Speaker 1: And got a lot of things on my mind. We're
Speaker 1: going to open it up to call in goobers. We
Speaker 1: haven't had a lot of goobers on a long time,
Speaker 1: and I happened into a chat with a lot of
Speaker 1: goobers and it was goober heavy and upon a lot
Speaker 1: of reflection. As I drove from one house to the
Speaker 1: other house, I thought a lot about everything, and I
Speaker 1: think it's time to let you guys know a big
Speaker 1: decision that I made. It's not easy to say this.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people are going to be upset,
Speaker 1: but it's time for me to just go ahead and
Speaker 1: be honest and tell you guys what's going on. It
Speaker 1: wouldn't be fair to you the audience if I didn't
Speaker 1: admit to you that. If some of you know, I've
Speaker 1: been having a lot of struggles with my beliefs lately,
Speaker 1: and I have converted. I didn't want to tell anybody
Speaker 1: this yet, but I have converted, actually reverted to black
Speaker 1: Hebrew Israelite. A lot of people don't know that. In
Speaker 1: a former life, I was on another planet and I
Speaker 1: had a large cone shaped chocolate head and it had
Speaker 1: a nice afro on the side, so that you can
Speaker 1: see the point of the top of it. And I
Speaker 1: was a Chad in that former life, a chocolate Chad,
Speaker 1: and I have learned all this and I've come back
Speaker 1: from that previous life. And even though it doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense because I appear to have a chalky, beautiful
Speaker 1: white t yet tan chalky yet tan skin, I am Yakub.
Speaker 1: I don't exactly know all the theology, so I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if Yeah, I think Yakuba is a good guy.
Speaker 1: But this all came to me in a dream and
Speaker 1: that's me, so hey, what's up? No longer Jay Dyer,
Speaker 1: don't dead name me. I am Yakub, the beautiful white
Speaker 1: chocolate man. I'm gonna just call myself white chocolate, white
Speaker 1: chocolate from space baby, known as Yakub or Jakub if
Speaker 1: you want.
Speaker 2: To be.
Speaker 1: That helps you remember who I am and how to
Speaker 1: identify me according to this meat casket which houses my
Speaker 1: divine spirit, my ascended god master soul, a spark of
Speaker 1: the divine like my boy Billy course, and over here
Speaker 1: we're gonna look a little bit of Billy course and
Speaker 1: over here call me a white chocolate baby. Jamie, could
Speaker 1: you make me a little more white chocolate expresso with
Speaker 1: an X, make that a triple expresso. Somebody said, you're
Speaker 1: dolphin wolf and stupid. It's not a dolphin laugh, it's
Speaker 1: a how can I have said this in code? A
Speaker 1: white black boys laugh. So I was over in Lord
Speaker 1: Voldemort's chat on Twitter and it was full of complete goobers,
Speaker 1: and I think they're all stone because they were all
Speaker 1: talking about like their profiles or magic and drugs and
Speaker 1: shrooms and shit, and I'm like, oh my gosh. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So to get back to the point, as I was
Speaker 1: driving and thinking about my reconversion to black Heeber Israel
Speaker 1: like Yakubianism, I realized, by the way, that's not even
Speaker 1: that's not the right sectors. I got them all mixed up.
Speaker 1: But who cares? This shit ain't got to be consistent.
Speaker 1: There's nothing wrong with mixing it up. I mean, Black
Speaker 1: Keeper is a light. I don't think that has any
Speaker 1: to do with yakub does it? But in my situation
Speaker 1: it does. And who are you to challenge me? You
Speaker 1: can't judge me. You can't judge my beliefs. These came
Speaker 1: to me through direct revelations. As I was reading the
Speaker 1: Book of Revelations, anyway, we always get the wildest folk
Speaker 1: when we open it up to the gnostics and somebody,
Speaker 1: actually multiple people in the last week since i've been
Speaker 1: try said, when you're gonna cover Billy course, when you're
Speaker 1: gonna cover Billy Coursing boy, Well, we did cover him
Speaker 1: in the past. I think that was one of the
Speaker 1: we talked about the galactic comp alliance. We talked about
Speaker 1: the galactic shark attack from space when the sharks was
Speaker 1: attacking everybody in Flora Dun. Y'all remember that, And we
Speaker 1: connected that to the portals aka the anus holes in space,
Speaker 1: which in Kroleian theology, that's what a booty hole is
Speaker 1: a portal. I'm not joking. It's like, I'm Mario Brothers.
Speaker 1: It's like a super gay Mario Brothers where you warped through.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna get too gross here, but that's gross enough.
Speaker 1: You get the idea. Basically, all the pagan religions just
Speaker 1: end up being a bunch of weird, just a bunch
Speaker 1: of everything's faking great. Dude. Let's where we're at the
Speaker 1: stage now. And I said, my comedy special. When I
Speaker 1: get my first comedy special, I'm just gonna call it
Speaker 1: Everything's faking gray. It's a perfect title for a comedy special.
Speaker 1: That's better than unmute dude. I get sick of saying
Speaker 1: unmute mute dude. I don't ever get sick of saying
Speaker 1: everything's faking gray, because I mean, is it not y'all
Speaker 1: over here talking about Kamala cackling like Kamala. Kamala is
Speaker 1: a smooth, cackling princess, a smooth Nubian but not new being,
Speaker 1: a smooth six percent new being Indian princess. She a
Speaker 1: little Desi princess like uh like my Hotama Gandhi, remember
Speaker 1: him hanging out with the theosophists. You know, Mahatma Gandhi
Speaker 1: went to Madam Blovatski's funeral. Mahati Gandhi more like it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm a heterosexual, but damn, Mahati Gandhi looking good,
Speaker 1: all thin, smelt, nice cocoa skin, nice smooth Yakubian dome
Speaker 1: like I used to have when I was in space
Speaker 1: before I got born and throwed, before I got throwed
Speaker 1: into this existence as a moon beaver. A lot of
Speaker 1: y'all don't know what I'm talking about. Go watch the
Speaker 1: sam Hai video. We talked about moon beavers, best kind
Speaker 1: of beavers we all know. Come al, I got a
Speaker 1: moon beaver. Kamoto Harris got a moon beaver. Anyway, we're
Speaker 1: not gonna be talking about all this filthy stuff, filthy
Speaker 1: keep disgusting, filthy stuff. Thank you, thank you for that
Speaker 1: white chocolate. You didn't put no punkiness in this, did
Speaker 1: you better be white chocolate, monk fruit as long as
Speaker 1: the Yakubian monk a Yakubian space monk. So why are
Speaker 1: we talking about this? Well, I'm sure everybody saw the
Speaker 1: BHI doing a giant march like a like a like
Speaker 1: a band. Remember in high school when they had the
Speaker 1: marching band and the brothers and sisters were the best
Speaker 1: at marching band. White people come in a close third,
Speaker 1: no joke though, Black people are good at marching band.
Speaker 1: And then when the when the black Heuber Israelites were marching,
Speaker 1: y'all see that. So we got the black The BHI
Speaker 1: is marching down the road. Let's see if I can
Speaker 1: find that on Twitter at the same time as the
Speaker 1: fake Fed Front was marching down the road. Let's see
Speaker 1: black Hebrew Israelites. And we're gonna open it up for
Speaker 1: goobers to call it in here in a minute. Black
Speaker 1: Heber is like marching that ain't it. I ain't this.
Speaker 1: This is just pulling up here, it is. They always
Speaker 1: wearing purple too, that's my royal purple that they're wearing.
Speaker 1: La ba by No no knee no no no no.
Speaker 1: I don't know what he's talking about. But so this
Speaker 1: the next few months is gonna be fed frenzy. Baby,
Speaker 1: Fed's going wild over there. Instead of girls going wild,
Speaker 1: this Fed's going wild. Feds are just like they're over there,
Speaker 1: just shaking. They're like that the Star Wars dude, remember
Speaker 1: the Star Wars dude that I made fun of years ago,
Speaker 1: when he saw the new Star Wars trailer, he was like,
Speaker 1: they started crying. That's how the FEDS are right now.
Speaker 1: They're like, oh, so they got this group over here
Speaker 1: on the on the one hand, a bunch of goofy googers.
Speaker 1: This is in New Orleans or no, New York. Maybe
Speaker 1: they were marching everywhere because I saw a march that's old.
Speaker 1: I saw a march in New Orleans. I thought, anyway,
Speaker 1: you get the idea. So we got the bh eyes
Speaker 1: and then we got fed front Patriot Front here. I forgot.
Speaker 1: I don't like this lighting in here. I forgot about
Speaker 1: my old style of lighting. I look like a like
Speaker 1: a pale, weird ghost in here is grossing me out, Dude,
Speaker 1: I can't even look at my face. I'm embarrassed with
Speaker 1: all that white. There's a lot more chocolate in this
Speaker 1: white chocolate than there is white chocolate in the chocolate.
Speaker 1: I promise you that. What's this? Now? They were up
Speaker 1: in here in Nashville. I think this is Nashville. Now
Speaker 1: we got a whole bunch of dummies that are gonna
Speaker 1: fall for all this stuff across the board. And why
Speaker 1: is that? Well, nobody has discernment. That's why I made
Speaker 1: a video the other day about everybody lacking discernment. Because
Speaker 1: as you get older, I think you realize it's not
Speaker 1: just about the stacks of knowledge facts that you have.
Speaker 1: It's a question of wisdom and how you apply the
Speaker 1: knowledge that you have, and are you good at applying
Speaker 1: the knowledge that you have right, Because if you're not,
Speaker 1: then that just simply means that you didn't attain to wisdom.
Speaker 1: You've got a lot of facts and a lot of
Speaker 1: noses in the sense of bare knowledge, but you didn't
Speaker 1: get true nosis or true knowledge, which is wisdom, which
Speaker 1: is the correct application of the knowledge that you have
Speaker 1: at the right time and at the right place. And
Speaker 1: that's very different than just knowing facts. It's like the
Speaker 1: difference between a wise man and an evil genius. An
Speaker 1: evil genius has a lot of facts. He might be
Speaker 1: the highest IQ on the planet, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that he's wise. It doesn't mean that he has virtue.
Speaker 1: He might be completely unlacking all virtue, completely wicked. Right,
Speaker 1: So another example of this insanity. I think we've all
Speaker 1: realized that certain profiles are allowed to get really big,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. I'm not saying this in
Speaker 1: this case because I've never actually watched mister Beast. I
Speaker 1: don't know anything about mister Beasts other than that I
Speaker 1: thought it was like a prank thing, remember him filling
Speaker 1: a bathtub full of bubbles or a pool, a giant
Speaker 1: swimming pool full of full of bubbles or something, right,
Speaker 1: and then people were hopping in the bubbles, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: all right, but I don't understand why this gets millions
Speaker 1: of views. But whatever, I mean, I'm sorry. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to do two things at once here. Let's see. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let me remind you guys. So if you want to
Speaker 1: support the show, you can do so via stream labs.
Speaker 1: And I've just reminded this is one thing that boomers
Speaker 1: get right because we you know, we make a lot
Speaker 1: of boomer jokes. In fact, I'm actually the grandfather of
Speaker 1: all boomer jokes, the okay boomer. All of that literally
Speaker 1: comes from me. That's not exaggeration. I wrote the essay
Speaker 1: making fun of boomers like ten years ago, went viral
Speaker 1: maybe fifteen years ago now, and I was making all
Speaker 1: these boomer jokes that all of the Gen Z and
Speaker 1: millennials started making like many many years later, and it's
Speaker 1: been a stick so much so over here that we've
Speaker 1: angered countless boomers over the years. They get mad at me.
Speaker 1: I'm like, it's just jokes. Don't understand why people can't understand.
Speaker 1: We just have a really super low IQ society that
Speaker 1: cannot understand a joke. And also people know when things
Speaker 1: are jokes, and then they intentionally try to give the
Speaker 1: worst interpretation to actually get people in trouble and get
Speaker 1: them canceled. That's another layer to this nonsense. But I
Speaker 1: am nonsense anyway. So mister Beast is in trouble because
Speaker 1: just like Doctor Disrespects issues a few weeks ago with
Speaker 1: dming underage persons, now there is this person who worked
Speaker 1: for many years with mister Beast who has now turned
Speaker 1: on mister Beast, this transitioning individual, Chris Tyson. And what's
Speaker 1: funny about it is the way that the media has
Speaker 1: interpreted these two events. So Doctor disrespect who's an older,
Speaker 1: married dude who messaged I don't know how old something allegedly. Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll just say that because I don't know these stories.
Speaker 1: I don't keep up with a stupid ass drama. It's
Speaker 1: just illustrative, right, Allegedly we'll use the Cat Williams interpretation.
Speaker 1: Allegedly message a girl that was I don't know how old, fifteen, sixteen,
Speaker 1: something like that, thirteen, I don't know, and then this
Speaker 1: person messages but as trans and they try to cover
Speaker 1: it up. It's just illustrative of the absurdity of I mean,
Speaker 1: not only is there no moral standards for media or
Speaker 1: the press or anything like that, it's almost like it's
Speaker 1: just expected that you cover up for your cult. Because
Speaker 1: the best way to understand all of these things over
Speaker 1: and over and over. As I keep coming back to,
Speaker 1: is that everyone has a religious attachment to all of
Speaker 1: their beliefs. Even if you're a rigid extreme atheist materialist,
Speaker 1: you have a religious attachment to that ideology in that worldview,
Speaker 1: whether you know it or not, whether you admit it
Speaker 1: or not. You might think you don't, but you do.
Speaker 1: And that's because every worldview at a fundamental level is religious,
Speaker 1: whether people know it or not. So then it becomes
Speaker 1: a question of whether your religion is coherent or not.
Speaker 1: So you're an atheist materialist, you're not going to be
Speaker 1: to give any kind of account for the logic, the
Speaker 1: universal categories, the preconditions of knowledge, the ethical norms and
Speaker 1: standards that you use to make your judgments or even
Speaker 1: your arguments against theism. And thus, for example, radical reductionist
Speaker 1: atheist materialism is thus incoherent and self refuting. Right. That's
Speaker 1: the one basic example of the transcendental argument. But the
Speaker 1: other thing I realized too is and we've noted this
Speaker 1: from the Dark Triad Victimhood Status paper that we've talked
Speaker 1: about probably fifteen times of fifteen different podcasts, that famous
Speaker 1: paper that came out a year ago or whatever, actually
Speaker 1: demonstrated that people have figured out who are cunning, that
Speaker 1: if you play the victim well enough, you can actually
Speaker 1: get ahead in society. And so the people who to
Speaker 1: get ahead are the ones that display more and more
Speaker 1: victim mentality and are cunning enough to realize that this
Speaker 1: is really a trick to cancel people to get ahead
Speaker 1: and to just exercise pure will to power. So remember
Speaker 1: when you're arguing with these sort of radical leftist or
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call these people. I don't know
Speaker 1: what they called postmodern leftists. I mean, none of the
Speaker 1: labels really fit because it's not really any coherent system.
Speaker 1: Postmodern Marxist, socialist, leftist Marxists, they're all kind of incomplete,
Speaker 1: so it kind of seems like it's more like a
Speaker 1: it's just like a weird cult. And it's almost like
Speaker 1: it's getting to the point where the more incoherent it is,
Speaker 1: the better, Right, Like, the crazier the expectations are about
Speaker 1: what you're supposed to double down on, the better because
Speaker 1: that's more effective for the brain, the brainwashing, the more
Speaker 1: you're digging yourself into the whole of insanity. So imagine
Speaker 1: the atheist materialists, for example, for all these years touting science,
Speaker 1: and then suddenly science is completely irrelevant when it comes
Speaker 1: to biology and offspring. For example, Now science can actually
Speaker 1: be a social construct that humans through I don't know what,
Speaker 1: some sort of authority principle or some sort of dogmatic decree.
Speaker 1: They just make it so well, the science now tells
Speaker 1: us that this can happen. Okay, well what science where? No,
Speaker 1: it just it just is. You just sort of like,
Speaker 1: I believe it, so I believe it, so I believe
Speaker 1: it's so right. And then it becomes so it's the
Speaker 1: just so fallacy. I don't know what to call it,
Speaker 1: but it's all really just manifestation of will to power.
Speaker 1: And that's when you realize that what we call leftism
Speaker 1: or what people are fighting against, which makes it very
Speaker 1: difficult actually to battle it because it's not really at
Speaker 1: all coherent in any sense. It's literally just whatever the
Speaker 1: dogma or the dictate is that day. For example, we've
Speaker 1: argued many times with Papists, and you guys will know
Speaker 1: that although Roman Catholics are not identical to what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about with leftists, they have kind of the same
Speaker 1: principle at work that well, if the pope decides it today,
Speaker 1: then it was always so right. So the ultimate sort
Speaker 1: of authority and normativity and epistemic principle, all of those
Speaker 1: are embodied in the figure of the pope. And so
Speaker 1: if the pope decides that the death penalty is against
Speaker 1: the Gospel, then it always was so. In other words,
Speaker 1: truth really is dictated by the authority structure, like literally.
Speaker 1: And the weird part about that is, if you remember
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty four that extremely illustrative chapter, probably the
Speaker 1: most important chapter in all literature, the metaphysics debate between
Speaker 1: Winston and O'Brien. O'Brien eventually convinces Winston and it stresses
Speaker 1: and explains to him that I don't want you to
Speaker 1: say that tupless two equals five because you think that
Speaker 1: that's what I want to hear. I want you to
Speaker 1: say that tupless two equals five because the party says so,
Speaker 1: and I want you to really believe it. That's what
Speaker 1: we're talking about. Do you see the difference between those
Speaker 1: two Because at first Winston's like, okay, fine, stop torturing me.
Speaker 1: Two plus two's five, and O'Brien's like, you don't really
Speaker 1: think that you are telling me that, So I'll stop
Speaker 1: putting rats on your face or whatever he was doing
Speaker 1: so in the same way people are influenced by dark ideologies,
Speaker 1: they buy into it. Where are you going? Okay, watch
Speaker 1: out for the black keeper Israelites marching. They know I'm
Speaker 1: the true Yakoub. They might come after you. We got
Speaker 1: my beautiful Nubian white princess Jamie in there. They might
Speaker 1: come after her. They find out she's over at the Kroger,
Speaker 1: but they're relaying over there on the They relaying on
Speaker 1: that walkie talkies Space walkie talkies. Watch out for Billy
Speaker 1: Carson at Kroger. By the way, I decided I'm gonna
Speaker 1: do I'm gonna do something that I don't think anybody's
Speaker 1: ever done. There's probably somebody that's done this. And then
Speaker 1: I'm sure once I say this, somebody will says the
Speaker 1: video you didn't do. Okay, what ever?
Speaker 3: Do? Well?
Speaker 1: As far as I'm aware, it's the first time that
Speaker 1: anyone has done forty impressions in a row. Right. I
Speaker 1: wrote them all down because I don't even remember all
Speaker 1: the impressions. I think it's up to like forty three now.
Speaker 1: They're not all perfect. Most of them are decent. Some
Speaker 1: of them are really good. Some of them are. It's
Speaker 1: really hard to do Christopher Walking. I can't get my
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson as good as Jim Bobs. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: gotten better now that Jordan Peterson cries all the time
Speaker 1: and cusses. It's a lot. It's a lot funner to
Speaker 1: do it anyway, So I'm gonna do Here's here's the challenge.
Speaker 1: We're wayside tracked. We're gonna open it up here to
Speaker 1: goofy goober chat in a minute. But I'm a goofy goober.
Speaker 1: You're a goofye goober.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do forty two or three impressions in a row,
Speaker 1: no cuts and no edits, and let's see how good that.
Speaker 1: Let's see how good we do it. It's all gonna
Speaker 1: be improv too, and I don't write anything down. All
Speaker 1: I have is the list of the people. So y'all
Speaker 1: think I can do it? Now? When we do the
Speaker 1: live events, I usually do about twenty twenty five impressions,
Speaker 1: but I'm thinking why not showcase because I don't think
Speaker 1: many people can do forty two or three impressions in
Speaker 1: a row. Y'all think we can? Y'all think I can?
Speaker 1: By the way, I forgot Obama. I think Obama. I
Speaker 1: forgot to put Obama in there. Most people think my
Speaker 1: Obama's pretty good. So as I'm asking the check because
Speaker 1: we got over seven hundred shoutouts everybody. And by the way,
Speaker 1: I also went, we're trying to do another national event.
Speaker 1: So while we're back here in town for the Bitcoin conference,
Speaker 1: which I'm looking forward to that that's going to be
Speaker 1: a blast, We're gonna try and see if we can
Speaker 1: figure out wait for me to kind of live report
Speaker 1: for Lord Voldemort tomorrow at the Bitcoin conference, and we
Speaker 1: got a lot of big hitters that'll be there. I
Speaker 1: don't know if I'm gonna be able to get any
Speaker 1: discussions or interviews with any big hitters. But if I say, hey,
Speaker 1: Lord Valdemort's over here, you want to hop on with me,
Speaker 1: maybe we can get I don't know Max Kaiser, I
Speaker 1: know Luke Radowski's gonna be there. I doubt I can
Speaker 1: get close to Michael sailor or anybody like that. I'm
Speaker 1: sure Trump is gonna be on total lockdown. We've got
Speaker 1: the Trump on lockdown about Donald. We got y'all city
Speaker 1: on lockdown. Nashville will be on lockdown. I'm sure they
Speaker 1: I mean that they sent when they send you the tickets,
Speaker 1: it's like all this list of security stuff. Now, so
Speaker 1: after the attempt on the dawn, we're probably gonna be
Speaker 1: standing in three hours of security lines to get in.
Speaker 1: I don't know, it's gonna be crazy, but anyway, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have fun at the Bitcoin conference tomorrow and Saturday.
Speaker 1: Hope to see some of you there. Shout out to
Speaker 1: those that are going to be there. I was thankful
Speaker 1: enough to get free tickets, so shout out to those
Speaker 1: who donated those tickets. Appreciate that. Also a reminder that
Speaker 1: I will be speaking August two and a half weeks
Speaker 1: at the Nashville It's a small private event, I think
Speaker 1: fifty people ish, but it will be live streamed. And
Speaker 1: this is Courtney Turner's event. Doctor James Lindsey will be there.
Speaker 1: Professor Stephen Kauflin will be there. I think he's a professor.
Speaker 1: He was like a consultant to the Pentagon on Islam
Speaker 1: for many years. I forget exactly what, but we did
Speaker 1: a podcast some years back. I'm sure you guys remember him.
Speaker 1: I'm looking for the link to that. If you guys
Speaker 1: want to get tickets. That's two and a half weeks
Speaker 1: in Nashville. Here it is Cognitive Liberty and John Klassick
Speaker 1: will be there. You guys have seen Courtney will be there.
Speaker 1: You guys have seen me interview John Klaizac. He also
Speaker 1: published his book through my publisher. I'm not familiar with
Speaker 1: this woman or this guy and then this other personals
Speaker 1: see Matthew Crawford is a educator, teacher of some kind. Anyway,
Speaker 1: get the tickets here. It's it's gonna be a decent conference.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people say why I disagree
Speaker 1: with James Lindsay. Well, this conference is not about what
Speaker 1: we're there to disagree about. We're gonna be talking about
Speaker 1: the areas that we agree and doctor James Lindsay has
Speaker 1: done some really good stuff. Even though we would disagree
Speaker 1: with his take on orthodox, he has done really good
Speaker 1: stuff on analyzing, you know, pure review and showing you know,
Speaker 1: he went on Joe Rogan multiple times demonstrating the pure
Speaker 1: review as a faulty. So we all know where we disagree.
Speaker 1: When is the open debate coming here? In a second road?
Speaker 3: Just chill out.
Speaker 1: Anyway, So it's gonna be a fun event. We're gonna have.
Speaker 1: You know, there's gonna be some smart people that people there,
Speaker 1: so it's going to be a nice, small, intimate event.
Speaker 1: But it's two days, I think. So that's why her
Speaker 1: tickets are a little it's not like just a one time,
Speaker 1: you know, come and hear people talk for three hours
Speaker 1: type of thing. I think it's a little more because
Speaker 1: of basically two days. So if you're in Nashville in
Speaker 1: the next two and a half weeks, if you want
Speaker 1: to come to that event, there's the tickets, and I'll
Speaker 1: have books and everything there for sure. So all right,
Speaker 1: we got Billy Corson over here anyway. But so you
Speaker 1: see what I'm getting at. Once we realize that you're
Speaker 1: up against a cult that essentially just thrives on will
Speaker 1: to power, and remember that these people don't belie that
Speaker 1: there is any truth. It's like when I had the
Speaker 1: debate with the Maga communist guy, that lunatic Hause, and
Speaker 1: you realize that this is not a rational person who's
Speaker 1: interested in having actually having a debate. This is spectacle,
Speaker 1: it's agate prop performance. And then you realize, well, that's
Speaker 1: obviously that's how a Marxist would see a debate, because
Speaker 1: there isn't really true and false, there's just power and
Speaker 1: oppressor or oppressor and oppressed. So it's therefore justified to
Speaker 1: do whatever you want because that further is the dialectic,
Speaker 1: the dialectical clash and the revolution. And that's that's literally
Speaker 1: how Marxists think. And then you realize that once you
Speaker 1: engage with Marxists that, okay, this is not a person
Speaker 1: who's interested in utilizing reason and critical thinking to arrive
Speaker 1: at truth and refute falsehood. This is a person who's
Speaker 1: engaged in spectacle uh and agit prop to further revolution.
Speaker 1: And that really is the essence of all Marxism. And
Speaker 1: that's really what Marxism shares with the postmodern leftist today,
Speaker 1: because you couldn't come to this position of thinking that,
Speaker 1: you know, biology is a social construct without postmodernism. Okay,
Speaker 1: but Marxist wouldn't believe that like classical Marxists, they don't
Speaker 1: believe in postmodernism. In fact, they would see postmodernism as liberalism,
Speaker 1: and Marxists reject liberalism. This is why in the Cold War,
Speaker 1: the CIA made alliances with French postmodernists to fight the Soviets.
Speaker 1: In the Cold War, it's famous fact. I covered it
Speaker 1: in my second book. And they went the CIA went
Speaker 1: and met with and formed alliances with French deconstructionists and
Speaker 1: postmodernists and dere Dall and others, because they thought this
Speaker 1: would be a way to fight Soviet cosmism and Soviet ideology,
Speaker 1: which is anti liberal. So marx and this is something
Speaker 1: that you know, you don't hear like Peterson ever talk
Speaker 1: about this, because Peterson just calls everything Marxism, and maybe
Speaker 1: he does that just for rhetorical effect or for ease
Speaker 1: and simplicity, but no, Marxism is not liberal. Marxism is antiliberal,
Speaker 1: but today's socialist, fabian whatever you could say that they
Speaker 1: are aligned with and that it meshes easily with postmodernism
Speaker 1: because they would see anything as useful to furthering the
Speaker 1: revolution through dialectical conflict. And since in the postmodern scheme
Speaker 1: everything is power dynamics and nothing is about truth, so narratives,
Speaker 1: for example, are just constructs that a power entity has
Speaker 1: in place, and if you get your narrative in power,
Speaker 1: then that's what's true. So you see, it's like the
Speaker 1: O'Brien ideology, there's not actually truth, it's literally just whatever
Speaker 1: the power structure says. And if once you understand that,
Speaker 1: then you can see how these liberals are crazy. They're
Speaker 1: not actually that crazy. I mean they are, but they're
Speaker 1: not as stupid as conservative towards think.
Speaker 5: Right like on that wallsh these conservative these liberals are stupid.
Speaker 5: These liberals are insane. No, they're cunning. And maybe the
Speaker 5: ground level goobers with the purple hair at the Starbucks
Speaker 5: are stupid, but at the think tank level, at the
Speaker 5: academic level, they're not stupid. And they know how to
Speaker 5: engineer and steer ideologies.
Speaker 1: To cause social change and chaos. And that's a lot
Speaker 1: of that's intentional. So that's what's coming next, is they're
Speaker 1: going to hype up more and more of the chaos.
Speaker 1: If you want to support the stream, you can do
Speaker 1: so by the super chat function. Super chats are done
Speaker 1: through stream Labs. The stream Liaves link is in the
Speaker 1: show description and it's pinned in the live chat there.
Speaker 1: Shout out to everybody. We got over eight hundred headed
Speaker 1: up two. Maybe we can hit one thousand today. We're
Speaker 1: going to open it up here in a second, because
Speaker 1: I'm mainly I've hit most of my main points here
Speaker 1: just about how how dialectics works. I'll probably be talking
Speaker 1: about dialectics at the Courtney event here in Nashville. But
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just, I don't know, just every election
Speaker 1: year or whatever, it comes back around how idiotic everything
Speaker 1: is and how silly bl are and how they fall
Speaker 1: for the same scams over and over and over. That's
Speaker 1: the weird part too, is like you would think that
Speaker 1: after multiple elections. I'm not saying that, I'm not even
Speaker 1: talking about the voting is pointless. I don't care whether
Speaker 1: you vote or not. Father Deacon have a nice makes
Speaker 1: an interesting case that, I mean, your vote might not
Speaker 1: count on the national level, but you could argue that
Speaker 1: voting you could you could make an argument that, well
Speaker 1: maybe I ought to vote for whichever whichever candidate is
Speaker 1: best for Christianity, and that seems to be a pretty
Speaker 1: convincing argument. But yeah, come on, man, everybody asked the
Speaker 1: same old, stupid questions. I'm so tired of the same
Speaker 1: old questions. I mean, do you got do you not
Speaker 1: think that I was wondering about the dialectic But I'm
Speaker 1: just not even gonna address it. It's so stupid, Like
Speaker 1: all the stuff that people in the chat think I
Speaker 1: don't know about I learned about it in two thousand
Speaker 1: and five or six. Okay, so how's that whatever you've learned,
Speaker 1: I learned it probably fifteen years ago. I can assure
Speaker 1: you that. So we're gonna open it up to people
Speaker 1: in the chat over here on the X. The topics
Speaker 1: are conspiracies, God, God's existence, Islam, gnosticism, Kabbalah, feminism, Goddess,
Speaker 1: any of these principles you want to bring them up.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's gonna end up being nothing like this.
Speaker 1: Nobody will ever call in about these topics. Are going
Speaker 1: to call in and say, what is the problem with
Speaker 1: pedal substitution? How does an Orthodox person have certitude? It's like, literally,
Speaker 1: that's the only questions anybody ever asked. When we open
Speaker 1: it up, we want to talk about tug I took
Speaker 1: about people substitution. I want to talk about certitude. That's
Speaker 1: literally it. Okay, Well guess what we've covered those probably
Speaker 1: one hundred times in the last seven years, So stop
Speaker 1: being lazy and go look through my channel. Well okay,
Speaker 1: fun laughing, Okay, we'll go to my channel and you
Speaker 1: can search the channel. You know, you can search people's
Speaker 1: channels on the front page of their YouTube channel. There's
Speaker 1: a little search bar logos Christian logos. Name's getting hot
Speaker 1: in here. We'll have to sorry, it's getting hot in here.
Speaker 1: Put on more clothes, yes.
Speaker 4: Sir, Yeah, So I had a question about a book
Speaker 4: I recently got.
Speaker 2: It's called Basil Sisteria.
Speaker 4: Gregoryness and the Transformation Absolute Divine Simplicity.
Speaker 2: Have you have you read that?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've read the whole book and I did a
Speaker 1: whole lecture on it at the first Montanica.
Speaker 4: Okay, And at the end, you know, when he does
Speaker 4: the critique of Bradshaw, are you familiar with that critique
Speaker 4: he's using?
Speaker 1: Uh, hold on, let me grab the book.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because I'm on your side here. But I just
Speaker 4: I hope this is in reference to the topics. I
Speaker 4: just I had a question about his critique of Bradshaw
Speaker 4: because at the end of the book he makes it
Speaker 4: sound like doctor David Bradshaw becomes too apathetic kind of
Speaker 4: in reference to Clement when he uses the essence energy distinction.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't think I mean hold on, So, first
Speaker 1: of all, like, ultimately it doesn't really matter about Clement anyway,
Speaker 1: because the only people who accept Clement are Roman Catholics, so.
Speaker 2: Right, And so I was just curious because he kind
Speaker 2: of makes this.
Speaker 4: Argument, He kind of puts a forward whereas Gregory of
Speaker 4: Nissa and his reading or interpretation is trying to root
Speaker 4: the energies in the nature, and that nature's rooted in
Speaker 4: the essence, and so he says, hold on, hold on.
Speaker 1: Hold on nature. Enouns are synonymous, so you don't root
Speaker 1: the nature in the essence.
Speaker 4: Right, And so that's what that would be kind of
Speaker 4: the essence of my question here. This specific portion I'm
Speaker 4: questioning about is on page two twenty two and two
Speaker 4: twenty three. That's where he kind of puts forward the
Speaker 4: argument about David Bradshaw. And I've read Bradshaw's work Hairstyle
Speaker 4: East and West, and like, that's where I got confused,
Speaker 4: and I wanted to hear your opinion, because I'm like,
Speaker 4: I don't I can't tell if he's just misrepresenting Bradshaw
Speaker 4: or if he's trying to point to something in Gregory.
Speaker 2: Of Nissa he's misinterpreting, you know.
Speaker 1: Well, let's see Bradshaw refers to Bradshaw further argues that
Speaker 1: all positive terms used for God are not simply derived
Speaker 1: from divine energeia, but actually refer to divine ergaia. Thus
Speaker 1: not only our judging or seeing, but even good and
Speaker 1: wise are innergaya. This is mentioned in the Tomos, which
Speaker 1: cites against Akandino's that these are distinct realities. So that's
Speaker 1: the terminology that's used. If you read, for example, my
Speaker 1: endorsed book on Palamas or visiting Theology, or if you
Speaker 1: read the recent Russell book on the translation of all
Speaker 1: the Palomite Synods, and so if I remember, and it's
Speaker 1: been I read this in twenty twenty, I think if
Speaker 1: you look at the end of that chapter, that's where
Speaker 1: Roddy Gallwitz basically says that he's not interested in necessarily
Speaker 1: which thing is true or false, but just giving the
Speaker 1: academic perspective. And I think so the very last paragraph
Speaker 1: on page two twenty four, like I would say that
Speaker 1: that's the difference that I would have with this book
Speaker 1: is that for us, this is not really an academic dispute.
Speaker 1: It's a question of real lived experience and liturgical like participation.
Speaker 1: So I think the real issue to solve the Energy's
Speaker 1: question isn't how far do scot disagree with us versus
Speaker 1: disagree with us, or how can we squeeze Tomism into
Speaker 1: our ideology? It's rather what are you participating in? And
Speaker 1: if you look at all the debates with Palomas, like
Speaker 1: what when he engages in all the debates, it always
Speaker 1: ends up moving from the relationship of essence and energy
Speaker 1: and the attributes amongst themselves, how real and distinct they are.
Speaker 1: It always moves over into participation, right.
Speaker 4: So yeah, And it was just kind of confusing to
Speaker 4: me because it's like the opening part of this book,
Speaker 4: like he does a good exegical exageutical work, working through
Speaker 4: kind of history and the unonious dispute stuff, and then
Speaker 4: all of a sudden he just gives this kind of
Speaker 4: opinion off the side about David Bradshaw, and I was like, well,
Speaker 4: where are you deriving that?
Speaker 1: Well, you'll notice what he says there is that Bradshaw
Speaker 1: reads Nissa as a proto Palomite. Yeah, that's the orthodox view.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course I was.
Speaker 2: I was like, well, isn't that kind of a point?
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And that's why at the end of that chapter,
Speaker 1: Rodi Gallwitz says, well, I'm really just approaching this as
Speaker 1: an academic and not able. Yeah, so that's.
Speaker 4: One gotcha that that makes more sense to And I think,
Speaker 4: you know, when I debate people into because on my channel,
Speaker 4: I do a lot of reaction videos to kind of
Speaker 4: your debates and stuff, just because they're so hilarious most.
Speaker 2: Of the time, you know.
Speaker 4: And that's something I stumble upon is people have a
Speaker 4: really hard time kind of stepping over the life experience,
Speaker 4: the lived element of Orthodoxy and then just keeping it
Speaker 4: intellectually in their mind. Like people have a really hard
Speaker 4: time stepping out of that.
Speaker 2: Landscape, you know.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Yeah, I appreciate that, and I think you nailed
Speaker 1: it at the end there with what the disconnect is.
Speaker 1: And also I would say that's why I've what I've
Speaker 1: started doing when this comes up with Roman Catholics or
Speaker 1: people who disagree, is I just immediately take it over
Speaker 1: into Okay, well, can we participate in a formally distinct
Speaker 1: thing or is a formally distinct being what's present in
Speaker 1: a theophany? And when I take it over into theophany
Speaker 1: is and what we participate in, it seems like that's
Speaker 1: really the clincher where people who disagree with our position,
Speaker 1: they always falter and collapse because they end up contradicting
Speaker 1: and saying, well, it's an angel, but it's God, but
Speaker 1: it's a representation of God. That's an angel, that's also
Speaker 1: a design, that's a creature, and it's like, now you
Speaker 1: can't have there's no created God, dummy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 4: And I see this kind of overlapping too into kind
Speaker 4: of some of the gnosticisms as well, with this absolute
Speaker 4: divine simplicity. Do you see correlation like in the way
Speaker 4: the Roman Catholics try to intellectualize their whole experience of.
Speaker 2: God in the same way Gnosticism does.
Speaker 4: Because I've debated a lot of the Gnostics too, and
Speaker 4: in fact, one of our friends, like she just started
Speaker 4: getting into Christianity out of like the whole feminist you know,
Speaker 4: divine feminism, all.
Speaker 3: That kind of thing.
Speaker 4: And I've noticed every time I've tried to work with
Speaker 4: her through like the Bible, there's always this hold upon
Speaker 4: trying to intellectualize God and not being able to see
Speaker 4: it in the lived experience. Do you see kind of
Speaker 4: that correlation there too when you.
Speaker 1: Argue again, Yeah, absolutely, because a Roman Catholic, for example,
Speaker 1: will typically say that you can't have major real distinctions
Speaker 1: in God without composition or division, and then it's like,
Speaker 1: what you believe that the persons are major real distinctions
Speaker 1: as a tomist, Yeah, and so they have a double standard.
Speaker 1: And it's like, so I think when you have these
Speaker 1: this idea that there are self evident metaphysical principles that
Speaker 1: come first that bind God, that's what lead gets you
Speaker 1: into the trouble. Like the last time I had a
Speaker 1: long chat with Tim Gordon, he was like, there can't
Speaker 1: be any sense in which God. I'm trying to remember
Speaker 1: how he worded it, something like something like if we
Speaker 1: admitted this about God that he could be in time
Speaker 1: and space like that, it would mean that he undergoes change.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, well, Tim, I thought you believe the incarnation,
Speaker 1: you see. So it's like they have a disconnect between
Speaker 1: their metaphysics and then the belief and the idea of
Speaker 1: the incarnation.
Speaker 2: Well, and I feel like too.
Speaker 4: And you know that that comes from kind of the
Speaker 4: programming here in the Western tradition where we're kind of
Speaker 4: taught to see everything as like binary you know, either.
Speaker 1: Ors, Yeah, that's that's what dict.
Speaker 4: Is, right, and then they read that right into God.
Speaker 4: So they try to solve their experience of God in
Speaker 4: dialectics which cannot.
Speaker 1: Be and they don't even realize and this, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: And they don't even realize that that whole argument, that
Speaker 1: their whole mindset is the same way that Muslims approach
Speaker 1: the LPT.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, And do you see that in Islam too,
Speaker 4: like their problems with the ninety nine names and the
Speaker 4: transcendence of all law. I see them falling into the
Speaker 4: same problem there because you look through the Sunni tradition
Speaker 4: and then up through all their philosophers as it goes
Speaker 4: into the West and stuff, and it's they're all struggling
Speaker 4: with the same issue of well, how do we make
Speaker 4: the transcendent imminent?
Speaker 2: You know, how do we bring it into our minds?
Speaker 2: How do we hold Allah?
Speaker 4: But that's I think the importance in the epistemology of
Speaker 4: Orthodoxy with Christ right where he comes and he shares
Speaker 4: in our human nature, He kind of provides that linkage
Speaker 4: is it.
Speaker 2: Would you agree with that?
Speaker 5: I do?
Speaker 1: But what I'm saying is that on a like so
Speaker 1: the LPT is based on like analytical philosophical argumentation. So
Speaker 1: it's like a further working out of a certain way
Speaker 1: of predicating and counting and it's based on a strict
Speaker 1: kind of logical approach to how we count things and
Speaker 1: how we name things. And my point is that if
Speaker 1: Roman Catholics were consistent, they would follow the same logic
Speaker 1: of Jake when he made the LPT argument, and they
Speaker 1: would be they would they would not be trinitarian because
Speaker 1: they're using the same presuppositions as Jake when it comes
Speaker 1: to philosophical, analytical, metaphysical necessity and it has to be this,
Speaker 1: and but then they have a double standard because then
Speaker 1: they'll turn around be like, well, but I'm trinitarian. So
Speaker 1: in other words, a proficient Muslim or a proficient proponent
Speaker 1: of the LPT should be able to easily refute any
Speaker 1: Roman Catholic right, and they probably can. And that's why
Speaker 1: none of these people ever debate Muslims is because Muslims
Speaker 1: will probably a very smart Muslim could easily wipe the
Speaker 1: floor with the Roman Catholic.
Speaker 4: Yeah no, And that makes total sense too. That's really
Speaker 4: interesting too. And just one last question too, is this
Speaker 4: something and I think I'm just might be drawing from
Speaker 4: two distinct points. Do you see kind of this relationship
Speaker 4: between feminism and the way in which these people are thinking,
Speaker 4: like being kind of overly feminized in their thinking, like
Speaker 4: the way they're taking on these problems and trying to
Speaker 4: address them too, because I've noticed when I talk or
Speaker 4: debate with some of these people, like the way they
Speaker 4: approach problems, it seems it doesn't seem it's rational. They're
Speaker 4: trying to make it rational, but it's also like this
Speaker 4: weird kind of denial of actual lived experience, which I
Speaker 4: get kind of this feminist vibe from, because you know,
Speaker 4: nothing against women or anything like that, but they are
Speaker 4: more susceptible, you know, like they are more susceptible to
Speaker 4: this over spiritualization, this kind of living in their own
Speaker 4: mental landscape.
Speaker 1: Well this, yeah, you see this in Roman Catholics themselves,
Speaker 1: for example, where they will hyper intellectualize and make everything scholastic,
Speaker 1: and then when they come to situations of big scale
Speaker 1: contradictions or problems, they'll then resort to, well, I'm just
Speaker 1: praying the rosary. I don't know how to solve these problems, right,
Speaker 1: And that's a very like yeah, that's I would say,
Speaker 1: that's kind of a feminine attitude, not that yeah, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: but but that's not if you're building your apologetic on
Speaker 1: Scholastics and then at the end of the day you're
Speaker 1: resorting to And this is funny too because an FDA
Speaker 1: can back this up because over the years, the handful
Speaker 1: of people who for example, chose not to become Orthodox
Speaker 1: or become Roman Catholic, or that became Catechumans and then
Speaker 1: just decided to become Roman Catholic. I said, there have
Speaker 1: been probably five of those that we know over the
Speaker 1: last seven years. Many of them would reach out to
Speaker 1: me or to Faddacan and an Iis and they would
Speaker 1: actually say, I've decided that the ultimate reason that I'm
Speaker 1: going to become Roman Catholic is because of how I felt.
Speaker 1: I've seen three people say that. They said, because I
Speaker 1: felt a sense of peace after praying the Rosary, that
Speaker 1: let me know that Roman Catholicism is true. And I
Speaker 1: was listening to Tim the other day and even Tim said, look,
Speaker 1: you know, there's these problems in the Dogma and Francis
Speaker 1: is doing all this crazy stuff. And basically every time
Speaker 1: Tim streams he talks about how Francis is contradicting everything.
Speaker 1: And then he said something to the effect of, but
Speaker 1: I know that, you know, God was leading me this
Speaker 1: way because of the problems that he had with his daughter,
Speaker 1: the health issues with his daughter. And I'm not at
Speaker 1: all knocking Tim for the I mean, I want the
Speaker 1: best for Tim, and I want him and his family
Speaker 1: to do well and flourish. But I'm just making the
Speaker 1: point that. But at the end of the day, though,
Speaker 1: like it's very what's the word I'm looking for, it's
Speaker 1: it's shaky ground to ground your choices in your subjective
Speaker 1: interpretation of the meaning of certain events in your life.
Speaker 2: Right, because protestantm right.
Speaker 4: I mean, everybody I talked to you from this Protestant
Speaker 4: train of thought, you can you can just feel the
Speaker 4: overfeminization in the way they think. Like one of our
Speaker 4: friends when we go through the Bible, you know, and
Speaker 4: I'm giving her some of the Orthodox theology and kind
Speaker 4: of how it works, you know, I She'll say repeatedly, well,
Speaker 4: that doesn't.
Speaker 2: Feel right to me.
Speaker 4: And my response, I don't know how to make sense
Speaker 4: of that, because I'm like, well, who cares what you think.
Speaker 4: I mean, this is God, so it doesn't matter what
Speaker 4: you feel, right and so, And obviously, you know, my
Speaker 4: girlfriend was Protestant as well, and she's slowly coming to Orthodoxy,
Speaker 4: But that was an issue that we always had all
Speaker 4: the time. It's like, well, it doesn't matter what you feel,
Speaker 4: you know, and then it's the whole argument while you're
Speaker 4: denying my feelings and stuff.
Speaker 1: And it's like, well, I've had that same argument with Jamie.
Speaker 1: That's just women, that's just females, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's just how they think, you know.
Speaker 4: But then they kind of derails the question to make
Speaker 4: you the bad guy. But at the same time, that
Speaker 4: doesn't affect the truth of the proposition, right, that's still
Speaker 4: a logical fallacy, appeal to emotion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, yeah, exactly. Imagine if I said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, two plus two equing four makes me feel bad,
Speaker 1: so I don't know, it's not true. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think everybody can see that. Well, but that's that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that it's not true. That's but that's just you know,
Speaker 1: women are made to be nurturers and moms are not
Speaker 1: made to be you know, scholastic theologians and philosophers and
Speaker 1: debaters or whatever, and you know that. But yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: just making like and even more, maybe I think there's
Speaker 1: something about what's happened in Roman Catholicism and even Roman
Speaker 1: Catholics have made this point as an example, and it
Speaker 1: applies to Protestanism too. You're absolutely right, because I think
Speaker 1: a lot of Protestantism, unless you're a Calvinist or like
Speaker 1: an Anglican or something like the rest of Protestantism, it's
Speaker 1: totally like feeling emotion based.
Speaker 2: Oh man, it's really bad.
Speaker 4: Like a couple of the Protestant churches I go around here,
Speaker 4: I've noticed some really interesting things. For one, Protestantism near
Speaker 4: me I live in Idaho. All the churches I noticed
Speaker 4: they maybe have one cross or across and they have
Speaker 4: like zero iconography in there. And then everything is an
Speaker 4: appeal or entertainment to the emotion of how the you know,
Speaker 4: sermon makes you feel. And from the beginning, like whenever
Speaker 4: I went to these places, like this doesn't feel right
Speaker 4: because you know, in the New Testament, Paul talks about
Speaker 4: self discipline and denial it self and all this stuff,
Speaker 4: but you go to a Protestant sermon and it's like
Speaker 4: the opposite of what Paul is actually putting forward.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, Yeah, protestantsm was really turned into a
Speaker 1: lot of just self help stuff basically is all it is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that's the same impression I got anyway, that
Speaker 4: that was all the questions I have.
Speaker 2: I don't want to take up all the time.
Speaker 1: Fine, I think if you go back to what I
Speaker 1: talked about in the clip and the talk a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks ago too, about you know, after the Reformation,
Speaker 1: there was this reaction against a lot of papalism and
Speaker 1: scholasticism by the Reformers, and then what the Roman Church
Speaker 1: did was in the counter Reformation, they then pushed a
Speaker 1: bunch of stuff that you could call kind of Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic feminism. So basically you got this mysticism that arose
Speaker 1: around like basically all of the famous Roman Catholic saints
Speaker 1: for the last five or six hundred years. They're all
Speaker 1: these women who've had these visions and these wild experiences.
Speaker 1: I mean, not every saint, but the emphasis and this
Speaker 1: is even tradcats like emj have made this critique that
Speaker 1: there was this swing and the pendulum away from the
Speaker 1: scholasticism in the Middle Ages towards the female or child
Speaker 1: female visionary mysticism. So you get all of these women mystics,
Speaker 1: and it begins with people like Urchude the Great and
Speaker 1: Hildegarde and Catherine of Sienna and their wild, crazy claims,
Speaker 1: and then it just explodes into like just tons and
Speaker 1: tons of women mystics for the last five hundred years.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I see some correlation there too, in like
Speaker 4: this whole speaking in tongues thing, I know, I.
Speaker 6: Know, absolutely absolute, yeah, speaking in tongue stuff.
Speaker 4: And you know they always go back to Corinthians and say, oh, well,
Speaker 4: Paul doesn't explicitly say you can't. But I actually looked
Speaker 4: into some of the history of that and the church
Speaker 4: in corinth From what I understood, correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 4: that was one of the heavily paganized centers that really
Speaker 4: was influenced by the Dionysius cults, and like a lot
Speaker 4: of their cults pat speaking in tongues and stuff like that.
Speaker 4: And so I see it more as Paul addressing the
Speaker 4: immediate need of the church while still trying to be apologetical.
Speaker 4: And then you read the rest of the Orthodox tradition
Speaker 4: and the Church fathers, you never see speaking in tongues ever.
Speaker 1: Again, Well, first of all, I've always believed I mean,
Speaker 1: I was like a charismatic when I was an idiot,
Speaker 1: when I was like nineteen, for like a year because
Speaker 1: I didn't know what this was talking about in those chapters.
Speaker 1: But not too long after that, even as a Protestant,
Speaker 1: I was like, wait a minute, this isn't gibberish. It's
Speaker 1: known languages, and in the Book of Acts it's known languages.
Speaker 1: So there can be a miraculous gift where God, uh
Speaker 1: you know, gives a person the ability to do well
Speaker 1: with languages. That's the gift of tongues or languages. And
Speaker 1: there can be a situation where like an axe, where
Speaker 1: everybody is hearing things in their native tongue. So God
Speaker 1: can do any sort of miracle like that. But there
Speaker 1: I don't think that when he talks about even if
Speaker 1: I spoke the language of Angels, I think that's rhetoric.
Speaker 1: I don't think Paul is saying that you're gonna do
Speaker 1: gibberish private prayers. And if you look at the the
Speaker 1: tradition of Palamas, like he interprets that, that's interpreted as
Speaker 1: noetic prayer, not gibberish. It's the prayer of the heart,
Speaker 1: and it's your internal units of dialogue with God in
Speaker 1: your noos. It's not lunch about, right. We're not like
Speaker 1: Mola Ram here, you know, pulling the hearts out of
Speaker 1: people in the thuggy traditional ritual whatever.
Speaker 4: So yeah, yeah, and you can feel it, like you know,
Speaker 4: when I've been around those type of people, you can
Speaker 4: feel something in the air that's just not right when
Speaker 4: they do that, Like it doesn't feel holy, it doesn't
Speaker 4: feel like this is of God. And you know, and
Speaker 4: then you read the rest of the Church Fathers and stuff,
Speaker 4: and there's really no mesh mention of experiences like.
Speaker 2: That at all.
Speaker 1: Well, there is is, except that they're condemned. So already
Speaker 1: in the time, already in Aeronaus is against Hereses in
Speaker 1: one eight. The glossalalia stuff is you see this in
Speaker 1: some of the cults and Gnostic sects prior to even
Speaker 1: the year two hundred, and then with the character Montanus.
Speaker 1: Once Montanism is condemned, this this is pretty much the
Speaker 1: end of the charismatic stuff.
Speaker 2: Right right, exactly?
Speaker 4: No, agree, man, Well, I really appreciate the answers that
Speaker 4: that was really great.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good questions. Appreciate your insights there. And I'm impressed
Speaker 1: that you read that very technical Rodigalway book Queen of Something.
Speaker 1: I can't read the rest of it.
Speaker 5: M hm.
Speaker 1: Queen of the Queens of the Stone Age. What's up, dude, Dang,
Speaker 1: it's getting hot in here. Hold, I'm about to turn
Speaker 1: turn the air on. It's hot. H Queen's uh, it
Speaker 1: doesn't look like your internet's connecting, So maybe come out
Speaker 1: and come back in Queen of the Juicy j.
Speaker 2: I'm not really, I'm not really.
Speaker 1: Hello, I gotta get Billy Coarsen over here. We can't
Speaker 1: hear you, so maybe come out, come back in terran
Speaker 1: got a Roman cabot.
Speaker 2: Hello, mm hmm, yeah, thanks for taking the time. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure.
Speaker 3: Observation.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure if it's a sound or not. It's
Speaker 7: related to previous conversations distinction separations. So it seems like
Speaker 7: in Plato he when he devised the ideal from the real,
Speaker 7: it's not only in distinction.
Speaker 2: But it's actually a separation correct.
Speaker 7: And what it does, and like in modern world, like
Speaker 7: the ideals and ideologies are really functioned as a kind
Speaker 7: of images and enthasies that that can become.
Speaker 2: Because they're separated from reality. It gives people's license.
Speaker 7: To kind of imagine them whatever they are, and then
Speaker 7: they can they really become objects of faith. So this
Speaker 7: is separation between reality and ideals is really.
Speaker 3: I think it's significant.
Speaker 7: I'm curious if anyone has if that has been addressed
Speaker 7: in a meaningful way.
Speaker 1: I mean Eric Vogelan talks about this kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: If that's what like he calls modernity gnostic because of
Speaker 1: this idea that like, you can't really question the dogmas
Speaker 1: of what scientism lays down, and he says that they
Speaker 1: even determine the questions that you're allowed to ask. And
Speaker 1: so in his book on place Oh, for example, he
Speaker 1: goes into quite a bit about this. I haven't read
Speaker 1: the the critique of gnostic modernity. I've read his Plato book,
Speaker 1: but he would be somebody probably that's a dressing. I
Speaker 1: think what you're getting at Eric Vogelin he's one of
Speaker 1: the most famous modern uh philosophers who critique like modernity
Speaker 1: is being gnostic the oe g l I n Okay.
Speaker 7: Well, what I mean is it's like a gap between
Speaker 7: those two per crests.
Speaker 3: When you talked about, you know, be.
Speaker 7: Perfect as your hamiling father is perfect.
Speaker 3: Is a.
Speaker 7: In with idealism. You always kind of assume that you
Speaker 7: can never be perfect. So there's this always this gap
Speaker 7: that allows.
Speaker 2: You to use your actions right.
Speaker 7: It's kind of forgives your sins because you can never
Speaker 7: actually attain the perfection.
Speaker 2: And so for example, that's why people overlook, you know,
Speaker 2: for for example, like the.
Speaker 7: Ideology of democraty currently and people overlooking the consequences of
Speaker 7: their actions. And in other countries like for example Iraq, right,
Speaker 7: people dismissed that, and the way they do that is
Speaker 7: by acknowledgeing that there's a gap between the perfection and reality.
Speaker 7: So this allows people just be a license to pretty
Speaker 7: horrible things in the name of ideology.
Speaker 3: And it is because of this gap.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, interesting thoughts. I'll think about that. Xing Jiang
Speaker 1: libertarian or something. What's up man, Thank you for the
Speaker 1: super chats. Appreciate that you guys. I want to remind
Speaker 1: you too that I will see you at the Bitcoin
Speaker 1: conference tomorrow and the day after. If you want to
Speaker 1: support me by a bitcoin, you can do so right here.
Speaker 1: If you're interested in getting into bitcoin, I have a
Speaker 1: link in the show description to Swan Bitcoin. They're a
Speaker 1: bitcoin only purchaser outlet. So if you do sign up
Speaker 1: with Swan, you're only buying custoding and then self custodying
Speaker 1: the bitcoin. So that's it. If you're new to crypto
Speaker 1: to bitcoin, I would recommend. I mean, I can't give
Speaker 1: you financial advice, but if I was new to it,
Speaker 1: that's what I would do.
Speaker 2: There's a lot on my mind.
Speaker 8: There's a lot of cyber security engineering specialists intelligence questions that.
Speaker 2: I have for you. But it's just a matter of
Speaker 2: oh am I crazy.
Speaker 8: No, I'm not crazy, because every day you got to
Speaker 8: present yourself as it is going to be the best
Speaker 8: day ever.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean I can tell you what I read
Speaker 1: in books, but that's all I know.
Speaker 8: Well, look like you said earlier about GROC and open
Speaker 8: AI and chat GPT and search GPT, those are all
Speaker 8: correct as well. They're all very easily accessible, but people
Speaker 8: don't do their research and they don't care. So here
Speaker 8: I am the little AI kid, just trying to tell
Speaker 8: the world that AI is.
Speaker 2: Just wait until we have the dogs with.
Speaker 8: The fucking gun mouths that can fly and you can
Speaker 8: command them. However, that's when the military will really do
Speaker 8: you know, That's when people really start.
Speaker 2: To pay attention.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, I think you're right about that. Like if
Speaker 1: I saw a flying dog with a bunch of guns
Speaker 1: coming out of it like a you know, Skynet sense
Speaker 1: of a flying dog at me? Yes, I will definitely
Speaker 1: be paying attention ying Ying Yang twin. What's up ying
Speaker 1: the windows to the wheel?
Speaker 2: That guy was crazy?
Speaker 9: Man?
Speaker 2: What was he talking about?
Speaker 1: I think he's talking about Darper dogs, like when a
Speaker 1: Darper dog can.
Speaker 2: Fly in the Black Mirror episode.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's no, I think that's what he meant. That's
Speaker 1: my first thought was the Black Mirror episode.
Speaker 3: Mada, I'm crying.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna lie man.
Speaker 1: That was so funny.
Speaker 2: But now how to go?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 2: You're right, I was. I've got a couple of points
Speaker 2: on topic.
Speaker 9: The first one is a bit more of like an
Speaker 9: interesting one because the phraseology these letters always confuse me.
Speaker 2: I was wondering if you knew anything about.
Speaker 9: Like the Pike Mazzini letters from like eighteen seventy one.
Speaker 2: You're familiar with those, Yeah, what what what is that about?
Speaker 2: Are they just frauds or what?
Speaker 9: Because they use a lot of like twentieth century phraseology
Speaker 9: in those letters.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've looked into that pretty extensively. It does seem
Speaker 1: like it's probably not authentic, but there still might be
Speaker 1: something like might be based on something like other famous
Speaker 1: documents like that.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's what I'll kind of like on the way
Speaker 9: I was thinking, because they used too much twentieth century
Speaker 9: phraseology for me to think that's authentic in what eighteen
Speaker 9: seventy one?
Speaker 1: Right, And it is true, however that actually Zionism as
Speaker 1: a term is actually used earlier than most people think.
Speaker 1: But I think the better argument is about the terminology
Speaker 1: for tiny mustache man. I don't think there was anybody
Speaker 1: using that in a z I terminology that early.
Speaker 10: Yeah, no, I hear.
Speaker 9: That definitely seems to be also, like there's a misconception
Speaker 9: that communism wasn't being spoken about in those specific terms
Speaker 9: in their.
Speaker 2: Late eighteen hundreds, but in fact it was. No, it was, yeah,
Speaker 2: definitely for real.
Speaker 9: And the second point I was going to make I
Speaker 9: was going to bring up too, is like, have you
Speaker 9: ever seen that goofy picture of Crowley.
Speaker 2: In the back of the Beatles album?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 2: You have seen that in this year.
Speaker 9: I showed this to my you know, normally friend the
Speaker 9: other day yea, and he literally I told him this.
Speaker 9: I think, do you think there's anything strange about this?
Speaker 9: I'm not joking, but he goes, I don't care. When
Speaker 9: are we going to the pub This is the mindset
Speaker 9: and level that people are at in the Western world today.
Speaker 9: You see what I'm saying, Like in England, people care
Speaker 9: more about football than they do the future.
Speaker 1: The absolutely yeah, I mean Brendon Sarcus is my body
Speaker 1: was reading a stat the other day that it was
Speaker 1: some crazy stat. I have to look it up, but
Speaker 1: it was like some outrageous percentage of high school graduates
Speaker 1: have never read a book, and then some other high
Speaker 1: percent percentage like can't read, like literally can't read. How
Speaker 1: do you get through high school when you can't read
Speaker 1: or read a book? I've never read a book.
Speaker 9: But yeah, there's some data in a US, say like
Speaker 9: places like stays like Balti Baltimore. Oh, it might be
Speaker 9: a city of state, so I'm not American, you know,
Speaker 9: low like Hubrit here.
Speaker 2: But it's funny because like there's like.
Speaker 9: Twelve schools in that area alone where zero percent of
Speaker 9: the kids can do math.
Speaker 2: At grade level and sting.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly.
Speaker 2: It does not blow your mind.
Speaker 11: Yes, And I was going to bring up two final
Speaker 11: points to one of quick one another like funny one
Speaker 11: are you ever are you familiar all with like the
Speaker 11: Islamic narrative about Joseph.
Speaker 1: Not my hair. What do they say about Joseph.
Speaker 9: Well, it's really interesting because my boy put me onto
Speaker 9: this the other day. He basically in the Courdban they
Speaker 9: mentioned Durhams like over almost a thousand years before they
Speaker 9: were even a used currency.
Speaker 2: They said that Joseph was using Durhams and stuff like that.
Speaker 11: Really, so so stupid, man, it's so dumb, Like, bro,
Speaker 11: I'm not lying to you, man.
Speaker 2: They're literally talking about like Durhams and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: In that's like Joseph Smith level stuff, because there's stuff
Speaker 1: like that in the Book of Mormon two, which is
Speaker 1: like yeah, yeah, well, I mean you.
Speaker 2: Look at the Book of Mormon.
Speaker 9: Those tablets were shown to be the pagan Egyptian Scrolls
Speaker 9: of Breathing, and the.
Speaker 2: Claimed it was a Gospel of Abraham.
Speaker 1: I mean like what, Yeah, there was a when we
Speaker 1: were driving to the Vegas event, we passed this place
Speaker 1: where Jamie said that she had been out there many
Speaker 1: years before and there's like some kind of famous rock
Speaker 1: or that it's like a chair that's carved into the
Speaker 1: side of a place in New Mexico, like a rock
Speaker 1: out in the desert, and it had this Hebrew inscription
Speaker 1: on it, and so a lot of the idiot stoners
Speaker 1: and new agers think that this was like some kind
Speaker 1: of mystical thing. But then if you read about it,
Speaker 1: if you read about it, it turns out that people
Speaker 1: think that Mormons, that Mormons one hundred years ago carved
Speaker 1: Hebrew into this chair to prove that there were the
Speaker 1: Mormon tribes of Israel in Utah or whatever.
Speaker 2: That crazying on.
Speaker 1: Everybody's a bunch of idiots, that's the problem. Thank you
Speaker 1: for that. I mean, you can basically just tell people anything.
Speaker 1: People like, what's this Billy Carson dude talk? I can't
Speaker 1: believe people believe this dude. Why is this dude on
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan? Okay, Like I will never get on Joe Rogan,
Speaker 1: but this dude will go on Joe Rogan. Let's see
Speaker 1: what he's talking about here. I gotta hear, I gotta hear,
Speaker 1: my Billy Courses.
Speaker 10: We have vehicles not of this world, and they've shown
Speaker 10: up in broad daylight, and they've actually deactivated nuclear codes
Speaker 10: on live nukes. So let's stop pretending like we don't
Speaker 10: know if that's happening, and let's talk about now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, everybody that denies this. You just pretend. Then we
Speaker 1: all know the UFOs have showed up and hacked into
Speaker 1: the codes up, up, down, down, left, right, BA select start.
Speaker 1: That's the code they use.
Speaker 10: Bro.
Speaker 1: You ain't know when they turned them nukes off, Bo,
Speaker 1: they just flipped it off. They hit control all the leap.
Speaker 10: It's made and covered with solar panels that have the
Speaker 10: right capacity for a conversion entire United States for free.
Speaker 10: That's all we can need.
Speaker 12: All you gotta do is lay out on a flat
Speaker 12: ground across the Earth solar panels.
Speaker 1: The whole world could have energy for the next million years.
Speaker 3: Bro.
Speaker 1: That's my that's my black dude melding into theovonna bron.
Speaker 10: And so that's why the zero point sty suppressed so hard.
Speaker 10: Enough is enough shit.
Speaker 1: That that's our ancient Egyptian Uh. They got an energy coil.
Speaker 1: They got it all coiled up inside that piromediate. It's
Speaker 1: a coil up in there. It's a copper coil. And
Speaker 1: then then the white dudes, that was rednecks have got
Speaker 1: up in there and they went and sold that metal.
Speaker 3: Bro.
Speaker 12: They realized that it was copper coiled all up inside
Speaker 12: the pyramids, and a bunch of white meth heads trying
Speaker 12: to keep us down have got all of that copper
Speaker 12: and has sold it bro to get meth.
Speaker 1: That's why we can't have free zero point energy.
Speaker 10: Used to hear me talk about UFOs and aliens and
Speaker 10: enough is enough. Ten fifteen, twenty years ago, I'm now
Speaker 10: all coming back to me saying, Hey, I can't believe
Speaker 10: that you were right the whole time, right man, They're
Speaker 10: starting to really believe it, and they're starting to ask
Speaker 10: more questions. So even though we're not getting the kind
Speaker 10: of disclosure we actually want from the government, we are
Speaker 10: getting the fact that.
Speaker 6: We getting the disclosure we deserve. It ain't the disclosure
Speaker 6: that we won't and it ain't even the disclosure that
Speaker 6: we need. Is the disclosure that we deserve. Boy, Right now,
Speaker 6: I'm starting to tell Rogo Rapper who got here grilled.
Speaker 10: In right hall, that they're talking about it enough to
Speaker 10: where now people are saying, oh, this is actually real.
Speaker 10: There are potentially well.
Speaker 1: I guess if they're talking about it as real, right,
Speaker 1: if enough people is talking about it, it's real, really,
Speaker 1: course of my boy, right.
Speaker 10: There bos and being some other planets and so on
Speaker 10: and so on.
Speaker 1: Something uf HOS my mama turning tricks on a UFO.
Speaker 1: Remember that? Remember that clip. Surprised that clip didn't go viral,
Speaker 1: that woman talking about selling her body on a UFO.
Speaker 1: I'm not joking. That was an actual local news clip.
Speaker 1: I couldn't believe it, but it was. Y'all know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. Do I need to remind y'all how
Speaker 1: crazy people are just going insane? That's the whole country
Speaker 1: is literally just going nuts. And yes, Maxine Waters will
Speaker 1: be in my top fifty forty three impressions funniest local
Speaker 1: news clip. She she is a lady of the evening
Speaker 1: for aliens. I'm not joking. Gotta play this clip.
Speaker 10: Watch this.
Speaker 1: Here's salon.
Speaker 10: Did I need someone who swear.
Speaker 13: On numerous occasions for some very very close encounters.
Speaker 1: I like that drawing, dude, It's a that's a drawing
Speaker 1: by the same brother that drew the Leprechaun the leper
Speaker 1: cones right, Like to remember this when I wait a minute,
Speaker 1: tricks inside the grabbing Trump. It looks like I grabbed that,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. So Dan's ship to get
Speaker 1: the drill. Mama's turning chicks inside the Doug.
Speaker 12: Grabbing Chunk, Run it down the cheese Highway.
Speaker 1: Mama's turning chicks is inside Doug grabbing trunk, run it
Speaker 1: down the cheese highways. That was a good song, by
Speaker 1: the way, And if you're not watching on the video,
Speaker 1: what I said won't make it make sense. You you
Speaker 1: just think I'm schitzo. You think I'm crazy. There's a
Speaker 1: grab Atron with a cheese high way and a woman
Speaker 1: floating up on it. Mama's turning tricks inside the grab
Speaker 1: a Tron down a long cheese highway. Now that's freaking funny.
Speaker 1: I don't care who you are. Tell me that's not funny.
Speaker 1: That is funny as heck. And there's the clip. If
Speaker 1: y'all missed it, this only got six hundred views. This
Speaker 1: ship should go viral. Boy, why isn't that viral? That's
Speaker 1: your fault, boys and girls. Boys in the no ten
Speaker 1: percent girls. I was looking at my stats. We got
Speaker 1: ten percent ladyship audience, ninety percent sausage boy audience. That's okay.
Speaker 1: I'm all right to hang out with the bros. Anyway.
Speaker 1: Where we have Billy Carson over here talking about aliens.
Speaker 10: Now, it's an open discussion. Even when I'm in restaurants.
Speaker 10: Sometimes I hear people sitting around talking about rest UFOs
Speaker 10: and UAPs and aliens. Where's before a decade ago, I
Speaker 10: wouldn't never hear a conversation like that openly in an
Speaker 10: open public place. It's just people are becoming more aware.
Speaker 1: No, people just becoming more dumb. Dude, you didn't even
Speaker 1: you didn't even consider.
Speaker 10: That option, and more understanding and opening their minds.
Speaker 1: He figured out people were becoming more dumb so he
Speaker 1: could pull his grift. He's like, I can sell everybody
Speaker 1: on this. We was King's afro pyramid crap.
Speaker 10: More to the reality that we're not alone, and they're
Speaker 10: starting to ask more questions. So the benefit of all
Speaker 10: of this Arrow and a Tip and all these other programs,
Speaker 10: the benefit that we do have at least is the
Speaker 10: fact that people are becoming more open to this information.
Speaker 10: But one of the advices that.
Speaker 1: Are becoming more open to my cult.
Speaker 10: And so let me start with the government agenda. First,
Speaker 10: follow the money, follow the money, uh huh, gone releases
Speaker 10: or what government press release says. Then what they're going
Speaker 10: to find is they're really just following an agenda, which
Speaker 10: always is about following the money. And so let me
Speaker 10: start with the government agenda first. An agenda is to
Speaker 10: make money, and it always is. It's all of them.
Speaker 1: What is the agenda of the New Age cult man?
Speaker 1: I wonder does he have.
Speaker 12: An agenda to make any fat cash? To stack some
Speaker 12: chedda on a long cheese highway?
Speaker 1: Mama's turning chicks inside the rabbittran on a long cheesehowa
Speaker 1: Hawaiian power shout out to my Keano supremacists. WHOA, I
Speaker 1: need a good Oh that's what I forgot in my impressions.
Speaker 3: Hey, j in my life.
Speaker 2: Hey brother, just on that last point.
Speaker 14: I'm from Hawaii and I have a Hawaiian cultural background,
Speaker 14: and I think I had a similar spiritual art to
Speaker 14: you know a lot of millennials where you know, grew
Speaker 14: up hated Christianity, super into New Age Eastern religion, O
Speaker 14: Shamanism and all that kind of thing. As I got older,
Speaker 14: I started I started getting into like the Hawaiian religion
Speaker 14: side of things.
Speaker 1: And yeah, so I'm talking about that. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I'm tempted. I get tempted to convert to Keanu supremacism.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I'm a k broy Ki.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 14: But like I remember when I was younger, I met
Speaker 14: this Hawaiian shaman dude, and he was like, all right,
Speaker 14: I'm going to show you like the ancient black magic stuff.
Speaker 14: When I was so naive, I was like, yep, sounds good.
Speaker 14: And we're doing like these rituals and like no joke,
Speaker 14: we're sober, like no drugs at all. And I'm seeing
Speaker 14: like these entities that look just like the ancient Hawaiian carvings,
Speaker 14: and they're like explaining to me how they guided Hawaiians
Speaker 14: supernaturally across the Pacific with star lines and the instructions
Speaker 14: of how to build the canoes and everything. And that
Speaker 14: sounds that sounds like all fine, well and dandy. But
Speaker 14: you know, like as I got deeper into doing rituals
Speaker 14: with this guy, come to find out the aerial realm
Speaker 14: of the spirits, dude. These spirits are hungry for human blood,
Speaker 14: you know. And you see that commonality across all all
Speaker 14: human cultures.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they always want human sacrifice exactly why.
Speaker 14: Is Yeah, And like even with like all these new agers,
Speaker 14: like you can see just.
Speaker 2: Return to the ancient ways and like this drive for that.
Speaker 14: Yeah, and you know, I'm on my way to becoming
Speaker 14: an Orthodox Christian, But like, I totally believe that we're
Speaker 14: not too far away from a time where you know,
Speaker 14: you'll start seeing some of these human sacrifice cults getting
Speaker 14: more normalized.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's crazy.
Speaker 1: It sounds so SciPy, now that's what that's No, it's not,
Speaker 1: because it's in one of those UN documents. And I
Speaker 1: remember Alex talked about that like fifteen years ago, and
Speaker 1: I thought that was crazy when he said that. And
Speaker 1: I first heard that, I was like, what's nah, But
Speaker 1: now it actually is in there, and I and since
Speaker 1: that time, I've I've read at least two of the
Speaker 1: globally to talk about how, I mean, there's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with bringing back those kinds of cults because it might
Speaker 1: you know, call the herd. I mean they're that crazy.
Speaker 15: No.
Speaker 1: Well, so, Arthur Kessler in his Ghosts in the Machine
Speaker 1: book says that the rise of human sacrifice and cannibalism
Speaker 1: actually led to the evolution of man. I'm not joking,
Speaker 1: so like we evolved because of eating each other. So uh,
Speaker 1: I think you're spot on. And Yeah, the people that
Speaker 1: go and do these kind of drug trips they have
Speaker 1: I mean I had I didn't have an experience where
Speaker 1: anybody was telling me to eat somebody. But you know,
Speaker 1: I've had bad trips, and yeah, you do see entities.
Speaker 1: You see these beings and they they try to influence you.
Speaker 1: So my point is, yes, I'm converting to kan keanuism.
Speaker 1: I'm about to become a ki honist. I need a
Speaker 1: gun if you want. I like how the last John
Speaker 1: Wick had like he had like four lines in it.
Speaker 1: I'm like, I mean most of the movie is him,
Speaker 1: you know, punching and kicking and shooting, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: they didn't give him more lines. He's in that that line,
Speaker 1: he used that line like twice. A nude a gun.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna need a gun. It's like he just phoned
Speaker 1: in an in Dan Barne. That's a that's a wholesome
Speaker 1: name right there, Dan Barne, Bob shed or Dan Barne.
Speaker 1: Who's whose side, y'all? I don't know what do you mean?
Speaker 1: It's a job, dude, what's up?
Speaker 9: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Uh well, I've got a question that has to do
Speaker 2: with a lot of what you've been talking about.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 16: Uh So my dad is super involved politically.
Speaker 3: He's listened to Alex for fifteen twenty years.
Speaker 2: He's got three degrees.
Speaker 16: He's completely consumed. Long story short, and not to give
Speaker 16: too much information.
Speaker 2: I'm anonymous. Heious, it doesn't really matter.
Speaker 16: But so him and my mom are about to get
Speaker 16: divorced up for forty years and long story short, he's
Speaker 16: he's just gone so far out into a cult level
Speaker 16: of the extreme right wing, end times evangelical praying tones,
Speaker 16: every day prophecies about crypto and getting you know, the
Speaker 16: Iraqi did all revaluing and Zimbabwe and bombs.
Speaker 2: Have you heard of that stuff?
Speaker 1: I have not known.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm wondering, how do you.
Speaker 16: I'm sure that you've come across people that are all
Speaker 16: there's something about them that is unapproachable and unreachable in
Speaker 16: a sense, even if it's somebody.
Speaker 3: Close to you.
Speaker 16: It's almost like there's something spiritual going on where they're
Speaker 16: just entirely consumed and possessed by this obsession that it's
Speaker 16: just all they think and talk about.
Speaker 2: It's just it's like the only thing that they can do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we would say that's a kind of a we
Speaker 1: would call it a delusion, or in the Orthodox Church
Speaker 1: it's called prelest, where you get obsessed with something that
Speaker 1: you think is you know, God, or you replace God
Speaker 1: with that, you think that God's leading you to that,
Speaker 1: And it's a very powerful delusion because we we are
Speaker 1: our own hearts can be very deceptive and make us
Speaker 1: think that, you know, whatever is happening is is God,
Speaker 1: and we can mistake our own desires and emotions for God.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's so. How do you talk to somebody that.
Speaker 3: I don't know?
Speaker 1: I mean, well, I would just say, like I mean,
Speaker 1: and I would imagine if you're you know, if your
Speaker 1: dad's an I mean, he sounds like he's an intelligent guy.
Speaker 1: I would say that eventually, what happens with a lot
Speaker 1: of these kind of you know, end Time's premillennial stuff.
Speaker 1: And I was premillennial in times dude, when I was
Speaker 1: like nineteen, so I can understand that mindset. But a
Speaker 1: lot of times what happens is that it's kind of
Speaker 1: like people that follow that Q crap and all that
Speaker 1: stupid Q nonsense, Like, eventually, what starts to happen is
Speaker 1: that you realize this isn't coming about. So wait a minute,
Speaker 1: this prophecy didn't happen. Trump didn't do this, Hillary's not
Speaker 1: Guantanamo Bay. Tom Hanks is not underneath the Pentagon being detained.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just a whole bunch of nonsense, and
Speaker 1: it should have been obvious like pretty quick. I mean
Speaker 1: I said Q was crap, like within a week or two.
Speaker 1: But sometimes it takes a discernment and people don't have
Speaker 1: the you know, discernment in these kinds of issues, something
Speaker 1: that comes after you know, maybe many years. But if
Speaker 1: your dad is you know, it sounds like he's a
Speaker 1: you know, smart guy. So it's not just all about intelligence,
Speaker 1: but I think intelligent people have this the tool set
Speaker 1: to maybe recognize and see things quicker and uh, come on, yeah,
Speaker 1: Q absolutely did claim all kinds of nonsense. And if
Speaker 1: you're a c person, like why are you even in
Speaker 1: this chat? This is it's obvious, this is not for you.
Speaker 1: So this is c Q crap is not here. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you can't figure that stuff out, like please don't
Speaker 1: come on my channel, Like this is not for you.
Speaker 1: I have zero tolerance for that stuff. Anyway. I would
Speaker 1: just kind of keep up with the things that never
Speaker 1: come to pass because for false prophets, false religions, like
Speaker 1: eventually the stuff that they talk about doesn't happen, and
Speaker 1: then what happens is that people that are locked into
Speaker 1: into the cult mindset will want to not think about that,
Speaker 1: So it might be helpful to say, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: down the road, hey dad, you notice like all that
Speaker 1: off that you were expecting, Like it didn't happen, Rapture
Speaker 1: didn't come. You know, Antichrist isn't born in New York
Speaker 1: or whatever, Like, we don't have any evidence of this.
Speaker 1: It's all like weirdo speculations and people reading into it.
Speaker 1: And you also might bring up other issues that would
Speaker 1: be maybe more fundamental than all the end time stuff.
Speaker 1: I would say, well, if you're a Protestant evangelical, like
Speaker 1: how do you know you have the right biblical canon?
Speaker 1: And how come nobody prior to the Schofield Bible taught
Speaker 1: any of this stuff? Like do you think the church
Speaker 1: fundamentally didn't understand you know, the bodily resurrection and you
Speaker 1: know the Last Days until some goofy goober who was
Speaker 1: supported by the rothchilds in England. I mean, does that
Speaker 1: really make any sense? Come on, that's stupid and the
Speaker 1: whole thing is all it's all geopolitically motivated anyway, Balfour
Speaker 1: Declaration all that should be obvious. But uh, but it
Speaker 1: is true like that Protestant boomer boomer evangelical Q rapture crap. Like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, it's that's a that's a tough one.
Speaker 1: I would say, maybe maybe not focus on debating that,
Speaker 1: but like maybe shifted over into trying to debate something
Speaker 1: like the canon in tradition, because if that falls, then
Speaker 1: the rest of that crap's gonna fall. But he's probably
Speaker 1: so wedded to the you know, pre millennial dispensation rapture stuff,
Speaker 1: that you're probably not gonna convince him by directly debating
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff.
Speaker 10: I don't know.
Speaker 1: But good news is uh Mark is zucker based. And
Speaker 1: like I said, zucker Zuckerberg was corn pop all along.
Speaker 1: That was my theory, right, that was one of the
Speaker 1: Q drops, Right, Zuckerberg was was Q all along. I'm
Speaker 1: being stupid. I'm joking, but people are so stupid they
Speaker 1: won't even realize I'm joking. But I am a little surprised.
Speaker 1: I don't actually think zucker he's Sucker based. I think
Speaker 1: that people just say whatever they think the where the
Speaker 1: tide's going. So if the tide's turning in this direction,
Speaker 1: they'll say this kind of stuff. But it is interesting
Speaker 1: that Zuckerberg said that he thought it was pretty badass
Speaker 1: that Trump got up. He said that.
Speaker 10: It was.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense to reduce intelligence to think that
Speaker 1: you could upload your mind to a cloud. That sounds like,
Speaker 1: has Zuckerberg been listening to me? By the way, you
Speaker 1: notice that style he's got going. People were pointing out, like,
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg got that style from me? Son? Remember that? Remember
Speaker 1: that image? Everybody the people put up, They're like, do
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg's took your style?
Speaker 3: Dude?
Speaker 1: What the heck? Hey, Zuck, give me some like if
Speaker 1: you want to show me some love, promote my stuff, Dude,
Speaker 1: you've locked me down. You've had my profile and lockdown forever.
Speaker 1: Help me out, dude, then I'll believe you're a sucker based.
Speaker 1: Where's that picture? I'm gonna see if I can find it,
Speaker 1: I scroll back. I'm gonna prove it to you. He
Speaker 1: stole my style. Look watch, Yeah, should be right in
Speaker 1: here somewhere, zucker Based. I'm gonna read a couple of
Speaker 1: super chats and then we'll go back to where's that
Speaker 1: picture at We'll go back to open forum. Well, no,
Speaker 1: I can't find it. It's on my Instagram, but I
Speaker 1: can't find it over here. I'm all proven to you
Speaker 1: though I'm approved. He stole my style. Maybe I'll never
Speaker 1: find it. Anyway. I remember this guy we record that
Speaker 1: dude talks in tongues every time he talks. Uh, your
Speaker 1: default is talking in tongues.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: I can't find it, but it's on my Instagram. All right,
Speaker 1: let's move on.
Speaker 17: Henry Henry, Hello, yo, hey, to go back.
Speaker 18: I never heard of this guy, Billy Carson, but I
Speaker 18: ran into a post on Instagram the other day of
Speaker 18: this black guy and he was talking of like.
Speaker 2: He was talking about, you know, the same.
Speaker 18: Typical stuff like oh, yeah, we were we were gods
Speaker 18: and goddesses from the planets and.
Speaker 2: We we flew the pyramids. Here we are the original.
Speaker 18: Yeah, we are the first mountain builders brothers and sis
Speaker 18: and you know, I commented on it, and I was
Speaker 18: talking to some of these guys and they have some
Speaker 18: of the craziest points, like they were talking about how,
Speaker 18: oh yeah, some black babies are being born very gifted.
Speaker 2: They are the ancient ones.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like me, that's how did you not see today's
Speaker 1: opening of this episode?
Speaker 10: That was me?
Speaker 3: That's you.
Speaker 1: J I am yakuborn exactly chocolate.
Speaker 18: But yeah, I kept asking about them and how they like,
Speaker 18: you know, you know, where they get this kind of
Speaker 18: crazy shit from. And they they they think that the
Speaker 18: Vatican has their writings locked away.
Speaker 2: Underneath the Vatican.
Speaker 1: Yeah I believe that.
Speaker 2: Just a crazy ship.
Speaker 18: Yeah. I just wanted to just add that.
Speaker 2: Thanks for your work, Jay, thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah you see that right there, You see that picture.
Speaker 1: This is proof of what I'm talking about. That's me,
Speaker 1: the Chad dude right there, white chocolate. That's me in
Speaker 1: my previous life as a yakub And then that's a
Speaker 1: blue check mark, liberal mad at me, jealous, trying to
Speaker 1: keep me down. So people thought I didn't have proof. Boom,
Speaker 1: visual proof right there for you, Tiffany, breakfast at Tiffany's
Speaker 1: on you, Tiffany.
Speaker 3: I this is my sure.
Speaker 19: Three years ago, my son and I belonged to the
Speaker 19: movement and then we got out the cam movement because
Speaker 19: some stupid thing. And so I'm just sharing with you
Speaker 19: what it was.
Speaker 2: All it was is a trap.
Speaker 3: It was an.
Speaker 19: Emotional trap for everybody to not start fighting together right
Speaker 19: and it was a huge form of division and it
Speaker 19: was a spiritual attach on all of us Going Am
Speaker 19: people and all of us Christians start to start fighting,
Speaker 19: and all the Pentecostal people are so entirely lost, and
Speaker 19: they are completely lost in this because they're tied to
Speaker 19: Israel so deeply that they're not tied to.
Speaker 2: Their own culture. And the lack of.
Speaker 19: Culture is so prevalent in the Going Am or white
Speaker 19: culture because they don't know.
Speaker 2: Where they come from. And that's all I have to
Speaker 2: share with you.
Speaker 1: Well, I tell you where you come from. You come
Speaker 1: from planet Yakub. And until you realize that, you're going
Speaker 1: to be lost. And I just showed you proof right
Speaker 1: there in that picture, So chew on that, CJ. And
Speaker 1: if y'all don't know about the uh space Pimps, you
Speaker 1: could join the Space Pimp Alliance right here, I got
Speaker 1: it up for you. I'll show you where it's at.
Speaker 1: Now you can watch the full stream right here. What's up, CJ?
Speaker 1: Where I go after Billy Carson right here? The Galactic
Speaker 1: Pimp Alliance, Hood Healers Star Seed. Y'all are going to
Speaker 1: be tempted to think we're learning about the dork Lord
Speaker 1: right here, here's the full episode. And then I gave
Speaker 1: you even a little clip to help you out. I mean,
Speaker 1: this stuff is so ridiculous. I'm trying to help y'all out.
Speaker 1: Y'all a bunch of stars scene until that got throwned
Speaker 1: moon Leavers. Look right here? Do y'all want to join
Speaker 1: the Pimp the Galactic Pimp Alliance starring Billy Corson? Where
Speaker 1: it at? Where are at? I know what's so? I
Speaker 1: put it on here? Where is it at? Pimp Alliance?
Speaker 1: I thought it was an awesome thumbnail too. What's ship?
Speaker 1: Where they go? Right here? Intergalactive Pimp Alliance has formed?
Speaker 1: Are you in this is There's a limited number of
Speaker 1: seats available. You better ensure your place on the flying Pyramid.
Speaker 1: There's a limit that we only got about six hundred
Speaker 1: seats inside of my pyramid. We're gonna blast off. We're
Speaker 1: gonna follow the Heaven's Gate comment. Everybody gets free sneakers,
Speaker 1: free basketball shoes if you come with me on the
Speaker 1: Intergalactic pamp Alliance. What's up? Dude? Who's up next? Keeping on?
Speaker 14: Hello?
Speaker 15: Hear me?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 20: So, So, I'm an althorodox Jew and I just want
Speaker 20: to have a discussion with you regarding Jesus and the
Speaker 20: showment of the Messianic.
Speaker 1: Prophecies, Okay, do what's specifically?
Speaker 20: So I just want to ask a you question because
Speaker 20: I'm not really sure what sect of Christianity you are in.
Speaker 20: So I know you guys have their friends views, you know.
Speaker 1: Right, Well, I'm Orthodox Christians, so Eastern Orthodox.
Speaker 3: Okay, Orthodox, that's nice to my best size. Actually, So,
Speaker 3: so do you.
Speaker 20: Believe in the New Covenant as mentioned in jerl Maya
Speaker 20: thirty one? Yes, and you believe that's being fulfilled or
Speaker 20: partially fulfilled or waiting to be fulfilled.
Speaker 3: Like what do you believe it to be?
Speaker 1: Well, we believe that at the first coming of the Messiah,
Speaker 1: he brought the reality of that New Covenant that is
Speaker 1: characterizing our age, and then the fullness of that will
Speaker 1: be brought in at the Escaton. So it's a both
Speaker 1: and yes.
Speaker 20: Okay, So like in like if we do have a discussion,
Speaker 20: I'm not sure if you do want to, but I'm
Speaker 20: just waning if it's possible if we should stick to
Speaker 20: the Old Testament exclusively and just.
Speaker 3: It hits what Old Testament says. If it's okay, right, Yeah,
Speaker 3: I don't mind.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, obviously I understand you wouldn't accept the
Speaker 1: New Testament. So no, I don't have a problem with that.
Speaker 20: Also, it's like you can connect me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 20: But when Jesus says he's mentioned in the scriptures, that's
Speaker 20: not referring to the letters of Pool.
Speaker 3: That's referring to the five bocks on modes.
Speaker 20: And perhaps so my contension with your in interpretation.
Speaker 3: Regarding jail Maia thirty one, is it like in verse thirty.
Speaker 20: One, its you know, mention something that is quite you know,
Speaker 20: fund the mental in the whole sort of aspect of
Speaker 20: the future. Is it mentioned the House of Israel and
Speaker 20: the House of Judah. And I'm sure you're unaware how
Speaker 20: the House of Israel was expelled eight hundred or so
Speaker 20: years before.
Speaker 3: Jesus, right give for take.
Speaker 20: So if you want to make the argument that has
Speaker 20: been fulfilled within the time of Jesus, and how do
Speaker 20: you reconcile the fact that it mentions the House of
Speaker 20: Israel and the House of Judah when in reality they
Speaker 20: have not been restored. And this is ever and this
Speaker 20: is evident within jail Maiah itself when he mentioned in
Speaker 20: jel Mayah thirty verse three, as well as thirty one,
Speaker 20: verse ten, as well as Zachariah and Ezekiel, they all
Speaker 20: mentioned the restoration of the House of Israel and the
Speaker 20: House of Judah.
Speaker 1: Right, And I'm familiar with what you're saying. With like
Speaker 1: the like Ezekiel talks about there will never be any
Speaker 1: more division, that the two will be joined back together, right.
Speaker 3: Right, that's thirty six.
Speaker 20: So obviously, when the health of sil and the House
Speaker 20: of Judah are being referenced, do you that's within the
Speaker 20: scope of the Old Testament. That's always referring to the
Speaker 20: inhabitants of the House of Israel, of the House of Judah,
Speaker 20: or at least the kingdoms.
Speaker 3: It's never referring to anyone.
Speaker 20: Other than the health of the and the House of Judah.
Speaker 1: Well, actually, no, here we would depart because the way
Speaker 1: we interpret that is that in the first century there
Speaker 1: were descendants who were in large part the entirety of
Speaker 1: the Church. So the church in the let's say, I say,
Speaker 1: after the Death of Christ up to Acts chapter ten,
Speaker 1: is almost entirely Jewish converts. So we interpret that because
Speaker 1: if you look at Acts, I understand you don't accept this.
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you this, right. So Ax talks about
Speaker 1: the House uh the Tabernacle of David being rebuilt and
Speaker 1: restructured in the fulfillment of the church. Right.
Speaker 20: But that's my contention is that Noah in Joel Mayo
Speaker 20: or Noah in any of these puffets of it mentioned
Speaker 20: a replacement to the church, where even a kin to
Speaker 20: the church.
Speaker 1: Well, then obviously we're not. It's not a replacement, the fulfillment.
Speaker 1: So that's two different ideas. So replacement would be like
Speaker 1: the things that came before don't count. That's why it's
Speaker 1: a fulfillment. So we're it's a totally different paradigm where
Speaker 1: we're saying that all of these prophecies are fulfilled not
Speaker 1: just in the person of Christ, but who is for example,
Speaker 1: in Isaiah, like Isaiah fifty three, we would say that
Speaker 1: he's the servant, he is Israel, right, so Jesus is
Speaker 1: the person, all right.
Speaker 20: So if we can stickle one prophecy because to go jumping.
Speaker 1: To Okay, but here's the thing, So I understand what
Speaker 1: you're saying. But here's the thing about the way a
Speaker 1: lot of prophecies work, and even the way, for example,
Speaker 1: have the Jewish study Bible, it will admit that Messianic
Speaker 1: prophecies are sometimes just sections of a chapter, not the
Speaker 1: entire chapter or the entire book. So not everything in
Speaker 1: Jeremiah thirty one is necessarily part of the prediction of
Speaker 1: the New Covenant. Let me give an example. In Isaiah nineteen,
Speaker 1: for example, it says that there will be an all
Speaker 1: are set up in Egypt, and that Egypt, Syria, and
Speaker 1: Israel all three will be God's footstool and his people. Right,
Speaker 1: So in Isaiah nineteen that didn't all happen in that
Speaker 1: time period. There was a partial fulfillment, which encapsulates the
Speaker 1: whole chapter. But as far as I understand most, I
Speaker 1: think Jews believe that's also a Messianic fulfillment towards whenever
Speaker 1: the Messiah comes. So in the same way, I would
Speaker 1: say that there was something that occurred at the time
Speaker 1: of Isaiah nineteen that related to you know, God's people
Speaker 1: and the Syrians and the Egyptians, but the full fulfillment
Speaker 1: awaits the Messianic era, which is what we.
Speaker 20: Would say when it speaks about Cyrus. That's you know,
Speaker 20: that's say already occut living like surely off to Isaiah.
Speaker 3: So I do agree what you're.
Speaker 1: Saying, Okay, but what I'm saying is that. Are you
Speaker 1: saying that the Cyrus is something that was only fulfilled
Speaker 1: in the person of Cyrus, or that it also has
Speaker 1: a messianic fulfillment.
Speaker 20: No, I'm saying it's not, and it's already. But that's
Speaker 20: not my point of contension. Also in my point of contention,
Speaker 20: my point of contention is that every time the House
Speaker 20: of Israel and the House of Judah is being referenced
Speaker 20: or spoken about, it's always referring to the physical people,
Speaker 20: like in jel Maya.
Speaker 3: Or in exactly right and it said they will be.
Speaker 1: But I just disagree. I disagree that every time it's.
Speaker 3: That on what scriptural basis, within the frame.
Speaker 1: Of the old because Israel, because Israel was always the
Speaker 1: true believers in God, and not just the physical descendants.
Speaker 20: You see, the issue here is that you're bringing external interpretation,
Speaker 20: which is no.
Speaker 1: But see everyone does that. You do the same thing.
Speaker 1: It's just that you have a different period an example.
Speaker 20: So when I say the House of is and the
Speaker 20: House of Judah always in always speaking about the health
Speaker 20: of his in the like house of Truda, what's like
Speaker 20: this is different to what you're doing by by bringing
Speaker 20: the New Testment.
Speaker 1: Again, everyone brings their paradigm to any specific text. You
Speaker 1: do it, I do it. We have different paradigms. So
Speaker 1: what you're calling out is a feature of everybody's world.
Speaker 1: You're not something that's unique to mine.
Speaker 20: Right, That's that's that's I do hear what he's saying.
Speaker 20: But he says the basis of that your interpretation that
Speaker 20: you would say is based exclusively from the from the Church.
Speaker 1: Well, again, our paradigms will determine how it's even understood
Speaker 1: back in the old times. So for example, did Abraham
Speaker 1: believe in a Unitarian deity or did he believe in
Speaker 1: the Messiah? The Christian arguing but it's part of but
Speaker 1: but it is, but it's part of my argument. So
Speaker 1: I know you don't believe that. You're not argue in that,
Speaker 1: but I'm saying that that's part of our paradigm, right.
Speaker 20: Right, But I'm not trying to do that argue every
Speaker 20: aspect within your palad and co perhaps for another time,
Speaker 20: and the difference.
Speaker 1: I didn't I didn't think you were. I've just given
Speaker 1: an example of how I'm.
Speaker 20: All for examples, Like you know, I do like examples,
Speaker 20: and I do that stuff. But look, every time health
Speaker 20: and health of JUDI are a reference.
Speaker 1: Within How do you know that you're just saying that
Speaker 1: that's the case based on your paradigm.
Speaker 3: I read it and every.
Speaker 1: Time Okay, so that's so that's how we do So
Speaker 1: when I read it, and I can just say every
Speaker 1: time it presents my position, is that how it works?
Speaker 20: You can if it's logical to the context of the
Speaker 20: Old Testament.
Speaker 1: Well, but that's again gonna depend depend like, give me.
Speaker 3: Some sort of argument against my interpretation.
Speaker 1: With well, you just asserted that your interpretation. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: giving you an argument. I'm giving you an argument. It's
Speaker 1: an epistemic argument that you just asserted that every time
Speaker 1: it is your position, and that's because that's what it says,
Speaker 1: and that's what the old times it says. That's just
Speaker 1: asserting your position. How do we know that every time
Speaker 1: that's the case, because.
Speaker 20: We can look for the context and we can see
Speaker 20: when is that speak to the people?
Speaker 1: Okay? But see if we went with that perspective, then
Speaker 1: messianic prophecies would only be relevant to the immediate context.
Speaker 1: They would never be a future prophecy.
Speaker 3: When did that?
Speaker 1: No, I'm saying that, So it's a double it's a
Speaker 1: double standard. So if we went with your original point
Speaker 1: there that it always only means the immediate context, then
Speaker 1: you could never have a Messianic prophecy.
Speaker 10: That is a condition.
Speaker 1: No, I know you didn't say that. That's my argument
Speaker 1: and critique of your position.
Speaker 3: So wasn't my positioning.
Speaker 1: What you just said? If it was consistent, would then
Speaker 1: have to reject the notion that the Messianic prophecies have
Speaker 1: an immediate and a future fulfillment.
Speaker 20: Can you can you can you repeat my statement what
Speaker 20: I said?
Speaker 1: You just said house of Israel only refers to the
Speaker 1: literal physical house of Israel.
Speaker 20: Right, No, that's not what I said.
Speaker 3: No, I said the House of Israel and the House
Speaker 3: of Judah. Okay, okay, a reference for example.
Speaker 1: Okay, this is sophistry. So you don't want you just
Speaker 1: want to play word games and argue over shibbole.
Speaker 20: What do you mean I'm playing word games? You you
Speaker 20: just strow argument.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't a straw man. It was just restay
Speaker 1: in your position.
Speaker 20: I'm not trying to said the house of Israel, but
Speaker 20: I said house of Israel and the House.
Speaker 3: Of Judah always for example.
Speaker 1: Okay, it wasn't trying to the position.
Speaker 20: Okay, that's fine, So let's go back to the coos
Speaker 20: of this whole. So the prophecies I'm speaking about are
Speaker 20: the restoration of Israel and Judah. And it's so this
Speaker 20: is what I'm referencing alongside you, my thirty one. So
Speaker 20: how do you reconsult the fact that the house is
Speaker 20: of Busbe and the House of Judah has.
Speaker 3: Not been brought together?
Speaker 20: But like Ezekiel said, like zacly Lychet the tenth, how
Speaker 20: do you reconsult the fact that within the timeframe of
Speaker 20: the first century, in fact the opposite happened. They were
Speaker 20: exiled instead of being returned.
Speaker 1: Yes, just simply that the House of Israel and the
Speaker 1: House of Judah are not, in this case literal and
Speaker 1: strictly only the physical descendants.
Speaker 20: Can you show me that within the Old Testament? Can
Speaker 20: you give me some scriptural support within the Old Testament
Speaker 20: for them?
Speaker 1: Yeah, like the fact that to be a true Israelite means,
Speaker 1: as Jeremiah says, your heart is circumcised, and that the
Speaker 1: physical flesh circumcision is not what makes you right with God,
Speaker 1: because many people before Abraham were right with God, like
Speaker 1: Noah right.
Speaker 20: But I'm actually in terms of when the health of
Speaker 20: this or when the house of.
Speaker 1: Judah was no one was no one made right with God?
Speaker 20: Was Noah from the health of Judah or from the
Speaker 20: health of Israel.
Speaker 1: Well, the point is that what makes one right with
Speaker 1: God is not the biological physical descent.
Speaker 2: That's the point I never said that.
Speaker 3: I just said and help choosing right.
Speaker 1: So the point that I'm making is that that shows,
Speaker 1: as Paul argues, that he's correct to say that the
Speaker 1: true Israel has always been those who are believers in
Speaker 1: God from the heart, and that physical circumcision was a
Speaker 1: time bound external symbol and not what made you right
Speaker 1: with God. So it was it was always the spiritual Israel.
Speaker 20: So when Ezekill, for for example, chapter thirty speaks about
Speaker 20: following the Lord right and wishes in a wish wishes
Speaker 20: in a reference to Jamia thirty one, right, So, like
Speaker 20: I said, I'm just because yeah.
Speaker 1: But so so if I can go to rabbinical debates
Speaker 1: right now on YouTube and I can find rabbis, they
Speaker 1: admit that because you don't keep the law, because there's
Speaker 1: not a temple, that God looks upon your good works,
Speaker 1: as if that was the keeping of the law, Oh,
Speaker 1: you mean the Christian position. So you see that constantly
Speaker 1: in the rabbinic Judaism. You guys admit the very principles
Speaker 1: that we have. Another example would be that you guys
Speaker 1: admit that there's two different Messiahs and the talent. There's
Speaker 1: Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah and David. Those for you.
Speaker 1: Hold on those, those for you reconcile the text that
Speaker 1: we bring up about the two comings of the Messiah.
Speaker 1: But what that shows is that at every point you
Speaker 1: have a way to just turn it back into not
Speaker 1: recognizing Christ as the Messiah.
Speaker 3: Okay, you want to be emotional. Was clearly emotional.
Speaker 1: I just made you two arguments. So now you're saying
Speaker 1: that I'm making emotional.
Speaker 3: You haven't even addressed Yeah, my.
Speaker 1: Argument was that again. So now you're you're you're Now
Speaker 1: you're getting refuted because I know what's in the talent.
Speaker 1: Now you're calling me emotional when I just made two
Speaker 1: different arguments to you.
Speaker 3: You haven't even addressed my argument.
Speaker 1: Me address it for the third time that the physical
Speaker 1: dissent was never what made you at Israelite. It was
Speaker 1: always whether you from the heart were circumcised. And so
Speaker 1: Noah was part of true Israel. That's the argument.
Speaker 20: But that goes against scripture when, for example, I mean
Speaker 20: I asked you if Noah was righteous, and you ignored
Speaker 20: it was Noah righteous?
Speaker 1: Was Noah righteous or not?
Speaker 20: I'm not arguing with Noah was righteous?
Speaker 1: I arguement.
Speaker 10: I know you're not.
Speaker 1: I am so so the whole chat, dude, nobody's buying
Speaker 1: your argument. You don't want to address it.
Speaker 20: If I go an argument to the table and you
Speaker 20: want to delve into new you want me.
Speaker 1: To bring the So the fourth time, you want me
Speaker 1: to bring the argument that it was never the physical
Speaker 1: descent that made you righteous? How about that for the
Speaker 1: fourth time?
Speaker 20: So why does the New Testament comb in Master Chapter
Speaker 20: one that Jesus is semicided through the bloodline of David,
Speaker 20: which is.
Speaker 1: Ak Yeah, you don't know that. We believe that that
Speaker 1: was the whole point of him being born of both
Speaker 1: Adam and Abraham and David is to fulfill those prophecies.
Speaker 1: So that's not even an argument.
Speaker 20: No, I'm saying that you do believe that physical slush.
Speaker 1: But I didn't say it had no relationship. I said
Speaker 1: had nothing to do ultimately with what made you the
Speaker 1: true Israel. Was Job a part of Israel.
Speaker 3: I'm arguing with that.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you don't want to So, yeah, you don't
Speaker 1: want to address the point. That's the thing.
Speaker 20: Was was Joe from the descendants of the of the
Speaker 20: twelve Sons of Jacob aka Israel?
Speaker 1: Was Noah part of Israel?
Speaker 20: No Noah came God knows how many decades.
Speaker 1: And so being a biological descendant as Acts fifteen, and
Speaker 1: as Paul argues, is not ultimately what made you at
Speaker 1: true ISRAELI.
Speaker 3: I could can see that faith is important.
Speaker 20: I'm not arguing with faith support. I'm arguing that when
Speaker 20: it speaks about the House of Israel and the House
Speaker 20: of Judah always references are with the physical.
Speaker 1: People, that's your presupposition that it always only means the physical.
Speaker 1: And I'm lenging that.
Speaker 3: Show when it doesn't, then show me time when.
Speaker 1: No I was made righteous with God and so he's
Speaker 1: part of the heavenly Jerusalem of the true people. Got
Speaker 1: It's about where Jeremiah himself. Jeremiah himself says that to
Speaker 1: be right with God means that you're circumcised in your heart.
Speaker 1: How about that?
Speaker 3: Is I know? To be right with God?
Speaker 20: I do believe that Gentiles will come to that. No,
Speaker 20: I'm arguing, I'm arguing with the health of Judah.
Speaker 1: How was Melchiz a priest of God?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 1: How is that?
Speaker 3: Why are we jumping?
Speaker 1: Because because these things disprove your presupposition that every text
Speaker 1: refers to the biological descendants, and I'm giving you multiple
Speaker 1: people who were made right with God and thus constitute
Speaker 1: part of spiritual Israel.
Speaker 3: God, That's not what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing that.
Speaker 1: You then these things disprove your argument. How does it not?
Speaker 20: Because one says the ancestors that I took you out
Speaker 20: to Egypt, none of the no joke.
Speaker 1: You're missing the point. The point is that spiritual Israel.
Speaker 3: So can you should be wait jail my phoot one?
Speaker 20: When it says your ancestors that I took you out
Speaker 20: to Egypt?
Speaker 1: Can you give me so this is what you do
Speaker 1: like you don't accept canonical holistic interpretation. You only accept
Speaker 1: what works for you in the immediate, self evident right
Speaker 1: interpretation of the text.
Speaker 2: Right, that's not true because when which.
Speaker 1: Is why, which is why I brought up So you're inconsistent, right,
Speaker 1: because that's when I brought up messianic right, So no,
Speaker 1: you already admitted. You already admitted that Messianic prophecies can
Speaker 1: be immediate and future fulfillment. Did you not I.
Speaker 20: Said mission prophecies are mythic when so you.
Speaker 1: Won't answer, Yeah, you won't answer. Clearly, you double talk
Speaker 1: on this. So do they did Cyrus have? Did Cyrus
Speaker 1: text Isaiah have an immedia and a future fulfillment or not?
Speaker 3: Immediate?
Speaker 1: It wasn't a media. It wasn't about it wasn't about Cyrus.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's why I said immediate.
Speaker 1: Okay, So it's not about the Messiah.
Speaker 3: Because because so it has to.
Speaker 1: This is what I argued ten minutes ago.
Speaker 20: To the son of David to Thomas. Siah is never
Speaker 20: exclusive to the son of.
Speaker 1: I'm just asking for a future. So you want to
Speaker 1: address this point which re future the refusion. Yeah, I've
Speaker 1: already addressed it five times and you won't address it.
Speaker 1: So I have.
Speaker 10: Wow.
Speaker 1: So he's admitting earlier on that there can be Messianic
Speaker 1: prophecies that have an immediate fulfillment and then they relate
Speaker 1: to the Messiah in the future. So that's a double
Speaker 1: principle that I'm talking about. But then when we go
Speaker 1: to his text and his example, there's no double fulfillments.
Speaker 1: That's not allowed. It only refers to the immediate historical case, right,
Speaker 1: And if it only refers to the media historical case,
Speaker 1: then that was my earlier point that, well, then there's
Speaker 1: no messianic prophecies like the statements about David that also
Speaker 1: replied to the applied to the Messiah. So it can't
Speaker 1: be either or, and it can't be both, and except
Speaker 1: for when he wants it to be. So that's a
Speaker 1: double standard. And when I start talking about the other examples,
Speaker 1: what does he do? He says, no, you only can
Speaker 1: only you can only talk about Jeremiah thirty one. You
Speaker 1: can't talk about these other examples or whatever. What's up?
Speaker 1: Do we even know if that person was Jewish? It
Speaker 1: could have been like a he could have been a
Speaker 1: Christian evangelical and who knows, Josh, I mean, I have
Speaker 1: the Jewish study Bible. It literally says constantly throughout the
Speaker 1: Old Testament when it's a Messianic prophecy, and many of
Speaker 1: these Messianic prophecies are sections of Psalms, sections of Jeremiah
Speaker 1: that apply to the future and to the immediate president
Speaker 1: of a writer. So it's David and it's the Messiah,
Speaker 1: and David is an image of the Messiah. Right. They
Speaker 1: even say Jews even think that the Messiah will be
Speaker 1: a Davidic ruler. So clearly David is a kind of
Speaker 1: future Messianic leader. Right. So it's a both and, But
Speaker 1: when we actually go to the various texts, there is
Speaker 1: no both, and it's only immediate historical literal interpretation. So
Speaker 1: you see that that Judaism has typically had to do
Speaker 1: this move where when they argue with a Christian there's
Speaker 1: only the immediate grammatical historical. But when you go to
Speaker 1: Jewish exegetes, they believe in the four senses of scripture.
Speaker 1: Did you know that? It's called part aes p r
Speaker 1: d S. But they won't argue this way when they're
Speaker 1: arguing publicly with people. So just like we have the
Speaker 1: four senses of the texts, the you know, the literal,
Speaker 1: the allegorical, anagogical, et cetera, they have the exact same
Speaker 1: thing and they utilize it when they need to for
Speaker 1: their exegesus see this part ase Jewish hermaeuticts and it's
Speaker 1: basically the same as what we talk about peshat the
Speaker 1: simple straightforward meaning remez. They hinted at spiritual meaning, druche drosch,
Speaker 1: the digging meaning, and then the highest is sewed the
Speaker 1: secret meaning. Now, that could be cobbilistic stuff, who knows, right,
Speaker 1: that could go off into that could go off in
Speaker 1: the directions that we don't agree with. But medieval Judaism
Speaker 1: even is it's even, this is even I don't mean
Speaker 1: this is Wikipedia. So it could be complete crap, but
Speaker 1: it's noting that in medieval Cobbalists like Moses Daily owned
Speaker 1: they just adopted the fourfold method of medieval Christian exegesus.
Speaker 1: So the surface, the allegorical, the hidden, the mists serious
Speaker 1: mystical right, and for those that don't know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about, it's just called the fourfold sense. For the Christians,
Speaker 1: it was the literal, allegorical, the tropological, and the anagogical.
Speaker 1: These are the four senses that actually you can find it,
Speaker 1: even going back to Filo and he was influenced by Platonism.
Speaker 1: You can find the fourfold sense in people like Origin Augustin.
Speaker 1: A lot of church fathers talk about the fourfold sense.
Speaker 1: Maximus even talks about it. So so this is what
Speaker 1: so he's acting like in rabbinical exegesis, there's only the
Speaker 1: grammatical historical. That's not true. They don't even believe that.
Speaker 1: So it's not even their position be reconciled. Oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, I've forgot. I'm at my I'm at this
Speaker 1: house where I actually have my Jewish study Bible, so
Speaker 1: I could actually get the Messianic prophecies out. H. I
Speaker 1: have to find it there it is. What's up? Dude?
Speaker 1: Are you there? All right? You're not connecting Baron's you're
Speaker 1: Baron Yogurt.
Speaker 3: Okay h hello there, yep, heh, how you go?
Speaker 1: That's up? So just a couple of questions.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, very recently, I've kind of like come.
Speaker 13: To reject sort of the competence reform position. So now
Speaker 13: I'm kind of sitting in like a middle ground in
Speaker 13: between going either towards a more like a like a
Speaker 13: Latent Flowers provisionist camp or going to Eastern Christianity. So
Speaker 13: I guess one of my main issues that it always
Speaker 13: kind of kept me away from Orthodoxy where was was,
Speaker 13: of course the veneration of icons and saints, particularly the
Speaker 13: argument that has to do with the progenese. It's being
Speaker 13: used at the Centate Ecaminical Council and within scriptures for example,
Speaker 13: and acts when the centurion is vowing to Peter, that's
Speaker 13: the where it's used there, And of course in Revelation
Speaker 13: when John is founding down to the Angel. Could you
Speaker 13: sort of explain, maybe with the Worthodox position on those
Speaker 13: different uses of prognasios, because I also understand as well
Speaker 13: that like when Christ says that he will take you
Speaker 13: kind of enemies of the faith that make them bow
Speaker 13: down and worship at the feet of the faithful, he
Speaker 13: uses the same word there too, So I guess I'm
Speaker 13: kind of mixed up on that.
Speaker 1: I don't understand your question.
Speaker 13: What so so, the word progonasios, which is the word
Speaker 13: that the Seventh Ecumenical Council defines this veneration of that's
Speaker 13: acceptable to images, is used in multiple areas of scripture,
Speaker 13: and it seems like, yeah.
Speaker 1: That's good, and it seems like.
Speaker 13: What well, it seems like it's used so, for example,
Speaker 13: it's used within the s Tuagin version.
Speaker 2: Of the Second Commandment to.
Speaker 13: Ben like buying down to idols.
Speaker 1: Because it's just generic words don't have one reference. It
Speaker 1: depends on the context. So just because the word you
Speaker 1: look at the word, and a Protestant idea that I
Speaker 1: just look up the word in a Greek dictionary and
Speaker 1: then it tells me what it means in every case. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of situations where a word might have different senses,
Speaker 1: like the word hypostasis. Sometimes it refers to the nature,
Speaker 1: sometimes it refers to the person that has the nature.
Speaker 1: So just because there's a word that's used in one
Speaker 1: sense or in one way, it doesn't mean that it
Speaker 1: always has that meaning. So no, I mean bowing down.
Speaker 1: Let's just say the word bowing. Okay, that'd be like
Speaker 1: thinking that the word bowingness necessarily means idolatry. Well, no,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of cases where people bow before rulers or
Speaker 1: before kings and it's not idolatry.
Speaker 13: Yeah, right, I think you definitely see that too. I
Speaker 13: guess it's it's kind of hard to parse out sometimes
Speaker 13: which which examples I mean, I mean, let me see you,
Speaker 13: for example, the centurion buying down to Peter. I mean,
Speaker 13: I can I can understand the argument from Protestants that say, like, well,
Speaker 13: if you can't do it to actually Peter, why can
Speaker 13: you do it to an indigent Peter.
Speaker 2: But I mean, I don't know where.
Speaker 1: What do you mean, why would people people bow down
Speaker 1: before men all the time in the Bible? What are
Speaker 1: you talking about?
Speaker 13: But in that instance and acts, when the centurion bows
Speaker 13: down to Peter, he's repeat by Peter saying I'm only
Speaker 13: a man.
Speaker 1: No, I'm talking about the other examples where Joseph bows
Speaker 1: before Pharaoh or before Elisha, prostrates before Elijah. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of instances of this, know, So do you
Speaker 1: understand that it's not the external it's not the external action.
Speaker 1: It's the motivation and intentionality in the heart that constitutes idolatry.
Speaker 1: So understand all of Israel prostrates before Solomon in the Arc?
Speaker 1: Was that universal idolatry when they did that?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: Well why not if prostrating is what is idolatry?
Speaker 13: Yeah, okay, I see where you're it'd be more about
Speaker 13: the disposition of the heart rather than the action itself.
Speaker 13: I suppose it's what the the position you're expounding.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, idolatry is an action of the heart
Speaker 1: that's been manifested in some visible way. So it's true that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I might I might bow before an angel,
Speaker 1: and in my heart I think that the angel is
Speaker 1: has the divine nature, and that would be what is rebukable,
Speaker 1: right like when John is told not to worship the angels,
Speaker 1: right right?
Speaker 13: Okay, yeah, this isn't another big thing too that I mean,
Speaker 13: I think you've been bringing up as well that I
Speaker 13: think the way Protestants work harmonetics is uh, it's it's
Speaker 13: deeply flats. It's so worried about the meaning of these
Speaker 13: Greek words and the historical context, and it kind of
Speaker 13: passes over I think, actually how the.
Speaker 2: Apostles are doing it.
Speaker 13: I mean, if you look at for example, this is
Speaker 13: huge to me reading Stevens Martyrdom, where he's addressing like
Speaker 13: how Moses killed the slave master as being typological of
Speaker 13: what God was going to do to Israel. He's making
Speaker 13: an outcorical.
Speaker 2: Argument interpretation there.
Speaker 3: So I just don't understand why.
Speaker 13: I guess as far as I'm kind of ram a
Speaker 13: lot about this point, but that's that's a huge issue
Speaker 13: for me too. It's like, well, maybe maybe the way
Speaker 13: they're doing hermidics is completely false, but I won't think
Speaker 13: it too much more time. But what works do you
Speaker 13: have specifically that would be good on this issue of
Speaker 13: the Centatacy Medical Council view of iconography, and maybe on
Speaker 13: biblical hermoneudicts.
Speaker 1: I mean read St. Theodore or the STUDEI only holy icons,
Speaker 1: and read John Damascus's on the Holy images, and then
Speaker 1: read the book Williams and install book on how Orthodox
Speaker 1: worship is the continuation of the Temple and the synagogue system,
Speaker 1: and the temple and the synagogue both had icons. I mean,
Speaker 1: why did God filled up? Why did God put a
Speaker 1: bunch of images in the temple? If he's an iconoclastic deity.
Speaker 2: That's true. And of course the baptistry.
Speaker 1: You're a europe too, Yeah, exactly, thank you for that. Now.
Speaker 1: I got sidetracked there because I wanted to look up
Speaker 1: in the Jewish Study Bible, which shouldn't be too controversial,
Speaker 1: an example of something I'm talking about. And for example,
Speaker 1: Psalm Too. I think everybody knows that's a Messianic palm.
Speaker 1: It's kind of obvious one, right, And what do we
Speaker 1: see in Psalm Too? Well, we see a historical person, David,
Speaker 1: is this controversial? Do we agree on this?
Speaker 3: Or?
Speaker 1: And the notes? I understand that the notes aren't infallible
Speaker 1: but I mean the notes in the Jewish Study Bible
Speaker 1: say that when it calls down has anointed, it might
Speaker 1: refer to Messiah the king. Here the same term is
Speaker 1: used to refer to the future Messianic ruler, like a
Speaker 1: Davidic king. The relationship between God and the king is
Speaker 1: very close to attack. The Lord's anointed is equated with
Speaker 1: attacking him. The Davidic king was viewed by some as
Speaker 1: God's earthly representative. So now, wait a minute, is the
Speaker 1: prophecy about David or the Messiah? Now remember on that
Speaker 1: God's line of argumentation, can't be the Messiah. It's got
Speaker 1: to only be David because it's a historic, literal historical.
Speaker 1: Because his argument was that any time House of Israel
Speaker 1: and Jacob is used, it only refers to the physical descendants. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we can't think about the immediate historical context and
Speaker 1: the future spiritual fulfillment because in their own text they
Speaker 1: do the same thing. They'll say the immediate historical is David,
Speaker 1: but it's also a reference to the Messiah. Well wait
Speaker 1: a minute, how do you how come you get to
Speaker 1: do that? Well, that's because that's that's what the text says.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, well, then then the text says what I say.
Speaker 1: I mean just saying, well, that's what the text says
Speaker 1: I mean. And most of the Messianic prophecies operate this way. Well,
Speaker 1: now I wouldn't say most of the many of them
Speaker 1: operate where we have something that stated about the time,
Speaker 1: like what I said about Isaiah nineteen, and then a
Speaker 1: future fulfillment, which there are. In other words, I'm just
Speaker 1: saying that they have the exact same principle we do.
Speaker 1: But then they're saying that you can't do that the
Speaker 1: burden of Egypt, and then it talks about God's judgment
Speaker 1: on Egypt. Now that's this is a judgment that is
Speaker 1: something in Isaiah day right where he's talking about something
Speaker 1: going on at that time. But there's this fulfillment of
Speaker 1: a future point where there will be an altar in Egypt.
Speaker 1: But how as a Jew, could there ever be an
Speaker 1: altar in Egypt because the only valid place to have
Speaker 1: an altar is the temple? So how is a Jew
Speaker 1: going to make sense of this? How is it you
Speaker 1: going to make sense of gentile priests as Isaiah predicts.
Speaker 1: It obviously can't be something that was only in the
Speaker 1: day of Isaiah or right, there's no gentile priest. You
Speaker 1: can't have an altar because every Jew that would argue,
Speaker 1: for example, against a Samaritan would say that the only
Speaker 1: place you could have the temple was in Jerusalem. You
Speaker 1: can't have your temple in Samaria. Okay, Well, then where
Speaker 1: does this altar in Egypt come from. You can't have
Speaker 1: an altar in Egypt. There's no temple in Egypt. So
Speaker 1: there's an immediate event and then there's a future fulfillment.
Speaker 1: The future fulfillment makes sense in Christianity to where the
Speaker 1: worship of the God of Israel goes out through the
Speaker 1: Church to Egypt. I'm curious what the Jewish Study Bible
Speaker 1: says about this passage in Isaiah nineteen. Let's see what
Speaker 1: it says. In that day there will be an altar
Speaker 1: to the Lord in Egypt. So this is nineteen nineteen.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Interesting, there's no notes, so you can see
Speaker 1: for yourself. The verse is Isaiah nineteen nineteen, and the
Speaker 1: Jewish Study Bible conveniently skips it. You're you're gonna say,
Speaker 1: I'm making it up. I'll show it to you. Nineteen nineteen.
Speaker 1: Look at the notes. See it right, there the Jewish
Speaker 1: Study Bible notes skip Isaiah nineteen nineteen. I wonder why, well,
Speaker 1: why and how could there ever be an altar in Egypt?
Speaker 1: To Yahweh? Now on the last maybe they don't skip it.
Speaker 1: Let me go back to the page before. It says,
Speaker 1: these passages share a vision of a new world order,
Speaker 1: and ethnicities will remain distinct, but they will all adopt
Speaker 1: Monotheism and worship the God of Israel. This refers to
Speaker 1: Jewish communities in Egypt. So but wait a minute, Jewish
Speaker 1: communities can't set up an altar outside of Israel. Otherwise
Speaker 1: you're going to have to admit that the Samaritans also
Speaker 1: have the worship of God because they can set up
Speaker 1: altars outside of Israel. Right, But the pastor doesn't address
Speaker 1: how could there be an altar. It just says that, well,
Speaker 1: this is just symbolically Jews worshiping in Egypt. So it
Speaker 1: does comment on the passage, it just wasn't on that page.
Speaker 1: It was on the page before the Talmud says that
Speaker 1: this refers to a future prediction of a temple in
Speaker 1: one sixty BCE, But it says a temple in Egypt.
Speaker 1: So so you see The point I'm making is that
Speaker 1: when there's a problem text like that, they'll just say, well,
Speaker 1: you can't apply that to the future, But then they
Speaker 1: are allowed to you see SERI fan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hello, can you er?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Are you doing, Matt good? What's up?
Speaker 10: Yeah?
Speaker 15: So about that guy you joined a few minutes ago,
Speaker 15: the Jewish guy, I actually know who he is. He's
Speaker 15: I've spoken to him on Discord before. And have you
Speaker 15: heard of speak his corner.
Speaker 1: In the UK? Yeah, I've heard of it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's he's.
Speaker 15: Really well known with the Jewish community there and he's
Speaker 15: been attacked a few times there. Actually you can see
Speaker 15: the videos of it on YouTube.
Speaker 1: I wonder.
Speaker 15: Yeah, usually by by Muslims, like it's nearly always Muslims
Speaker 15: and Jews, like the Christians generally just stick to themselves.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's that's who he is. But I was just.
Speaker 15: I kind of I just wanted to join the call
Speaker 15: because I wanted to share this story about what happened
Speaker 15: to me and if you could like comment on it.
Speaker 1: So story there having that happened.
Speaker 2: To me and my mum recently.
Speaker 15: Actually, yes, So my mom worked at a school and
Speaker 15: when I was at this school, like ten years ago.
Speaker 2: It's a school for ages four to twelve.
Speaker 15: It was a totally normal school. Like the behavior of
Speaker 15: everyone was just perfect. There wasn't no like fighting or
Speaker 15: anything of that nature, no bad language, just a totally
Speaker 15: normal school. And since I've left, you know, she's still
Speaker 15: at the school now, ten years later, and the behavior
Speaker 15: of all of the kids is like, you know, she
Speaker 15: described it to me as feral, you know, just totally
Speaker 15: like bouncing off the walls crazy. And you know, in
Speaker 15: the last few months alone, she's had kids throw bricks
Speaker 15: at her, she's had kids bite her, she's had kids
Speaker 15: like trying and tackle her, she's had one kid trying stab.
Speaker 10: Her, you know.
Speaker 15: And and I was looking at this.
Speaker 2: And it just doesn't feel right.
Speaker 15: You know, something in the air doesn't feel right with
Speaker 15: kids today, Like the whole dynamic of of like kids
Speaker 15: behavior has change.
Speaker 2: So why is it changed so much?
Speaker 3: You know? Is it is it diet?
Speaker 15: Is it well diet like what people are oh diet, Yeah, that's.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, I think it's all the above. Right. So
Speaker 1: Isaiah says that when things get bad, women and children
Speaker 1: become your rulers. So women and children rule over you,
Speaker 1: and they dictate to adults and to men how things go.
Speaker 1: And that's because the society has completely degenerated. But as
Speaker 1: to why kids are that way, it's toxic food, toxic culture,
Speaker 1: toxic parenting, toxic education, it's all of it.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I mean I've never seen anything like it, you know,
Speaker 15: in the in the UK now, and if I compare
Speaker 15: it to America, I don't remember things ever being this bad,
Speaker 15: like on basically every measurable scale, you know, just the
Speaker 15: total breakdown of societal trusts compared to like ten years ago.
Speaker 15: You know, we used to be able to leave our
Speaker 15: dolls open and stuff, and now we can't leave our
Speaker 15: door open.
Speaker 2: Because there's just so much crime. There's so much degenera see,
Speaker 2: there's so much worry.
Speaker 15: And you know, with you being an American maybe it's
Speaker 15: a little bit different, but this is totally alien to
Speaker 15: us in the UK because we used to have really
Speaker 15: tight communities, especially in the North of England where I'm from.
Speaker 15: We had tight communities where people trust each other. You know,
Speaker 15: basically everybody was a Christian and everyone, you know, not
Speaker 15: everyone but large contingents went to church and you know,
Speaker 15: we're celebrating the streets together and all this kind of
Speaker 15: like romantic idea of a perfect society.
Speaker 2: Small thing has just broken down them. You know, I'm
Speaker 2: a young lad, you.
Speaker 15: Know, I'm twenty one years old, and I'm trying to
Speaker 15: tell my friends about this, and they just don't understand.
Speaker 15: You know.
Speaker 2: It feels like I'm almost being gaslighted by them through
Speaker 2: acknowledging this.
Speaker 15: And what would you say to somebody like me, he
Speaker 15: was trying to convince my friends and my people I
Speaker 15: go to church with, this is you know, serious concern.
Speaker 2: How would you wake them up to this?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: I mean I don't know if there is any specific
Speaker 1: secret way to wake them up. I mean I would
Speaker 1: say you just got to like find people that are
Speaker 1: open minded and try to talk to them, and if
Speaker 1: they're not, you just move on. There isn't any like
Speaker 1: secret way to do it, right.
Speaker 15: Yeah, I mean fair enough, it's I suppose it's one
Speaker 15: of the things you just have to persevere with, you know,
Speaker 15: just just get on with it. But yeah, I mean
Speaker 15: that's basically I wanted to share.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I appreciate the Yeah. Well, I'm sorry it's
Speaker 1: getting bad there. I mean, you know it sounds crazy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: appreciate that. Yeah, I was looking up some more of
Speaker 1: these examples. In Isaiah sixty six, for example, you have
Speaker 1: the statement that there will be gentile priests. How is
Speaker 1: that possible? Where God says I will take some of
Speaker 1: these that are brought from amongst the gentiles to be priests,
Speaker 1: and the Jewish Study Bible admits that this is a
Speaker 1: departure from the previous.
Speaker 10: Texts.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Well, it's not a departure if you understand, if
Speaker 1: you have the Christian interpretation. Right. So here's what the
Speaker 1: note says. They say gentile priests serving in Jerusalem, a
Speaker 1: radical departure from numbers which says that only the descendants
Speaker 1: of Moses brother Aaron can be priests, or it is
Speaker 1: just Israelites. So even though it says gentiles, well let's
Speaker 1: just say it say Israelites.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 1: So there's the note. But there's the same text in
Speaker 1: Isaiah sixty one, which says very clearly, strangers will pastor
Speaker 1: your flocks, and they will be called priests of the Lord.
Speaker 1: How could a gentile who's obviously who a stranger is
Speaker 1: be a pastor and a priest because only a descendant
Speaker 1: of Moses can be a priest, right, what does the
Speaker 1: note say? The nations will serve the Jews. The Jews
Speaker 1: will in turn serve the nations. But the text says
Speaker 1: that members of the nations will be the priests. It
Speaker 1: doesn't say that the Jews are the only priests. So
Speaker 1: here is the note explaining and giving the exact opposite
Speaker 1: interpretation of what the text says. I remember that guy said,
Speaker 1: we just go with what the text says. Well, the
Speaker 1: text here says that Gentiles would be priests, does it not?
Speaker 1: And then you're the Jewish interpretation of the text says, well,
Speaker 1: it just means Jews will be priests, but it says
Speaker 1: that judge all will be taken as priests. How is
Speaker 1: that possible given Mosaic law and the Jewish interpretation? So
Speaker 1: you see what they do with the texts. So ironically,
Speaker 1: they don't even believe what the actual literal meaning of
Speaker 1: the text says. And that's why Rabbinic Judaism then resorts
Speaker 1: to all of these wild speculations to make the text
Speaker 1: say whatever they needed to say at the time. And
Speaker 1: that's why Rabbinic Judaism doesn't make any sense and has
Speaker 1: two different Messiahs Messiah Ben Joseph Messiah and David let's
Speaker 1: read some superchats. I'm getting hot and tired, and plus
Speaker 1: it's time for the Bitcoin conference. Oscar fo out five dollars.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your devotion and work from Paris, France.
Speaker 1: I love your impressions. Thank you so much, Bobo ninety
Speaker 1: five to five dollars. This is a great content. Is
Speaker 1: always thinking. But but Michael Jaron cz one dollar, God,
Speaker 1: bless God, bless you. Vladimir Putin three dollars, would you
Speaker 1: agree that World War Two the Russians did not merely
Speaker 1: fight for Bolshevism, but for the preservation of Orthodoxy. I mean,
Speaker 1: I imagine many Russians thought that. I mean the Tiny
Speaker 1: Mustache Men followers actually marched into I think different places
Speaker 1: like Saint Petersburg, and they took various icons and treasures
Speaker 1: because they were going to quote preserve them. I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, they were looting, right. So one of the
Speaker 1: famous icons which ended up at the I think the
Speaker 1: Oca Cathedral in Chicago, is a famous Russian Orthodox icon
Speaker 1: that the Tiny Mustache followers tried to steal. And so
Speaker 1: there's a long history to that. Are the access powers?
Speaker 1: Were they trying to beget Nietzschean non Orthodox systems. I
Speaker 1: think that's part of the story. Yeah, I think they
Speaker 1: were experimenting with different type of power structures. You can
Speaker 1: see for example, Bertrand Russell, who favored socialism and Marxism.
Speaker 1: He talks about that he hopes for the success of
Speaker 1: both Bolshevism and Stalinism. They seem to walk that back
Speaker 1: later on zalmoxis, if revelation from God stopped after Malachi,
Speaker 1: why would we include books in the Intertestamental period in
Speaker 1: the Biblical canonate, Well, we're not. We don't believe revelations
Speaker 1: stopped in the Intertestamental period. I mean the New Testament
Speaker 1: cites the deuterocononical books many many times. There's prophecies of
Speaker 1: Christ in the Book of Wisdom. So sounds like just
Speaker 1: a Protestant presupposition. John Bullerman ten dollars, Black Hebrew Mennonites
Speaker 1: are the real Mennonites. That is actually true. Rolf Sax
Speaker 1: ten dollars give us or dear political take on Ubisoft's
Speaker 1: Assassin's Creed Black Samurai. That is turning into a diplomatic issue.
Speaker 1: I don't know about this, but I'm not surprised. But
Speaker 1: the solution is just to go back to the traditional
Speaker 1: Black Hebrew Israelite yah Coop theology of me as the
Speaker 1: actual reincarnation of yah Coop. That's the solution, really, the
Speaker 1: only solution. I told a five dollars jay. Have you
Speaker 1: seen all the Protestant channels like Rouselin claiming that the
Speaker 1: shooting of a police officer is a result of a
Speaker 1: devil possessing them and the woman rebuking her. Jamie asked
Speaker 1: me about this, but I have not seen this, so
Speaker 1: I don't know anything about it. But I don't know
Speaker 1: if I would immediately conclude that I told commanding five dollars.
Speaker 1: Billy is saying true things. Billy who Billy? I overheard
Speaker 1: this at dinner, Ao Shorty, Oh Billy Carson, Ao Shorty,
Speaker 1: come over here and get this energy coil for real. Bruh,
Speaker 1: we're about to take the copper straight off at this frame.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That was the Iya told Kamani of Iran
Speaker 1: Tutan five dollars. Brothers are watching Space Jam and they
Speaker 1: think it's a documentary. Are you saying it's not? Excuse me,
Speaker 1: Roscoe Rosenberg, ten dollars. Is there anything to the Simpsons
Speaker 1: and the repeated revelations of the method I would say,
Speaker 1: if there is anything to it is because Evergreen College
Speaker 1: has a history of being openly well known connected to
Speaker 1: the CIA. It's a famously CIA connected college, and I
Speaker 1: think many of the writers and people from the Simpsons
Speaker 1: come from Evergreen, So that would be my guess. And
Speaker 1: then I think a lot of the things are just coincidence.
Speaker 1: Bobby C five dollars. Is there such thing as a
Speaker 1: Jew post Christ or are they pagans like Islam? Or
Speaker 1: is there a more heretical sect or a Christian sect?
Speaker 1: I think that the New that the Church Fathers and
Speaker 1: the New Testament still considers Jews to be Jews. So
Speaker 1: I think this is important because as we think that
Speaker 1: there is a future conversion of Jews, and that's what
Speaker 1: we read many prophecies of and that's what many most
Speaker 1: of the Church Fathers believe in that. If you read
Speaker 1: John Damascus, he talks about that. If you read the
Speaker 1: Jordanville publication on Apostasy and Antichrist, it talks about future
Speaker 1: conversion of the Jews. So if there's gonna be a
Speaker 1: future conversion of the Jews, then obviously there have to
Speaker 1: still be Jews. So I don't think that they're pagan,
Speaker 1: But I don't think that rabbinic Judaism is coherent. I
Speaker 1: think that it's kind of like whatever they need it
Speaker 1: to be as a system at the moment. I wander
Speaker 1: mind you guys too that head on over to Chalk
Speaker 1: dot com. The show sponsor is Chalk. We have the
Speaker 1: most excellent red pill based supplement company out there, Chalk
Speaker 1: dot com. Use the promo code J forty four Lives.
Speaker 1: That's J y forty four l I f E to
Speaker 1: get a hold of the supplements over there. Chalk is
Speaker 1: right here c hoq dot com. I would recommend this
Speaker 1: Male Performance Stack being in the gym several months and
Speaker 1: getting a little more svelt, hopefully putting on some muscle
Speaker 1: for sure. I think Chalk has helped a lot with that.
Speaker 1: And I want to remind you guys that you can
Speaker 1: take use of that promo code to get almost half off, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, so you're not gonna be paying that, You're
Speaker 1: gonna be paying half of that with J forty four Life.
Speaker 1: You don't have to get this male Performance Stack. There's
Speaker 1: also Female Vitality Stack. There's also all kinds of other options.
Speaker 1: You can buy the individual products if you want to
Speaker 1: get the tong CATTLEE. You can use Romo cod J
Speaker 1: forty four life that's Jay four four l I f E.
Speaker 1: And also remember you can get my books over at
Speaker 1: Jason Neilsons dot com signed copies of us in her
Speaker 1: Hollywood one and two, and my philosophy texts over there
Speaker 1: my lectures as well. You can subscribe. You can get
Speaker 1: access to all that on rockfinto, which is a great
Speaker 1: free speech based platform or ok fi N And I
Speaker 1: will see all you guys who are available at the
Speaker 1: Bitcoin conference tomorrow and Saturday. Looking forward to that. It's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of fun Bitcoin. I think
Speaker 1: is this the answer to a lot of our economic issues.
Speaker 1: I saw some people tweeting the other day about the
Speaker 1: fact that we can never actually pay back the debt
Speaker 1: right to the national debt, can never actually we will
Speaker 1: always forever be paying the interest on the debt and
Speaker 1: never the actual debt. So there's no way out of this,
Speaker 1: and that means that eventually this system just can't continue,
Speaker 1: So some other new system seems to be necessary. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're not going to be Spanish conquistadors floating around on
Speaker 1: you know, fricking ships like Jack sparrow with giant chests
Speaker 1: of gold. Okay, we're not going back to sixteen hundreds.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was some version of
Speaker 1: digital gold that would work in the digital era? Oh well,
Speaker 1: there just happens to be that it's called bitcoin, Elliot b.
Speaker 1: Hello Jay, regarding the juice guy that you debated, there's
Speaker 1: other stuff in the Talmud. Google Yava moth sixty B
Speaker 1: and go to verse six.
Speaker 3: Sixty.
Speaker 1: All right, well let me look that up. And you
Speaker 1: said scroll down to six or what did you say? Six?
Speaker 1: The Gamara cites another ruling of Rabbi Shiman Binjojai related
Speaker 1: to the defining of a virgin. Yes, I'm familiar with
Speaker 1: these texts. They're gonna say that the texts are just debates,
Speaker 1: Like there's a bunch of rabbinical debates. So I'm familiar
Speaker 1: with all this. I knew all this stuff in two
Speaker 1: thousand and six. Dude, this is when I learned all
Speaker 1: the stuff. So none of that's new to me. Don't
Speaker 1: try to get me kicked off, her heir. But what
Speaker 1: the they're going to say is, well, these are just debates,
Speaker 1: and you'll realize that in rabbinic Judaism. They'll tell you
Speaker 1: just follow what the rabbi says. So in that system,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter if like the rabbi down the
Speaker 1: street contradicts your rabbi. In their system, you just follow
Speaker 1: your local rabbi. You don't worry with all of these
Speaker 1: conflicting interpretations of all the different texts. So that's what
Speaker 1: they're going to say to me. That suggests that, well,
Speaker 1: then the supposed immediate grammatical historical meaning of the text
Speaker 1: doesn't matter anymore. I thought that's what we were getting
Speaker 1: from the apologist to guy a minute ago. But wait
Speaker 1: a minute. If I'm just supposed to follow the local rabbi,
Speaker 1: what if he's got it wrong, Well, you don't worry
Speaker 1: about that. It's not very practical to do that. But
Speaker 1: then when I go to the rabbinical interpretations, it's all
Speaker 1: over the place. And they also have the four senses
Speaker 1: of the text like we do, but in their four
Speaker 1: senses it can go off into wild cabbalistic gimachio readings.
Speaker 1: So how do I know what the right reading of
Speaker 1: the text is. I thought it was supposed to be
Speaker 1: the easy, easy, simple grammatical historical reading, and that was
Speaker 1: the point I was trying to get to, the hermeneutic
Speaker 1: point at the beginning of the debate with that guy
Speaker 1: traumatized proxy. Ten dollars. Thank you for thinking outside of
Speaker 1: the box.