Here, a young volunteer for us already put this together. Maybe it will help you see the issue. I'd LOVE to see your explanation of Basil IN CONTEXT. youtube.com/shorts/Ja9q13GNx…

Allow me a quick correction. I do not deny the difference between person and nature. Truglia interrupted so often that he said things I could not possibly hear because I was still speaking. I have discussed, and utilized, the distinction of being and person, and person and nature, for decades. If he talked over a response at some point (as in the next topic), that is on him, not me. So keep your anathemas to yourself, sir. Secondly, in a debate on icon veneration where the Council anathematized everyone who would not kiss the icon, the difference between grieving parents and the "veneration" of a wooden painting of someone who died centuries before could not be more obvious. And it is you, not me, who are so corrupted in your thinking by a political council of 1200+ years ago that you would not be able to hear that obvious reality.

The final words of the 7th Session of Nicea II, 787: The holy council exclaimed: ‘We all believe accordingly, we all hold the same, we have all signed in accord. This is the faith of the apostles, this is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the orthodox, this is the faith that has sustained the world. Believing in one God, to be praised in trinity, we kiss the honourable images. May those who do not hold accordingly be anathema! May those who do not believe accordingly be driven far away from the church! We follow the ancient legislation of the catholic church, we observe the decrees of the fathers. We anathematize those who either add anything or remove anything from the church. We anathematize the intrusive innovation of the accusers of Christians. We accept the sacred images. We subject those who do not believe accordingly to anathema. To those who apply to the sacred images the sayings in divine scripture against idols anathema! To those who do not kiss the holy and venerable images anathema! To those who call the sacred images idols anathema! To those who say that Christians had recourse to the images as gods anathema! To those who knowingly communicate with those who insult and dishonour the sacred images anathema! To those who say it was someone other than Christ our God who rescued us from idols anathema! To those who dare to say that the catholic church ever accepted idols anathema! ‘Many years to the emperors! To Constantine and his mother Eirene many years! To the victorious emperors many years! To the new Constantine and the new Helena eternal memory! May God protect their authority! Heavenly king, protect the kings on earth! ‘To all the heretics anathema! To the assembly that insulted the sacred images anathema! To whoever accept the impious mouthings of their heresy anathema!....They scorned the images of the Lord and his saints, and the Lord has scorned them. If anyone defends anyone who belongs to this heresy that accuses Christians or who has ended his life in it, anathema!...If anyone does not accept the gospel narratives when painted, anathema! If anyone does not kiss them as being in the name of the Lord and his saints, anathema! If anyone rejects any ecclesiastical tradition written or unwritten, anathema! I had to provide these words today. My opponent, who believes them, did not. Today's debate was about the gospel, and Craig admitted it. Everyone in that audience, and any audience in the future who watches it, must have the maturity to recognize what is at stake. Nicea II added icon veneration (προσκύνησις) to the gospel. The Apostles never taught such a thing, and all the references to symbols, chalices, signet rings, and grave markings, from earlier centuries, does not add it to the gospel either. So when you boil it all down, Mr. Truglia defended the anathematization of entire swaths of professing Christians not over the doctrine of God, or a denial of the resurrection, or a perversion of the gospel, but, because we do not do what Irene, Empress of the Byzantine Empire, demanded we do 1200+ years ago.

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.