Great discussion! @JordanBCooper, to clarify, Pope Honorius I wasn't declared an antipope; you might be confusing him with Antipope Honorius II. The council was well-versed in Honorius I's private letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which informed the doctrine's formulation to exclude papal errors in both personal reflections and undeclared doctrines. According to the council VC I: For official binding, the declaration must be formal, public (published), and accompanied by the threat of exclusion, with the intent to permanently bind the Church. I respectfully encourage you to delve into deeper discussions with knowledgeable Roman Catholics, as this could help avoid misunderstandings and enrich the conversation where we actually differ.
I told someone else about how Honorius was an antipope based on this lecture and he told me I was wrong, so I had to look it up and figure out Jordan erred.
I had just been thinking about the two natures earlier today because of William Lane Craig's views on the matter. It's funny how these things work out.
I've heard it argued by Thomists that the Roman approach to Christology is in the same vein as Calvin whereas Lutheranism is in the school of Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus. (This was made clear by Dominicans and Jesuits as well as Reformed condemning the misunderstood position of Lutherans on human local-omnipresence).
Roman Catholic - be precise. The Holy See is based in Rome but it’s jurisdiction is Universal and Immediate, and binding upon all validly baptized humans.
I very much appreciate this series. I have just begun reading and reviewing a book by Fr. VS Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined. He examines the history and controversy of the topic that caused the split of the non-Chalcedonian Churches. He appears eminently qualified to write on the subject, being well-versed in many of the ancient and historic languages. Separately I have read that at least some of the non-Chalcedonian Churches accept the subsequent councils which better clarified that which was not clear at Chalcedon (and was the reason for these Churches to not accept Chalcedon). But this has done nothing to heal the breach.
Lutheran here. Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll have a look. I wouldn't say, "this has done nothing to heal the breach." The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East used to rebaptize each other, Romanists and Greco-Russian Orthodox. The've stopped rebaptizing Trinitarians of all stripes and only re-crism them. I think that as Christianity continues to lose ground in Iraq/Iran, Egypt/Ethiopia, Europe and the Americas, we will see far more unity. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, especially if the trend of making concessions to the Papacy and other bad theologies continues.
Personally, I’m wrestling with the consistency of the orthodox take on two natures. - Two wills? Yes, that’s orthodox! - Two centers of consciousness? That’s Nestorian!
What makes the two wills more orthodox than two centers of consciousness? If Christ is one person, while I believe we can all agree he is, does this not mean he has one will, since I am one person, and have one will? I am not sure equating natures to wills is the best option in Christology. (Two centers of consciousness is definitely outside of Orthodoxy, but I am not so sure that monothelitism is as outside of orthodoxy as some people make it out to be. I believe it is more of a term difference, than a doctrinal one. I am not convinced one way or the other surrounding the issue, but I would probably affirm the orthodox position, as long as it is clearly defined, avoids possible Nestorian implications, and does not disassemble the unity of Christ).
Pope Honorius is not considered an AntiPope, he was wrong on an issue he didn't fully understand but Popes can be wrong when they don't speak ex cathedra
John of Damascus' enhypostaton concept was, in my opinion, the ultimate concession of the unworkability of Chalcedonian Christology, whereby he leverages John the Grammarian's enhypostasis concept (taken from Theodoret no less) to try to come to a workable model of the hypostatic union that thr Miaphysites had held all along. But unlike the Miaphysite model which is both completely in line with the classical definitions of ousia, hypostasis, and prosopon, Damascene conflates hypostasis and prosopon resulting in a Christ who, if we were to follow the logic, does not actually have a concrete individuated human body and human soul (for if He did, there would be a hypostasis, a reall concrete substantial existence, of each).
Just to clarify something… is it orthodox to say that Jesus knows everything in His divine nature, but not everything as far as His human nature is concerned?
Is it ecumenical orthodoxy that Jesus has 2 centers of consciousness because that seems really weird? And I would be hard pressed to make that mandatory on a believer since it seems to be a conclusion based on a lot of previous conclusions as opposed to direct revelation.
@@DrJordanBCooper When it comes to Jesus not knowing the day or hour How is claiming “his human nature didn’t know but his divine nature knew” any different than two centers of conscience? It’s basically claiming the same thing your just reassigning knowledge from consciousness to a “nature” Sounds the same
@mitchellc4220 I think it's more helpful to think in terms of ways of knowing. While having one consciousness, I can know something in one way but not another. For example, if I know musical notation, I can read a score and tell you which piano keys need to be pressed and in what order. But I don't have embodied knowledge of how to play the piece unless I've practiced.
In an analogous way, divine knowledge isn't just more extensive than human knowledge. It's a fundamentally different way of knowing things. So the incarnate, pre-resurrection Jesus could know things in a divine way but not know them in a human way without prejudice to the unity of his consciousness.
If the personality of the man Jesus is animated entirely by the Son of God and there’s not two wills then how do we understand the garden scene where He’s praying asking the Father to spare Him if possible?
The garden scene (and the Bible in general) cannot be understood when the unbiblical doctrine of Trinitarianism is forced upon it.
God the Father is a unipersonal Spirit (John 4:23-24). The Son of God is that same unipersonal Spirit manifested in genuine human form (1 Tim.3:16). The name of this unipersonal Spirit - who came down from heaven _without leaving heaven_ (John 3:13) - is the name which is above _every_ name: JESUS (Php.2:9-10).
In his _human_ level of existence on earth, this unipersonal Spirit wanted the cup of suffering to pass. In his _eternal_ level of existence far above all heavens, this unipersonal Spirit did _not_ want the cup of suffering to pass.
The garden scene shows us two opposing wills of one unipersonal Spirit - JESUS, "the root *_and_* the offspring of David" (Rev.22:16) - simultaneously dwelling in two incomprehensibly different levels of existence.
@@euston2216 This creates more problems and only makes the Garden scene incomprehensible. If the Father and the Son are not distinct persons, who exactly is Jesus praying to? Who is he interceding in heaven before? Whose right hand is he sitting at? The entirety of Revelation clearly pictures the Father and the Son as separate persons. A cursory examination of the farewell discourse will show that the Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son, and moreover, his intercessory work discussed in Romans makes it clear that he is a true person in his own right. Honestly the scriptural testimony for the distinction of the persons is so unambiguous that I'm not sure how anyone can believe otherwise.
The apersonality of the Son is something very technical. It means that the human nature of Christ is not a separate person from the Logos, and does not subsist in itself but rather subsists in the Logos. Christ has two wills, per dyothelitism, which makes sense of the garden scene.
There are two wills! That's what this video is about. But the divine will and the human will in Jesus are both the wills of the same subject. There is no concrete "man" Jesus. There's just the one Word, possessing two natures, both with their own will and energy.
I believe the Scripture and I see only FIRST PERSON SINGULAR in ANY given verse where Jesus talks about his own will! The Gospels, Paul or any other Apostles would mentioned 2 wills, but they never do, only one will! To argue that Dyarhelithism is the most proper view of Jesus has no Scriptural backing. I would not even take in consideration the historical background, becouse it is PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL, and it is not required for understanding Jesus, or Theology.
@@kiroshakir7935 This is just a prime example how do not interpret the Scripture. Man made theology build on man made philosophy. There is no clear (!!!) Scripture verses that would indicate two wills of any person. Historically, yes! Christianity is and was always sidetracked with subjects like this. Why not focus on the Gospel?
If only we knew what the Cappadocian fathers said about the will of Christ.... > Let them quote in the seventh place that The Son came down from Heaven, not to do His own Will, but the Will of Him That sent Him. Well, if this had not been said by Himself Who came down, we should say that the phrase was modelled as issuing from the Human Nature, not from Him who is conceived of in His character as the Saviour, for His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing **it is altogether taken into God**; but **__conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine__, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Your Will prevail. For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, **or that He would oppose will to will**. But since, __as this is the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down__), and **not of the Nature which He assumed**, we must meet the objection in this way, that **the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own**, besides that of the Father, *_*___but that He has not__**; so that the meaning would be, "__not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and You; for **as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will**__. St. Gregory, Oration 30 > To fulfill what was spoken in the Acts: "The multitude of believers were of one heart and soul"__-no one, that is, erecting his own will,__ but all in common seeking in the one Holy Spirit **the one will of the Lord Jesus Christ** who said: "I am coming down from heaven __not to do my will but the will of the Father who sent me__," and who says for this reason: "Not for these only do I ask, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that all may be one." St Basil The Great, On Christian Ethics, On the Judgment of God, Pg. 47
Seems like the scriptures paint a very simple total picture: There is only one infinite God, the Father. He begat the Word as a Son, the firstborn of creation, who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were created. God's Word was the image of the invisible God he was with. God eventually sent his Son to the world, to be humbled to a human form. Mary gave birth to this human form (not to the heavenly being that pre-existed her, nor to the Father who begat him). The Word relinquished this heavenly nature to take on this human nature... not just "appearing to come to earth, while holding himself back in heaven." Likewise, at his death, he didn't just "appear to die." Jesus, the Son, the Word, died for us. All of him. Holding nothing back. Not just a temporary disembodiment from the flesh part of the human nature part of one person of a being... but a whole mortal being, actually died. And on the third day after that, his Father (who was not dead) resurrected him. He demonstrably had to be corruptible to be tested, and mortal to die before his death. But was raised incorruptible and immortal. One whole being going being sent to actually be humbled and actually die... not a fraction of a being sending a fraction of himself to have a fraction of that die. Much simpler, no contradictions or "fully this yet not that, yet the opposite yet not the opposite" ... but an actual being with a distinct body/mind and will, which was in submission to his Father's mind and will. Monotheism.
On a different note, Matt Walsh has coutage standing up for God's creation, a woman. Please don't buy into this warped culture, Pastor Cooper. Take a stand on the correct side....this is reality, not politics.
He actually has taken the correct side on this. He has pretty clearly stated he is against modern gender tomfoolery multiple times. The clip that Matt Walsh used to condemn Dr. Cooper is heavily misrepresentative of the point he was making.
Pastor Cooper is completely against postmodern gender theory. Matt Walsh is an egomaniac who attacked him for no reason other than the fact that he misinterpreted something that Cooper said and it shattered his fragile ego.
Cyril of Alexandria was a heretic who believed in Christ having a single nature at the council of ephesus. He gave up his view to compromise with John of Antioch provided John would condemn Nestorius for teaching that Mary was not the mother of God. Nestorius actually taught the dual nature of Christ. This is why the Eastern churches were angered - how John and Cyril could call Nestorius a heretic while promoting Nestorius's theology on the nature of Christ. Meanwhile Cyril being politically more astute was able to pass himself off as orthodox while never really giving up his original views on the nature of Christ.
@@st.martinlutherofwittenber18 Cyril was. But he was also a good politician. Alexandrian patriarchs had a history of slandering the patriarchs of other regions. Because they were able to pull the wool over the eyes of successive popes and make deals that got them out on top (good politicians), they also got very powerful.
Matt Walsh is funny and can have clear points but Matt's critique was basically hot-take sensationalism. That's my point of view from consuming probably hundreds of hours of Jordan's content. Also, Jordan responded to it. Check it out.
This is the least clickbaity video title I've seen in a while
And somehow people still watch.
😂😂😂
@@DrJordanBCooper because the baptists are loosing it right now. I am seeing "social trinitarian" online communities for the first time.
Time-stamp
2:10 - Nestorian teaching
4:07, 5:37 - Council of Chalcedon and the boundaries of orthodoxy
Great discussion! @JordanBCooper, to clarify, Pope Honorius I wasn't declared an antipope; you might be confusing him with Antipope Honorius II. The council was well-versed in Honorius I's private letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, which informed the doctrine's formulation to exclude papal errors in both personal reflections and undeclared doctrines.
According to the council VC I: For official binding, the declaration must be formal, public (published), and accompanied by the threat of exclusion, with the intent to permanently bind the Church.
I respectfully encourage you to delve into deeper discussions with knowledgeable Roman Catholics, as this could help avoid misunderstandings and enrich the conversation where we actually differ.
Agreed - a pretty jaw-dropping error when you consider the tone. Even charitable Lutherans get a bit cranky when discussing Lu 2’s kryptonite
I told someone else about how Honorius was an antipope based on this lecture and he told me I was wrong, so I had to look it up and figure out Jordan erred.
Orthodox here and I’m loving this Lutheran love affair with the East
I had just been thinking about the two natures earlier today because of William Lane Craig's views on the matter. It's funny how these things work out.
Exactly the same with me.
It’s how the algorithm works
I would like to hear more about the implications of locating the will in nature rather than person.
I've heard it argued by Thomists that the Roman approach to Christology is in the same vein as Calvin whereas Lutheranism is in the school of Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus. (This was made clear by Dominicans and Jesuits as well as Reformed condemning the misunderstood position of Lutherans on human local-omnipresence).
Roman Catholic - be precise. The Holy See is based in Rome but it’s jurisdiction is Universal and Immediate, and binding upon all validly baptized humans.
@@paulhallett1452shut up?
@@paulhallett1452 That's the Pope's claim, any way.
I very much appreciate this series.
I have just begun reading and reviewing a book by Fr. VS Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined. He examines the history and controversy of the topic that caused the split of the non-Chalcedonian Churches. He appears eminently qualified to write on the subject, being well-versed in many of the ancient and historic languages.
Separately I have read that at least some of the non-Chalcedonian Churches accept the subsequent councils which better clarified that which was not clear at Chalcedon (and was the reason for these Churches to not accept Chalcedon). But this has done nothing to heal the breach.
Lutheran here. Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll have a look.
I wouldn't say, "this has done nothing to heal the breach." The Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East used to rebaptize each other, Romanists and Greco-Russian Orthodox. The've stopped rebaptizing Trinitarians of all stripes and only re-crism them.
I think that as Christianity continues to lose ground in Iraq/Iran, Egypt/Ethiopia, Europe and the Americas, we will see far more unity. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing, especially if the trend of making concessions to the Papacy and other bad theologies continues.
You mentioned some non Chalcedon churches in the west. Can you cite some of these ? Would love to read more
Personally, I’m wrestling with the consistency of the orthodox take on two natures.
- Two wills? Yes, that’s orthodox!
- Two centers of consciousness? That’s Nestorian!
What makes the two wills more orthodox than two centers of consciousness? If Christ is one person, while I believe we can all agree he is, does this not mean he has one will, since I am one person, and have one will? I am not sure equating natures to wills is the best option in Christology. (Two centers of consciousness is definitely outside of Orthodoxy, but I am not so sure that monothelitism is as outside of orthodoxy as some people make it out to be. I believe it is more of a term difference, than a doctrinal one. I am not convinced one way or the other surrounding the issue, but I would probably affirm the orthodox position, as long as it is clearly defined, avoids possible Nestorian implications, and does not disassemble the unity of Christ).
@@LoganJP0120 Pretty sure that's what zekdom is implying too.
one will expressed differently in two natures.
Pope Honorius is not considered an AntiPope, he was wrong on an issue he didn't fully understand but Popes can be wrong when they don't speak ex cathedra
Have you done an analysis of Evangelicals and Catholics Together? I like the effort, but it seems to use vague language at points.
Thanks for the lesson🙏🏾
I now know diothelitism is correct but i don't know how to explain it to someone else. Can anyone help?
John of Damascus' enhypostaton concept was, in my opinion, the ultimate concession of the unworkability of Chalcedonian Christology, whereby he leverages John the Grammarian's enhypostasis concept (taken from Theodoret no less) to try to come to a workable model of the hypostatic union that thr Miaphysites had held all along. But unlike the Miaphysite model which is both completely in line with the classical definitions of ousia, hypostasis, and prosopon, Damascene conflates hypostasis and prosopon resulting in a Christ who, if we were to follow the logic, does not actually have a concrete individuated human body and human soul (for if He did, there would be a hypostasis, a reall concrete substantial existence, of each).
Just to clarify something… is it orthodox to say that Jesus knows everything in His divine nature, but not everything as far as His human nature is concerned?
During the humiliation, yes.
@@DrJordanBCooper I appreciate the response! Thank you.
Is it ecumenical orthodoxy that Jesus has 2 centers of consciousness because that seems really weird? And I would be hard pressed to make that mandatory on a believer since it seems to be a conclusion based on a lot of previous conclusions as opposed to direct revelation.
No. Two centers of consciousness sounds like Nestorian language.
@@DrJordanBCooper
When it comes to Jesus not knowing the day or hour
How is claiming “his human nature didn’t know but his divine nature knew” any different than two centers of conscience?
It’s basically claiming the same thing your just reassigning knowledge from consciousness to a “nature”
Sounds the same
@mitchellc4220 I think it's more helpful to think in terms of ways of knowing. While having one consciousness, I can know something in one way but not another. For example, if I know musical notation, I can read a score and tell you which piano keys need to be pressed and in what order. But I don't have embodied knowledge of how to play the piece unless I've practiced.
In an analogous way, divine knowledge isn't just more extensive than human knowledge. It's a fundamentally different way of knowing things. So the incarnate, pre-resurrection Jesus could know things in a divine way but not know them in a human way without prejudice to the unity of his consciousness.
@@ryanward72 would you make this a matter of heresy or orthodoxy though?
If you question the Trinity, God takes it personally!
:)
Nice presentation.
If the personality of the man Jesus is animated entirely by the Son of God and there’s not two wills then how do we understand the garden scene where He’s praying asking the Father to spare Him if possible?
The garden scene (and the Bible in general) cannot be understood when the unbiblical doctrine of Trinitarianism is forced upon it.
God the Father is a unipersonal Spirit (John 4:23-24). The Son of God is that same unipersonal Spirit manifested in genuine human form (1 Tim.3:16). The name of this unipersonal Spirit - who came down from heaven _without leaving heaven_ (John 3:13) - is the name which is above _every_ name: JESUS (Php.2:9-10).
In his _human_ level of existence on earth, this unipersonal Spirit wanted the cup of suffering to pass. In his _eternal_ level of existence far above all heavens, this unipersonal Spirit did _not_ want the cup of suffering to pass.
The garden scene shows us two opposing wills of one unipersonal Spirit - JESUS, "the root *_and_* the offspring of David" (Rev.22:16) - simultaneously dwelling in two incomprehensibly different levels of existence.
@@euston2216 This creates more problems and only makes the Garden scene incomprehensible. If the Father and the Son are not distinct persons, who exactly is Jesus praying to? Who is he interceding in heaven before? Whose right hand is he sitting at? The entirety of Revelation clearly pictures the Father and the Son as separate persons. A cursory examination of the farewell discourse will show that the Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son, and moreover, his intercessory work discussed in Romans makes it clear that he is a true person in his own right. Honestly the scriptural testimony for the distinction of the persons is so unambiguous that I'm not sure how anyone can believe otherwise.
The apersonality of the Son is something very technical. It means that the human nature of Christ is not a separate person from the Logos, and does not subsist in itself but rather subsists in the Logos. Christ has two wills, per dyothelitism, which makes sense of the garden scene.
@@shahstormaggedoni5854 _>>> "This creates more problems and only makes the Garden scene incomprehensible."_
Incomprehensible to the carnal mind.
There are two wills! That's what this video is about. But the divine will and the human will in Jesus are both the wills of the same subject. There is no concrete "man" Jesus. There's just the one Word, possessing two natures, both with their own will and energy.
I believe the Scripture and I see only FIRST PERSON SINGULAR in ANY given verse where Jesus talks about his own will! The Gospels, Paul or any other Apostles would mentioned 2 wills, but they never do, only one will!
To argue that Dyarhelithism is the most proper view of Jesus has no Scriptural backing.
I would not even take in consideration the historical background, becouse it is PURELY PHILOSOPHICAL, and it is not required for understanding Jesus, or Theology.
@@kiroshakir7935 This is just a prime example how do not interpret the Scripture. Man made theology build on man made philosophy. There is no clear (!!!) Scripture verses that would indicate two wills of any person. Historically, yes! Christianity is and was always sidetracked with subjects like this. Why not focus on the Gospel?
If only we knew what the Cappadocian fathers said about the will of Christ....
> Let them quote in the seventh place that The Son came down from Heaven, not to do His own Will, but the Will of Him That sent Him. Well, if this had not been said by Himself Who came down, we should say that the phrase was modelled as issuing from the Human Nature, not from Him who is conceived of in His character as the Saviour, for His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing **it is altogether taken into God**; but **__conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine__, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Your Will prevail. For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, **or that He would oppose will to will**. But since, __as this is the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down__), and **not of the Nature which He assumed**, we must meet the objection in this way, that **the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own**, besides that of the Father, *_*___but that He has not__**; so that the meaning would be, "__not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and You; for **as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will**__.
St. Gregory, Oration 30
> To fulfill what was spoken in the Acts: "The multitude of believers were of one heart and soul"__-no one, that is, erecting his own will,__ but all in common seeking in the one Holy Spirit **the one will of the Lord Jesus Christ** who said: "I am coming down from heaven __not to do my will but the will of the Father who sent me__," and who says for this reason: "Not for these only do I ask, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that all may be one."
St Basil The Great, On Christian Ethics, On the Judgment of God, Pg. 47
Seems like the scriptures paint a very simple total picture:
There is only one infinite God, the Father. He begat the Word as a Son, the firstborn of creation, who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were created. God's Word was the image of the invisible God he was with. God eventually sent his Son to the world, to be humbled to a human form. Mary gave birth to this human form (not to the heavenly being that pre-existed her, nor to the Father who begat him). The Word relinquished this heavenly nature to take on this human nature... not just "appearing to come to earth, while holding himself back in heaven." Likewise, at his death, he didn't just "appear to die." Jesus, the Son, the Word, died for us. All of him. Holding nothing back. Not just a temporary disembodiment from the flesh part of the human nature part of one person of a being... but a whole mortal being, actually died. And on the third day after that, his Father (who was not dead) resurrected him. He demonstrably had to be corruptible to be tested, and mortal to die before his death. But was raised incorruptible and immortal.
One whole being going being sent to actually be humbled and actually die... not a fraction of a being sending a fraction of himself to have a fraction of that die.
Much simpler, no contradictions or "fully this yet not that, yet the opposite yet not the opposite" ... but an actual being with a distinct body/mind and will, which was in submission to his Father's mind and will.
Monotheism.
On a different note, Matt Walsh has coutage standing up for God's creation, a woman. Please don't buy into this warped culture, Pastor Cooper. Take a stand on the correct side....this is reality, not politics.
He actually has taken the correct side on this. He has pretty clearly stated he is against modern gender tomfoolery multiple times. The clip that Matt Walsh used to condemn Dr. Cooper is heavily misrepresentative of the point he was making.
Pastor Cooper is completely against postmodern gender theory. Matt Walsh is an egomaniac who attacked him for no reason other than the fact that he misinterpreted something that Cooper said and it shattered his fragile ego.
Cyril of Alexandria was a heretic who believed in Christ having a single nature at the council of ephesus. He gave up his view to compromise with John of Antioch provided John would condemn Nestorius for teaching that Mary was not the mother of God. Nestorius actually taught the dual nature of Christ. This is why the Eastern churches were angered - how John and Cyril could call Nestorius a heretic while promoting Nestorius's theology on the nature of Christ. Meanwhile Cyril being politically more astute was able to pass himself off as orthodox while never really giving up his original views on the nature of Christ.
No he was not.
@@st.martinlutherofwittenber18 Cyril was. But he was also a good politician. Alexandrian patriarchs had a history of slandering the patriarchs of other regions. Because they were able to pull the wool over the eyes of successive popes and make deals that got them out on top (good politicians), they also got very powerful.
Matt Walsh made a really interesting critique of you. Quite accurate actually.
Agreed!
What's the critique? Was it made in a youtube video?
@@Bbos2383 yeah go to his channel and its episode 1038
Who cares?
Matt Walsh is funny and can have clear points but Matt's critique was basically hot-take sensationalism. That's my point of view from consuming probably hundreds of hours of Jordan's content. Also, Jordan responded to it. Check it out.