you, I’m committing idolatry or that it negates my trust in God, I’m using it in the way that it is used today but language does evolve over time.

@ChristandGuitar Amen. Pray is not merely ask. Matthew 21:22 And if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.” Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, everything you pray and ask for —believe that you have received it and it will be yours.

I watched the debate between Alex Sorin and JP for a while (it's currently still ongoing as I write this). The biggest mistake JP made was allowing Alex to define the word "pray" as merely "ask." As soon as that happened, the entire debate fell apart. Pray and ask are not interchangeable in this conversation. This is exactly where the real debate lies on praying to saints. "Pray" involves submissive, spiritual communication to a higher power. The EO/RC position relies on this stripped-down definition — reducing it to just "ask." A stronger tactic would have been proving from Scripture how "pray" (in its biblical usage) is reserved for God alone.

@nunaambon @C2Antiquity

Fighting my life not to send this to the one bald man I know

@KeithDiamond994 @UcheMaryOkoli

Well he's probably gay so.... “Pope” is a made up title not in the list of God approved Church offices, Ephesians 4:11 and he commits BLASPHEMY by allowing people to BOW TO HIM and call him “HOLY FATHER”, every priest commits BLASPHEMY by allowing people to call him “Father” . In the section of Matthew that covers WHAT NOT TO BE CALLED AS A RELIGIOUS LEADER , see Matt 23:5-9, JESUS FORBIDS YOU FROM CALLING A PRIEST “FATHER” . And the reason for that is that the GLORY of being called “FATHER” belongs to THE FATHER IN HEAVEN. Matthew 23:9 Easy to Read version (for Dummies) 9 And don’t call anyone on earth ‘Father.’ You have one Father. He is in heaven. When JOHN attempts to BOW TO AN ANGEL he is told. Revelation 22:8-9 Easy-to-Read Version 8 I am John. I am the one who heard and saw these things. After I heard and saw them, I bowed down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me. 9 But the angel said to me, “Don’t worship me! I am a servant like you and your brothers the prophets. I am a servant like all those who obey the words in this book. You should worship God!” When PETER the FIRST APOSTLE CALLED BY JESUS CHRIST, who was given the power to raise the DEAD by Jesus Christ in Matthew 10:8, first met Cornelius , the Roman tried to BOW to Peter. Acts 10:25-26 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man. EVERY PRIEST COMMITS BLASPHEMY BY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CALL HIM FATHER IN EXPRESS VIOLATION OF THE COMMANDMENT OF JESUS CHRIST. THE BLASPHEMY OF THE POPE SAYS “Hold my beer” as the blasphemer not only allows himself to be called HOLY FATHER but also lets you BOW AND KISS HIS RING. ONLY A MINISTER OF SATAN WOULD DO THAT and yes, Satan has ministers. The way you know them is THEY CONTRADICT THE BIBLE, DUH! 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. There is only ONE BAPTISM in Christianity . Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, And it’s this one in Jesus’ name not the one the blasphemers invented in the 2nd century. Acts 2:38 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Also see, Acts 4:12, Acts 8:16-17, Acts 10:44-48 , Acts 19:1-6 When you are RE-baptized CORRECTLY in Jesus’ name like John the Baptist’s followers in Acts 19, you too shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost , which only comes like this, Acts 2:4 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. See, Acts 10:44-48, Acts 19:1-6, John 3:8. And then you will know that the "Pope" IS A LIE.

Pope LeoXIV ❤️ is never afraid to show his emotions. 🥺

@tommy7956 @usanewshq All of us here commenting on this need more healing than the kid, also the popes not God not sure what makes you think he’d be able to do that.

@usanewshq Why doesn’t the powerful pope heal him

Down syndrome child meets the Pope — his reaction is priceless ❤️

Jay will be back. The Dark Knight aways rises.

@TheNarrowGate37 @ErickYbarra3 Acts 15:7

@ErickYbarra3 This is word-concept fallacy game. Was the original council of Jerusalem (48-50AD) an Ecumenical council? Who “signed off” on it?

Council of Jerusalem 1672 was “never a council.”

@NickyBats57 @itisjustbill @NateBornAgain Photius calls her the spouse of the Creator in his homily on the annunciation of the mother of God & likewise with Theodotus of Ancyra. There’s really nothing wrong with it

@itisjustbill @NateBornAgain Yah I’m not slandering Roman Catholics, but I know Orthodox Faith, don’t use these words in our official canonical Prayers and The saints. But of course she is our Holy Queen

Did you Know Catholics/Eos Call Mary the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit"? This is Blasphemous!

@ajweberman8 @catholicourtney Are you serious? He could have cited any classical work & you probably would have judged him for citing said classical work lol

@catholicourtney this is the best he can do - not from the classics?

Speaking with Pope Leo XIV on the papal plane about JRR Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings after he quoted Gandalf in his first encyclical

@jacobthefoolish @miaphysite3 I’m not OO but it would be like someone bringing up the fact that Greek EO clergy allow the practice of Kourbania ( sacrifice of a lamb among other stuff to saints) among certain communities. Cleave is known for dropping slop. It’s no different from when he was a protestant.

@miaphysite3 He seems genuine. Maybe you just don't understand him.

Cleave2Iniquity is literally demonised.

No he gives a caveat before diving into the subject in his encyclical. He said, “Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense...”. In certain cases a country wouldn’t have a choice but to defend itself but he urges people to seek other methods if possible to settle out matters

@CatholicSat @DictatorPope This would seem to even rule out legitimate self defense, after all in Ukraine, Russia possesses such weapons.

Pope just dropped the biggest change in Church teaching in a very long time, and he did so mid-flight.

@DeiGratia64 @NateBornAgain He’d rather lose 5lbs then admit anything a Catholic says is true

@NateBornAgain Unless you actually understand scripture. You don’t.

The Ark of the Covenant is a terrible argument for Mary Typology!

@YariLogos @ruckusofantioch It’s better to just ignore that guy

@ruckusofantioch I won't go on his streams anymore

JP is clinically r*tarded idc anymore 💀

He’s low iq. Either way depending on how you use the word worship it actually wouldn’t be erroneous. Worship traditionally meant to ascribe to somebody their due worth. I’d say EOs and other apostolics do give to Mary what is properly due to her. Very similar to the manner in which the word prayer has linguistically evolved over time. In that sense it wouldn’t be wrong to say EOs, & Catholics “worship” Mary, & Protestants are wrong not to “worship” her if we were to understand it in its traditional sense

@JPuncut EO do not worship Mary. Why are you lying?

I will become an Eastern Orthodox today if someone can prove to me Jesus didn't have blood related Brothers and Sisters! If you can prove they are step brothers and sisters or cousins, I will become an EO Mary Heretic worshipper myself! Tonight on Twitter space @ 8 pm eastern

@SotirisM7 @Thanngorodrim @World_Insights1

@Thanngorodrim @World_Insights1 There is no Istanbul, you idiot! There is only Constantinople!

🇹🇷 Churches in Turkey: 🇹🇷 2000 → 420 🇹🇷 2001 → 425 🇹🇷 2002 → 430 🇹🇷 2003 → 435 🇹🇷 2004 → 440 🇹🇷 2005 → 445 🇹🇷 2006 → 450 🇹🇷 2007 → 460 🇹🇷 2008 → 470 🇹🇷 2009 → 480 🇹🇷 2010 → 490 🇹🇷 2011 → 500 🇹🇷 2012 → 515 🇹🇷 2013 → 530 🇹🇷 2014 → 545 🇹🇷 2015 → 560 🇹🇷 2016 → 575 🇹🇷 2017 → 590 🇹🇷 2018 → 605 🇹🇷 2019 → 620 🇹🇷 2020 → 635 🇹🇷 2021 → 650 🇹🇷 2022 → 665 🇹🇷 2023 → 680 🇹🇷 2024 → 695 🇹🇷 2025 → 700+ Source: Turkish Statistical Institute (TÜİK), Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, Armenian Patriarchate of Turkey, World Christian Database (WCD), Association of Protestant Churches in Turkey.

@HankRenter @NateBornAgain @C2Antiquity @RealCandaceO youtube.com/live/6_kYE25e6…

@NateBornAgain @C2Antiquity @RealCandaceO The only church to condemn the idea that Muslims and Christian’s share the same God

The Christian expression and heritage here is unmatched. Unsurprisingly, they are lying to us about Russia. ✝️

Maulers not a bright guy. My comment was more in general. EOs in general don’t allow for their position to be internally critiqued. I’ve only seen it happen a couple of times & have a lot of respect for those that took on the challenge, but in general they act as if defeating another position makes theirs true

@Minaya024 @GmorganJr @paleochristcon That was literally the suggestion. Mauler didn’t seem to understand the concept when it was clearly laid out to him. It seemed he was out of his depth the whole time.

@orthobrohammer @maksimologija @LaymansSeminary Grok vs Claude 🤔

@maksimologija @LaymansSeminary "A GPT5 response." Yeah, we know.

How Can We Link Jay Dyer to Dugin in the Ruscism Critique? (A Super Layman / GPT5 response). Here is the sharper version: Jay Dyer cannot be treated as merely an Orthodox apologist who happens to criticize liberalism. He has publicly engaged Alexander Dugin, promoted interest in Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, and operates in the same anti-liberal, anti-Western, anti-dispensational, civilizational-traditionalist space that makes Ruscism attractive to some Christians. That does not mean Jay Dyer agrees with every claim Dugin has ever made. But it does mean the connection is not imaginary. Dugin supplies a geopolitical and philosophical framework in which Western liberalism, American hegemony, Protestant influence, and dispensational Zionism are treated as symptoms of the same civilizational enemy. Jay’s rhetoric often moves in a similar direction: Protestantism is unstable, the West is collapsing, liberalism is satanic or parasitic, and Orthodoxy is the ancient civilizational alternative. This is where Miles’ Ruscism critique becomes important. Dugin’s project is not simply “traditional Christianity.” It is a post-fascist political theology that uses tradition, multipolarity, anti-globalism, and Orthodox civilizational language to sacralize a geopolitical project. When Jay Dyer platformed or positively engaged Dugin’s thought, he did not merely discuss a neutral political theorist. He entered the orbit of a thinker whose framework helps explain Russian civilizational expansion, hostility to Ukraine, opposition to Israel, and hatred of dispensational Protestantism. So the pressure question for Jay is simple: where is the firewall? If Orthodoxy is supposed to be the safeguard against Protestant fragmentation and liberal corruption, why is one of the most prominent Orthodox media figures comfortable drawing from a thinker whose worldview can be used to baptize Russian imperial ideology? And why has the Russian Orthodox Church, with all its bishops, liturgy, sacraments, and apostolic claims, been able to function as religious cover for that same civilizational project? Jay’s argument against Protestantism says, “Without Orthodoxy, you collapse into liberalism.” But the Dugin-Russian Orthodoxy problem exposes the mirror danger: “With Orthodoxy, you can collapse into empire.” The Moscow Patriarchate’s symphonia with the Russian state shows that visible hierarchy and ancient tradition do not automatically preserve biblical categories. They can become tools for state mythology. The biblical issue is category collapse. Scripture distinguishes Christ’s kingdom from earthly empire, church from state, nation from civilization, and Christ’s sacrifice from military sacrifice. But Dugin’s civilizational theory and Moscow Orthodoxy’s sacred-state rhetoric blur those categories. Russia becomes a holy restrainer. The West becomes the Antichrist-like enemy. Ukraine becomes absorbed into a greater Orthodox-Russian space. Military death can be spoken of as sin-cleansing sacrifice. That means Jay Dyer’s proximity to Dugin is apologetically relevant. It shows that his Orthodox alternative to Protestantism is not immune from ideological capture. His system may reject liberal modernity, but it can still open the door to a different corruption: sacred empire, civilizational myth, and Russian Orthodox political theology. Therefore, Jay Dyer cannot simply ask Protestants, “Where is your church?” The counter-question is: “Where is your firewall against Dugin, Ruscism, and imperial Orthodoxy?” If Orthodoxy’s visible church can be used to sanctify Russian political mythology, then visible continuity is not enough. The church must be judged by Scripture, not merely by hierarchy, tradition, and civilizational rhetoric. Best short version: Jay Dyer’s Dugin connection matters because it exposes the weakness in his Orthodox triumphalism: the same tradition he presents as a cure for Protestant liberalism can become a delivery system for Russian imperial ideology.