Speaker 1: I have a little and I made that out of play.
When it's trying ready, it's and dreda, I shall pay more.
I made that out of play. And when it's trying
ready it's been rada, I shall play. It has a
lovely body, it's with legs so short and things.
Speaker 2: When when it is so tired.
Speaker 1: And drops and then I want a car moreddle trainer
and I made her out of place. And when it's
trying ready it's and dreda, I shall pay. Nino is
always playful and loves.
Speaker 3: To dance and spin a happy game of brail complain
out it's vegan cradle. Title is commde it up claim
And when it's trying ready, I shall play. It's come
out of graves. And when it's trying ready than.
Speaker 4: Rad Hello, Hello, Hello, Welcome to made by Jim Bob. Today,
as promised, is a stream about dispensationalism. We're going to
go through the history of it, what it is, what
it's not, it's effects on policy, it's effects on modern theology,
and so on and so on and so on. We
have the privilege of having posh Redneck jump on as
well as mister J. Dyer Low volume for me, I'm
low volume. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, Okay,
hold on, here we go. How's that? Is that better?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 4: Stop?
Speaker 2: Hold on?
Speaker 4: Is that good? All right? Ah? That should be good?
My volume? Is this good? Okay? Good? That's good? All right?
So yeah, we'll have Jay dire on. He's coming off
a debate to On two. I thought that was a
pretty good debate.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: My position is, I think the best debate in regardless
to Islam and Christianity is in fact whether or not
they're compatible in the culture wars, because that's how Islam
is tying into uh modern politics. Culture is that the
you know, the sneak os are selling, oh we got
to unite that, John Zurkas are selling let's unite, let's unite.
We got to fight the demons, and we're like, we
don't even have the same demonology, brah. So hopefully that
comes down the line. So yeah, so uh, posh, I
don't know if you're in the chat or setting up
your computer or skinning a weasel. Jay will be a
little late, and that's fine because we're going to introduce
these concepts, start with some of their roots, their origins.
Question whether or not there are previous origins that these
are tying off of. I don't know. We'll see so, uh, posh,
he's probably restarting his computer. His computer probably looks like
an old lawnmower where you have to pull the string.
So we'll check out about that. But you know, we
can how can how can Islam save us from degeneraal? Yeah, yeah,
well it can't, can't. Yeah jump on now, posh. So
uh yeah, we'll get into it. I think it's I
think dispensationalism is from my view, it's one of the
most overlooked problems in the world. That's a big that's
a big statement. I think it's one of the most
overlooked paradigms. And it's so influential and everyone's confused. So
many people are confused. It affects people who quote call
themselves Christians, it affects non Christians view of certain policies,
certain uh geopolitics. It's so influential, and yet it's sort
of like this floating I don't even know, it's like
a floating infection. Boomers especially yeah, Boomers especially, absolutely the
boomers love it. I mean I even have like a clip.
This is the Boomer response, I mean, this is what
it This is basically what it looks like.
Speaker 2: Clear.
Speaker 5: Let me make it clear. Israel is our ally, will
always be our ally.
Speaker 4: They are not guilty.
Speaker 5: Ofcide and support forever.
Speaker 6: Even though they commit, even though I will always and Palestinians.
Speaker 7: And will it s upon you.
Speaker 4: I bet you didn't think you were gonna get one
of those today, but you did know you were gonna
get one of these.
Speaker 2: Hello, bosh, Hello.
Speaker 4: Welcome to the show. Long time, no see cheers, cheers
your cigarette.
Speaker 2: There we were already talking with a biz.
Speaker 4: I need to start already.
Speaker 2: I'll be talking coffee first.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, Now I have to make an intro for
j because, like, if he keeps coming back to the stream,
I'm gonna have to make my own intro. Do you
have any ideas if I make an intro for j
hm hmm.
Speaker 2: Could give it immediate here? I think like banjos and stuff. Yeah,
I have one of those giant x x X jugs.
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah yeah, or just a montage of him sighing
and saying like all right, i'mological yeah yeah, there's you're goofy,
just hanging up on people.
Speaker 2: A mute bro.
Speaker 4: So yeah, we can. We're gonna get started without Jay.
He'll be here shortly. But before we get into it,
is there anything you want to say generally about the
topic alone, anything you want to say generally speaking about.
Speaker 2: It about dispensationalism. Yeah, so it is basically a nexus
of everything wrong with Protestantism, including as we go through
its history early on, the differences between But I heard
from a little birdie that poshaps look your duels.
Speaker 4: Per I told the discord how to provoke you. Unfortunately,
so now they know. Okay, go on, dispensationalism isism.
Speaker 2: That's my best pearl impression. That's pretty good.
Speaker 4: Actually, the best pearl impression you have is just talk normally,
just without the British accent.
Speaker 2: That stuff on molan you as was established previously. But
if I get like ten beers in, then maybe you know, yeah,
we can have cognitive deterioration to that point. Okay, But
as I was saying, like, when we get to more specifics,
more with specifics like Darby versus Newton about pre trib rapture,
you know, and the critique of pre tribulation rapture is
no one has ever thought this before. And Macintosh one
of the disciples of Derby. You know, it says, well,
it doesn't matter that even if never in history, you know,
too or more were gathered than Jesus's name, that is
what the word says, you know. So it's always this
standalone interpretive schema that you can butcher into whatever the
bloody hell you'd like, and not to mention all the
emotional hype or the apocalypticism or the irrationalism, et cetera,
et cetera.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the question I was going to ask you.
Speaker 2: Or that means Republic of Serbia, are sure?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 4: I gotcha?
Speaker 5: Good?
Speaker 4: Represent what's up, Nanna? Yeah, I was going to ask
is it just out of the blue one of these
you know, these these views that just get constructed and
that it borrows some crappy biblical hermeneutics, or is it
something that's downstream from some bigger problems, like a heresy
or something. Is there something more foundational underneath it? Or
do you think it spawns sort of creatively, like someone
you know, changing the blocks around.
Speaker 2: Well, the great thing that Jay is well will be
here is that he gets the documents.
Speaker 4: You know, He's got the documents.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how to even research that properly
with these types of questions. He does, so we'll have
to ask him how much. You know, we can see
some type of direct influence. But when you asked me,
was this like the work the nasally and doubt, I
told you, yeah, I told you. Racialism in this sense
was very prevalent in the eighteenth and the nineteenth century
and in the beginning of the twentieth. You know, the
wholely eugenics program in the United States for people who
are like Wiganats in America who want to create the
category of white people need to understand that for the
American founding fathers, the Nordics were swarthy, so the chad
Norwegian vikings might as well have been Sudanese, so you know,
but it was racial thinking throughout, which is completely foreign
to the ancient world. Genetics had only started to prop
up as a proper science and not recognizing basic patterns.
You know, oh, this person looks like their father, their mother,
this one like their grandfather, et cetera. You know, just
basic pattern recognition. There was no ability to even discern
properly how it works on a mechanical level. Obviously, you know,
you don't get DNA until the nineteen fifties, so I'm
not even talking about that, But that's part of part
of the paradigm that's going to influence this reading of
Israel as a separate thing from the Church, and Israel
as a genetic entity, not as a spiritual religious entity.
You know, we hear like ethno religious group. There are
ethno religious group in the modern sense, even you know,
back then, some you know, Zoroasteralism has certain strains that
go that way, the Zds thing that way, the Drews
in who are technically some type of Arabic, but you know,
they also have this component of you can't convert into it,
you need to be born into it. And even with Judaism,
with all types of different sects, those who say you
can't convert, those who say you can convert, and when
you do, somehow ontologically or changed into a Jew. And
obviously those who are so liberal that nothing you know matters.
But even then those liberals are actually more in line
with the biblical understanding of things. But that's what I'm
The reason I'm saying all of this is that you
don't always need to have a surptitious element.
Speaker 8: The posh one thing I want to ask you about
that is that that noticing the genetic aspect and trying
to isolate that as some sort of meaningful category biblically.
Speaker 4: That makes sense. Wouldn't that make sense that they would
then extend that to a location to connect to that
genetic identity. But that's not to say that the location
is reel doesn't matter biblically, right, That just it's a
tying together that that is unnecessary, that that's incorrect. Is
that is that fair to say?
Speaker 2: Well, the thing is, even with the genetic the imputation
of modern genetic understanding, your nose grows all of a sudden.
You're good with money.
Speaker 4: We're trying to keep the stream up. After so people
learn about dispensationalism.
Speaker 2: Better to have a breakdown before Jay gets Yeah, you know.
Speaker 4: That's true. So he walks into it's already a disaster.
It's not his fault.
Speaker 2: He thinks we're snubbing him. Meanwhile, we've been nuked off
of everything. You have to write him like a handwritten letter.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay. So so there is there's the location distinction
and then the church distinction. But the genetic extinction, uh,
like the genetic distinction plays more to the geographic distinction,
emerging them as opposed to the biblical it like favors
one over the other.
Speaker 2: Yes, the problem being that Israel, even if you take
it like read back into it genetics, you have the
promised Land, but it was never really very well concentrated
there except for a very short period of time. And
even then, you know, very quickly, I mean, let's start
from King Saul right as the established kingdom. You know,
we have the judges, obviously, most of them horrible for
good reason, you know, for those who want to say, oh,
it's a treason to want a king. Yeah, not much
better before it, but you know, very quickly get King David,
the problems he has, and then the redemption arc. Obviously.
Then we get King Solomon, who builds temples to demons
for his many wives, you know, as a means of
appeasement and diplomatic you know, gestures, let's say, towards surrounding kingdoms.
He builds a temple, dedicates it poorly, et cetera. I
shouldn't get into details, I'll get lost, but you know,
repents later on. That's why he's a saint in the church,
you know, that's where we get Ecclesiastes and problems, you know,
those great pieces of work are part of the redemption.
But then we get very quickly the splitting of the kingdom.
We get the Northern Kingdom of Israel and Southern Kingdom
of Judah. And I explained this on this channel as well,
Like the Northern Kingdom is wiped out. That's a out
ten and a half tribes gone, and I mean eliminated
by the Assyrians, because that's what the Assyrians do. If
you surrender the empty out of the city, you know,
spread out the population throughout the empire and then bring
people from throughout the empire to the location. If you
don't surrender, they make a festival, you know, just just gory,
outrageously vile and violent means of execution and humiliation of
the population, you know, making banners of their skins and
you know, different piles of heads, you know, including for children,
you know, and then use that as that's weird.
Speaker 4: Those are the thoughts I have when I watch whatever podcast, Pasha,
I want to just go back to one something so
we don't lose the audience on the fundamental distinction that
dispensationalism itself is sort of the dividing up of chronology
of Christianity in time through sections. Correct, Yes, and because
of that, you're the attempt is now to point to
any given section and say that's complete or near complete,
or yet to come. Right. Generally speaking, that's kind of
what the gist is.
Speaker 2: Kind of yes, because it's not over yet. But a
dispensation is basically a prevailing paradigm in a particular time
that's outside of dispensationalism. The time you'll hear a dispensation
is the phrase special dispensation, which is, you know, some
type of exemption, some type of granted right due to
certain extraneous circumstances. But it's a certain paradigm right prevailing
for a time. And with the dispensationalism, and we get
all types of divisions. I don't think these are necessary
for the purposes of this stream. You know, with ultra dispensationalism,
hyper dispensationalism, liberal or progressive dispensationalism, et cetera. You know,
they have different different world views. When you get the church,
you know, traditionally it's pentecost. Others would go with commersion
of Paul et cetera. And they have their arguments. It's unimportant.
When Jay gets here, you know, we'll talk about they
they believe. One of the reasons they believe that Church
and Israel aren't comparable. Or you can't say that the
Church is the new Israel is because they believe that
the Church, the word itself, starts the New Testament. And
that's just not true. Sure, you get a certain type
of special use, but that's because now we're starting to
write in Greek. But when you read the translations, like
the Sebturgent, the word ecclisia is you because the word
church means the gathering place, right or in other words,
a congregation. Now this is a proper, proper noun, you know.
So it's not like a place where we gather. To
explain it to people, I say, okay, we can call
this stream, we can call it a congress because we
all came together. But that doesn't mean we get to
pass laws, either on a state or a federal level
in the United States. And no one would think that
because it would be on its face ridiculous that, Okay,
anytime two people gather, now there are congress and they
get to pass laws. No same thing with the church.
But you see this type of simplicity. As I said,
that's why it's such a nexus of protest and problems
with methodology in particular is that you can't really correct
them because they only take corrections of the from the scriptures,
which they themselves interpret and call obvious.
Speaker 4: Darby keenan four nine and thank you he said, didn't
Darby also split the Bible into different sections as well,
certain verses books for the Bagels and for the Christians. Yeah,
we're going to get into Darby. That's a good actually
point here. You can answer that as we bring this up, Posh,
what exactly did Darby do? We'll actually get into it.
There's a little short section I'll play in fact for answering.
But for those of you who don't know Darby, is
I guess the we could say the origin. That's why
I asked, Posh, is there something that he's leaning on
that with certain actors or certain proponents he's relying on
to make this work. But most people historically just kind
of go to Darby as an arbitrary starting point. I
wouldn't call it folly.
Speaker 2: You could call it like you can say, a lot
of influence from like early Anabaptists. They have that fanaticism,
they have that that you know, idea of oh the
apocalypse is coming, everything is imminent. You know. Don't ask
a woman who rage, a man his salary and a
dispensation dispensationalist what imminent means. So it's you can say
that there are certain antecedents, but then so much of
it is very peculiar to dispensationalism that I can't say
it's some type of direct offspring. It's just that there
is a strain of thought in certain Protestant branches that
could influence.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we could say it's just another predictable offshoot of
the rejecting church authority and historicity. I mean, I mean,
when it comes down to it, right.
Speaker 2: About with the winds of contemporary thinking.
Speaker 4: Sure so yeah, so Darby comes before people make reference
of the Schofield Bible and all the truthers with their
background music, do all the videos and so on. But
it starts with this this guy. It's a good place
to start. Hey, Jay Dyer, welcome to the stream man.
Speaker 5: Hey, sorry, hey, no problem.
Speaker 4: We're just getting into it. We're introducing Darby. We were
talking about whether or not Darby is leaning on something
beforehand that that's more foundational, that gives him even the
impulse to do such a thing. I guess we just
came down to, Uh, he's just rejecting church authority and
this is what it leads to. Right, Is there anything
else you want to add?
Speaker 2: So I'd like to say to Jay, I mentioned there
is Anabaptist influence, you know, and this apocalyptic thinking with
people like Mutska and sorry Munta and what's his name,
mathis U and these type of crazy people who go
But I don't think there's like a direct line, So
correct me if i'm If I'm wrong.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm I have to let you guys know that
I went and dug.
Speaker 4: Out my folder shoulder.
Speaker 5: My actual study Bible, nice as my name emblazoned on it.
So I'm married to correct all of your uh legalistic
errors and heresies. I even wrote the five points of
Calvinism at the beginning in case. I don't know why
I thought I would forget them, But.
Speaker 4: Well, dude, that's really good handwriting.
Speaker 5: What happened I did have handwriting in the day. I
don't know what happened.
Speaker 4: It's like, wow, yeah, so is there is there anything
you want to add as far as like, can we
start with Darby or is there something more fundamental that
he's leaning on that could be more even ancient or
back in time that seems to be a bigger problem
that we could even mention. Or is he kind of
just going like, you know what, I'm just going to
kind of invent off the cuff.
Speaker 5: Well, just to hit on that point of rejecting, you know,
tradition and church authority. One thing that happens is that
the early Church, there was a period where there were
there were people who were possibly premillennial and some that
were definitely pre millennial. So some of the early Church fathers,
the debate is that some of them were in the
first and second century. You can debate what what exactly
they meant, even by citing certain passages. But even if
we granted that they were, by the time of the
Second Ecumenical Council, when the when the Creed includes the
phrase whose kingdom shall have no end that's intended in
the Niceno Constablity Creed to exclude any form of killism
or literal millennialism. So by the Second Council this view
was basically so okay, we can't. We can't have this.
So you're right than to say that the First Reformation
groups that seem to revive this idea of a literal millennium,
or the Anabaptists.
Speaker 4: Okay, So can you just quickly without making it two dense,
if you could just distinguished from my own chat the
millennialist view or paradigm, the thing that you're referring to,
the two of those, so they get a sense of
it as we move forward.
Speaker 5: So basically, you know, in the latter chapter of the
Book of Revelation, there's a compassit about the millennium. When
Christ sits on the throne, he will reign for a
thousand years, and then after the thousand years we have
this period where there's a brief allowing of Satan to
be loosed again, and then you have the final Armageddon,
and then the final things where you have the resurrection
and thereat the Great White Throne judgment. So the pre
millennialists believe that Christ returns before he sets up this earthly,
literal thousand year millennium. Most of them believe in Israel
with an actual newly built temple, etc. And the reason
they think that is that they mistakenly have a hermeneutic
that thinks that the promises to the Jews have never
been fulfilled, and so even though the Messiah came and
he was rejected by the Jews, the Jews still have
all their Covenant promises waiting for them. And then this
other sort of Plan B was initiated with the Church,
the Gentile Church, and then at the end of the world,
Plan A will be fulfilled in this literal millennium. That's
kind of the dispensationalist model that we're talking about now.
Nobody in the early Church was a dispensationalist. Obviously, they
all believed that The ones that believed in a millennium,
the very few that did, they thought is just well,
Christ comes back and then he sets up a thousand
year kingdom. I'm not even aware of them thinking that
there was a literal temple in Jerusalem that would be rebuilt.
The few early Church pre millennials just believe that Christ
would come up and set come back and set up
a thousand year earthly kingdom. A rapture, there's no none
of that. So a couple of features that these guys
bring that's new to this discussion, by the way the
other position. As you said, the Church eventually adopted a
non literal millennial position. So basically, the Church just said, no,
there's no thousand year rain on earth. It's a symbolic
time frame that the Bible uses a thousand years in
other places as well, for just a long time. Yeah,
and it just signifies the period in which the Church
is the Kingdom of God on earth and Christ reigning
through the Church. So that's it. No rapture before the tribulation. No,
none of.
Speaker 4: That, gotcha. Okay, So we'll go over this and you
guys can stop it. We'll go point by point. If
this guy is messing it up or perverting it, just
let us know.
Speaker 5: I also brought my other premillennial books I found so
nice nice in my dictionary pri millennial distensation.
Speaker 4: Jay, Was that a study a point in time of
your study or you held the view?
Speaker 5: No, I was. That's why I had a my Scofield
study Bible. Like when I when I first started reading
the Bible, when I was like eighteen or nineteen, I
went to I went to the Christian bookstore and this
was what I got, my score Field study.
Speaker 9: We got.
Speaker 4: I got to see the script again though we got
can you show that again.
Speaker 2: What that would mean or was it like by chums
that No.
Speaker 5: I just kind of like, oh, I want a Bible.
Here's a study Bible. And the thing that that appealed
to me was, Oh, this one deals with like end
time stuff and that's cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a very American thing.
Speaker 4: That it is, isn't it?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: End times. It's like it's a classic thing to appeal to.
By the way the title, the title is Apocalypse in
Space and Time here, so uh, i'd like.
Speaker 2: I mentioned before we start, apocalyptic does not mean end times, apocalyptic.
Apocalypsis means revelation. That's why it's called the Book of
Revelation the Apocalypses.
Speaker 5: But this book has Darby on the cover if you
notice there, it's got all the characters.
Speaker 4: He was big on profile shots. Who made the jump
then posh to that that etymological problem there between apocalypse.
Speaker 2: And I can't tell you because all of these things
are so convoluted that you can't really go.
Speaker 4: Through Some truther though early truth.
Speaker 2: Definitely, definitely, but most of them were like the Anabaptists
if you read about them. Yeah, I watched a couple
of videos on it in preparation for this. In one
comment said, before I thought that Anabaptists were terrorists, but
now I've changed my mind, and now I think they
were Satanists and terrorists. So that's basically what happened. You know,
they would stop running naked through the streets, you know,
starting wars, constantly trying to like light the fuse of
the end times because they were obsessed with this apocalypse.
And I personally believe that they because of the content
of the Book of Revelation, they started associating the term
apocalyptic with the end times. Now, the Book of Revelation
isn't just about the end Times. It does contain that,
but it's about a lot more like the Seven Churches
that have described you know, they were historical churches with
historical problems in the time of the life of Saint John.
So it's it's this type of retroactive reading back into it.
But that again you see it here like if you
want to use an a word for the end times,
use armageddon, you know, but that there's no Book of Armageddon,
so that really ruins it. And again it's it's so fun.
It's like white people like learning about demonology and ancipology.
It's fun, it's got and.
Speaker 4: It applies to a very modern take of politics because
you can kind of transpose the apocalyptic wrongly use of
the word, as you stated, view onto politics. That and
then you start to see these people use sort of
a similar accelerationist view where well, let's contrive the end,
let's just force the end of the structure, let's take
down governments, let's let's get back to the land. Bro
this kind of view, and it's very Yeah, it's parallel,
it's not identical, but it's certainly.
Speaker 2: Parallel what apocalypse means. It means this overall view of
history from like a heavenly perspective. The Book of Daniel
is apocalyptic in a lot of ways. There's also different
types of apocalyptic literature throughout the Old Testament. So that's
what it means. That's clear. I'm not just saying it
doesn't mean eny times in telling you why, it's translated
as revelation literally means to lift up a veil in gotcha.
Speaker 4: All right, Well, I'm going to play this little bullet
point here and we could comment, you could tell me
to stop.
Speaker 10: Whatever this is followed, he says by conscience after the fall,
but before the flood. From the flood until the call
of Abraham what he calls civil government. This is followed
by the patriarchal period Genesis chapter twelve through Exodus nineteen,
in which the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and so
on become the centerpiece of God's redemptive activity. With Moses,
we have a new dispensation called law. It begins with
the Ten Commandments, continues until.
Speaker 9: The period of the Church. The Church is called the
Age of Grace. We are living in the Church Age.
Speaker 10: It will continue to an indeterminate time in the future,
which point there.
Speaker 9: Will be what was called the Rapture.
Speaker 10: The Rapture removes the Church from the world and gives
birth to then.
Speaker 9: Finally, the Kingdom.
Speaker 10: The Kingdom is a millennial kingdom in which Christ is
ruling in a political sort of way from Jerusalem over
the people's of the entire world.
Speaker 4: All right, let's stop there. I just want to look
at the picture. I mean, if he was trying to
sell this, that is the worst picture to sell. If
that guy was looking at me like that, trying to
sell this to me, that picture on the right, I'm
out of here. Yeah, he's giving us what do the
kids call, Yeah, yeah, a little pizzazz. He's like, honey,
you have no idea what you're in for. Is there
anything you want to comment on here? Because this seems
to be what we're saying is that, you know, you
divide into these sections, and then obviously each section you're
going to look into some you're going to assign some
perverse interpretation anyway. So the question I have is from
an orthodox view, let's say, are things divided at all
similarly and and they're just missing misreading or you just
don't do this at all?
Speaker 2: We don't do this. I'm sure you can say how
Satan tricks Adam and do you It's not that he,
you know, somehow tricked them into greed or whatever. They
were still very new, so he uses this innocence againse
I guess you could call it that. That's something. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well, well the reason I ask is because we're doing
a critique from a specific view, and you know a
lot of people watching me a percent always say, well,
you guys do that, or they do this. I just
want to cover that in advance.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'd like to touch on that because back when
I was a dispensation. So the thing that got me
out of it was beginning to look at the way
that the New Testament treated the Old and then I
got into a covenant theology, which I think is way
more biblical. And this is the idea that God relates
to mankind historically through a series of covenants. And it's
odd that, I mean, why wouldn't the dispensed sessions want
to use the thing that the Bible itself says is
how we relate to God, which is a covenant relationship.
And in those covenant relationships the way there's kind of
a similar pattern or structure to all biblical covenants. A
lot of theologians have noted this over the years, whether
Protestant or non Protestant, but so basically, well so to
the comment, it's not exactly covenant theology, because what they're
doing is they're saying that in these dispensations, the way
that you're saved and the way that you have a
relationship with God changes, it's different, and that's not covenant.
The Covenant theology says there's a unified pattern to these covenants.
They're all essentially one covenant. Dispensationalists do not believe that
it's all one covenant back. Many of them are dual
covenant believers. They believe that there's a covenant for the
Jews and this other covenant thing for Gentiles, which is
totally different from all these previous covenants in the past
with Noah or whoever. So it's a really yanky, like
whack type of anti covenant theology. It's a very opposite
of what orthodox or even most Protestants would believe about
the Old Testament Covenant.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there is there are similarities with viewing it,
you know, with the covenantal theology. But they they loathed
each other, Covenentalists and dispensationalists. As I said, like in
the beginning, a dispensation is a prevailing type of order
or rules or whatever. It's almost like imposed. But there's
also no interaction, right, there's just things are playing out,
which again plays into different types of Protestant strains of thought.
Protestants not big on free will and stuff is going
to play into it. So but but you can't say
it's like covenant theology as far as back to our
timeline has described here, they basically just pick us, you know,
an event that's important and then say, oh, this is
like a carve out, this is a specific dispensation.
Speaker 4: So nine eleven could very well be if darbyted today, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, the moon. Okay, that might be more joking,
but nine to eleven would definitely be one. But as
far as these types of events, the problem isn't that
you can't you know, just set about Okay, let's view
this period here in this manner. The problem is that
you carve it out. As they said, it sort of
becomes like self subsistent, like it has a saiety. And
the problem with that is, like throughout history, I know,
how do we do we define the Middle Ages? And
usually we would say, you know, from the fall of
the Western Roman Empire, you know, to either the fall
of Constantinople or the discovery of America. You know, that's
the general timeline. But that does not mean that all
of a sudden, you know, like in strategy games, you know,
like advanced period and all soldiers turn from like Roman
engineers to like knights and something. You know, things don't
change that sharply. But in dispensationalism, you do have these
sharp edges and they view it as separate things. And
as Jay said, convenentalists do not.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's also it's very romantic looking. It's like if
you were to remove the Genesis and all these biblical
references and just kept these bullet points, I wouldn't know
if you're looking at the chapters of a comic book
or a romance novel or something like it could be.
It's almost like that. That's the impulse, is to sort
of categorize it in this way that's more reduced, so
that people sort of experience it like they're in this storyline,
like what chapter are we in? Right from that view,
and that seems to be kind of a problem in
itself to assume that you have the knowledge of what
chapter you're in, right, Jay, your mute bro on, mute.
Speaker 5: Bro Every covenant that God makes with man, and by
the way, you'll notice to the structure of covenants is
that they begin with Adam, and then it moves to
a family with Noah, and then it moves to a
tribe with Abraham, and then it moves to the nation
with Moses. Then it moves to the kingly covenant with David,
and then we have the final covenant with the Messiah.
So there's a logical structure to the movement of the covenants.
There's no logical structure to this arbitrary adhocs system. And furthermore,
each covenant in the scriptures, even the for example, a
Braemt covenant, it includes stipulations, so you'll have these sort
of statements of the vassal to the covenant people. The
stipulations are given, and there's also promises. So every covenant
includes promises, grace and stipulations or laws. Even with Moses,
even with Abraham. If you look in twenty two, God
makes the stipulation that you have to obey his statues,
his decrees, his commands. So they'll often try to say
there's no law or stipulations in the Braemic Covenant. But
in Genesis twenty two, when God repeats that there is
law and stipulation, there's law and stipulation in the covenant
with Adam, keep be faithful, you know, don't eat that tree,
et cetera. When Adam sin, he broke essentially all the
ten commandments, and so they fundamentally misunderstand that there's always grace,
there's always stipulation. Even the Mosaic Covenant includes grace too,
So that's that right, there as a total destruction of
the whole presupposition of covering dissations.
Speaker 4: That's interesting because I mean, it's not exactly the same,
but it did remind me of like an Orthodox view
of being saved, having been saved, saved, and will be
saved versus I got my trans stamp save. Seems it's
like a similar error, but just not as a big magnitude,
I guess, or how they're doing it here. You're saying
a lot of these titles or things would exist in
all of these chapters in some way, so to divide them,
and I assume they they're non existent previously as silly,
So I don't know how. My question is, how did
you get away with this? Is it because it was
just an absence of church authority in Western modern culture
of this time modern relatively modern, that they just didn't
get catch it.
Speaker 5: I would say there's kind of a long tradition already
in the West, especially in England, of assumptions. So you know,
from the time of Henry the eighth and the Anglican
Church in the UK, you've already kind of got a
few generations, a few centuries of these Protestant assumptions and
so these people are kind of like, oh, you know,
look what we've discovered, and they're basing it on the
fact that you know, you already had probably I think
a few Anglican ministers who were pretty famous prior to
this who were premillennialists. So I think there was a
few popular Anglican theologians before Darby and these guys who
were premillennial, So they were probably working with some of
that and saying, well, he's premillennial, but he's not consistent
enough because he's not understanding that, you know, God's got
these different plans. And then I think there's also a
geopolitical motive, which we'll get through here in a moment.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 11: Yeah, at the time, right, I'd like to say that
the with among the reformers, you had people who had
outright hostility towards mosaic law because they separated so much
from you know, we are saved by grace and back
then he was saved by works.
Speaker 2: Again, basic illiteracy in terms of understanding scripture. But I
believe Luther said that he would punch yeah because he
put he demanded so much works. I don't know how
that works with solar scripture, you know, like Moses felt
like putting all of these.
Speaker 5: Well, I read a lot of Luther. I had a
Luther phase. I read a lot of Luther. And what
he says is that, well, what counts as scripture is
what preaches the word of God. What preaches the word
of God is what preaches the Gospel of grace. So
essentially whatever Luther thinks.
Speaker 4: So he wanted to punch. He wanted to punch Moses
for abiding by works.
Speaker 2: Like demanding it.
Speaker 4: Oh, demanding. That's funny because that would be a work,
that would be like a work to punch him like
that would be a good deed in action from.
Speaker 2: His But even if he didn't see it as a
good deed, he would have to punch God in the thing. Yeah,
you know, like we make fun of people who are
like we have no pictures and all that this or that,
that's all idolatry, you know. Okay, And I tell them, okay,
go back to when they were building you know, the
tabernacle and the arc or later on the temple, you know,
and go tell Moses he's an idolator, and he'll tell you,
but God told me to do this. Well, then God
is an idolator. Because God doesn't preach iconoclasm or something
like that. But it's it's these things are read retroactively
into the Bible. It's it's the definition of Jesus, which they,
you know, constantly complain about everyone else is doing. And
the dispensation is, specifically, are so obsessed with saying that
any different reading of the Bible requires like a film
to be put over the Bible, like some interpretive schema
has to be opposed. This is the clear teaching of scriptures.
And as Jayson mentioned, the word of God, and I
keep arguing with Protestants on Twitter, the Word of God
in the scriptures never refers to the scriptures. It always
means the second person of the God, the Word of God, Jesus,
and especially I'm too illustrated. I mentioned the beginning of
the Book of Jeremiah. It says, the Word of God
places his finger on my lips. It's not unless it's
some type of origami of like papyrus with words written
on it in Hebrew. You know, no, it's a person.
It's a guy. It's a guy. When it's with Abraham
and he recognizes him physically with the two angels, you know,
it's not this ethereal disembodied voice. So they also views
the term word of God, and then to this day
Protestant stills still say what of God means the Bible?
You know, and it interpreted like, you know, faith comes
from hearing and hearing from the Word of God. They
interpret that as you know, scripture readings or something.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, keep going a couple of seconds. I'm going
to bring up a meme that really embodies this problem
real quick.
Speaker 2: Okay, no problem. Personally, I could do something I can.
Speaker 5: I would disagree a little bit there. I'm not trying
to cause the dissension or anything like that. But I
think like if you read Psalm one nineteen, which is
the Master, right, I think it's one eighteen, there's a
lot of references in there to the law, and it's
identified also as word. I think there it is talking
about the written text. So I don't see necessarily a
problem with at times identifying the written text as the
Word of God in a limited sense, because, as Maximus says,
the content of the Word of God or excuman it's
content of the scriptures is the same as the content
of anything else about divine revelation, which is just the
low gie. So if you understand that it's not a
Bible that is, technically speaking, the living person of the Word,
but in a limited sense you could call it the
law of God or the Word of God, as that
Psalm does. It's just referring to the message or the content,
which is ultimately Christ. And that's relevant for dispensationalism because
there's another key hermeneutical mistake that they make, which is
the dispensationalists think that the Old Testament is not primarily
about Christ. This is huge because all those promises that
they see in Genesis to Abraham, to the seed, to
the nation, that He will make them as the sand
of the sea the stars of heaven, they see that
it still promises to literal flesh Israel. And so if
you don't have a crystological hermeneutic of the Old Testament,
you're going to fall into dispensationalism because they don't believe
that the Gospel was taught in the Old Testament. That's
why we say, as Paul says in Galatians three and four,
Romans four, and Hebrews four, that the Gospel was preached
to Abraham and the Jews in the wilderness. No dispensationalists
can say that or believes that. So it's crucial that
they have this rigid, what's called only grammatical historical interpretation
of the Old Testament, no emphasis on Christology. They'll admit
a few Messianic prophecies like Psalm twenty two or whatever,
but they will not admit that there is a presentation
of the Gospel in the Old Testament. They would be
really confused. I think about Theophanes or the idea that
the Trinity is in the Old Testament. All of this
would confuse them. So they had this unitarian idea of
the Old Testament, which is what many other people have. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Interestallations three twenty nine specifically says those who belong to
Christ are the seeds of Abraham and as to the promise,
and that goes with what we were saying before. You
jam that all of this genetical, genetic, racial ethnic view. Yeah,
that is very prevalent in dispensationalism and basically unnecessary prerequisite
for the Zionist aspects of it are a product of
modern understanding of ethnicity and genetics.
Speaker 5: And just that phrase, the Gospel was preached to Abraham
from Galatians three and the Gospel was preached to the
Jews and the wilderness Hebrews four. Just that phrame. No
dispensationalist could ever Wait, No, there's no Gospel preach during
the era of Promise or law.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it wouldn't make any sense.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I wanted to show this meme because obviously from
this person's view who posted this, they could swap out
Catholic with Orthodoxy here. But it's got the Bible looking
at the boyfriend who's checking out church history. Well, this
is so stupid, it's actually a cell phone. Because the
Catholics would be people and men, and the Church history
would be men, and that would require mind and interpretation
and views. The Bible is presented as a as a person,
as a being, as a mind, as some sort of entity.
And that's ironically they posted this, and they don't understand
the problem here that from their view, that is the
problem that the Bible isn't a being. There is no
personhood of the Bible as an object with words in it,
and they do fundamentally kind of turn the Bible into
the fourth person in a weird perverted way.
Speaker 2: Throw back to yesterday's debate. Yeah, I make the same
claim you know, critique about when they say faith saves,
they're almost like treated like an entity. Right. Yeah, there's
like furies in like Roman mythology. You know, there are
these spirits called furies, that female spirits, and they go
and possess people who do something wrong, you know, and
then you become furious. Right, And apparently they see faith
as that. You know, you get this spirit called faith
and then it acts in your stead.
Speaker 4: Positive.
Speaker 2: Sure it's not furries, there are no female it's all degenerate,
all right.
Speaker 4: I want to move I want to move along here
because I do want to get especially to the cultural
aspect that Jay was pointing to that we're going to
get to, because it's that's really I think is really
the impactful part of this. Like obviously the education of
this is important, but how it how it impacts modern
policy geopolitics, which Jay is uh specialized in. I really
want to get into that. So I want to move
through this little overview get a grasp of it. I
want we don't have to go too far in if
you guys think there's something we should cover before we
get into the geopolitical Uh, Jay.
Speaker 5: Will we be transitioning totally out of the theology stuff.
Speaker 4: No, if you want to cover theology but also cover
it as we go into geopolitics, I think it's still
relevant because a lot of these, like evangelicals, I guess,
or maybe others, you want to include all of their
patterns and their and their voicing of what we should
do in politics and Israel and all these stances are really,
wouldn't you say, largely informed by this broken theology, whether
they even know.
Speaker 5: Yeah, this is this is completely dominated you know, the
American evangelical mindset, which is actually now spilled over into
Protestant I mean a Catholic and even sometimes Orthodox mindsets.
They get this. They get tainted with this idea that somehow,
this a lot of this gibberish theology is somehow correct
and well, we still got to you know, honor, you
know this stuff happening in the Middle East or whatever.
I don't want to add real quick. In Genesis seventeen,
for example, this is another way to easily just refute
this stuff. When Abraham was ninety nine years old, the
Lord appere Abraham and said, I am God Almighty, what
before me? And bleep be blameless? And I will make
my covenant with you. So there's a promise, but there's
the stipulation walk before me and be blameless. So even
the Brahmic covenant is not a covenant where there are
no stipulations. Right. And then you know at the end
of Gala. Another thing that easily refuses this is at
the very end of Galatians, Paul calls the Church the
Israel of God in Galatians six sixteen. No dismensationists could
understand the Church to be the Israel of God. Right,
So again you know Jesus and the Parables, when he
says that the King of God will be taken from
you and given to a nation producing the pusure of
their nation stands for the gentile nations. So it doesn't
mean that you can't be saved, but it means that
the national covenant with Israel is no longer going to
be mainly about Israel. It's going to be opened up
to the Gentiles. And if a Jew want part of
the covenant, they have to become a Christian.
Speaker 2: That's it. Paul says that those who you know all
the faith of Christ, they are seed of Isaac and
the physical I don't think who's at Israel or the
flesh would be like Ismaelites because and for those of
you who need reminding, you know, we have Ishmael, sorry
and mixing up my language. Is Ishmael, who is the
son of Abraham through Hagar, his servant woman. And God says, no, no, no,
you have to it has to be with Sarah. You know.
That's why he's called Isaac, which means laughter, because she
laughed when God said that they will have a child
in their very very advanced age. And you know, even
though there is a blessing that is still given to
Hagar and Ishmael, and that's not Islam. By the way,
there are people who claim that they would say, you know,
that's how they would connect a lot of things or
attempt to connect it to the Bible, right, But Saint
Paul himself very distinctly says that no, no, no, no, no.
The Israel is the people of Christ, not some genetic thing.
And as Christ themselves says, God can make children of
Abraham other stones. He doesn't need any of this. That's
a message throughout the Bible. You can't really bribe God,
so you know, good luck.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and again you like that text. The Kingdom of
God will be taken from you. In Matthew twenty one.
That whole parable thank you is about the fact that
the Jews had failed at what was essentially their covenant mission,
which was to produce the Messiah and then share him
with the world. They failed because they intended to kill him,
but ultimately divine providence, and also by the prophecies which
the Jews and even the apostles of the first century
had misunderstood until Christ reveals it to them after the resurrection.
In Luke twenty four, they were they lost those promises
and were divorced. This fulfills the promises in Hose, the prophecies,
and other places in Jeremiah where it's talking about God
giving Israel a writ of divorce, a bill of divorce.
Because of the culmination of their sins Matthew twenty three,
Jesus says all of the things written in the prophets,
the vengeance of all of those periods will come upon
this generation talking about his day in Matthew twenty three,
because of their crucifixion of the Messiah. That's the culmination
of their sins. We have this passage, for example, in
Genesis where God says they fill up the measure of
their sins. Talking in that passage about the Egyptians, here
we're saying, basically saying that when the Jews fill the
measure of their sins in the death of Christ, then
the Covenant will be opened, the bill of divorce given
to national Israel and the marriage to the bride the Lamb.
So God finds a bride which is not the adulterous Israel,
it is the Church. The Church is his bride.
Speaker 2: Also, the casting of the fig tree?
Speaker 5: Is this so many exactly Some of those parables only
makes sense in this in this context.
Speaker 2: And the last thing I'll.
Speaker 5: Say is that, uh, the teaching of Athenacious Cyril of Alexandria.
John Christism very clearly in his in his homilies on
Matthew twenty four other even origin, the tendency is to
be partial preadterist. What what what's funny? A second?
Speaker 2: No, No, I'm laughing because, you know, thinking of prosionist
ideas in Saint John Chris system, you know, doesn't.
Speaker 5: He's not very amenable to those ideas.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, we shall quote him on these. Yeah.
Speaker 5: Anyway, So partial preadism is the idea that a lot
of what's happening in the Book of Revelation in Matthew
twenty four and twenty one is the seventy eighty destruction
of the Temple. It doesn't mean everything is. That's called
fool preadtism. That's a Harris that they believe that even
the Bali Resurrection has happened, which is stupid, but I
didn't want to mention really quick. There are some great
books on this that have been around for a long time.
Kenneth Gentry has his thd dissertation called Bifore Jerusalem Fell,
which is a really good book. All of these, by
the way, refute dispensationalism. David Chilton has a classic commentary.
He was almost going to become Orthodox before he died.
He's on his way and it's called Days of Vengeance.
It's a chapter by chapter commentary on the Book of Revelation.
It's really good. It's been now superseded because people in
his circles, like I don't know if you guys know
Peter letheart is he's another person who's even though he's
Anglicanish Protestant, they've been borrowing from Orthodoxy for the last
twenty or thirty years. That this is the Doug Wilson
Circles Lightheart just put out a new two volume commentary
of the Book of Revelation from this fantage point. So
I haven't ready yet. I just got it. I think
it's going to be good. There's another This is a
Methodist guy who was anti dispensationalist, and he wrote a
commentary on a lot of biblical apocalyptics. So it's actually
Milton Terry's Biblical apocalyptics. It's actually a good reputation of dispensationalism.
A couple more really quick ones this isn't This is
another Protestant minister who was anti dispensationalist. He wrote a
book called The Destruction of Jerusalem, George Peter Holford. So
even the Protestants, ironically, after the advent of dispensationalism, even
the Protestants were like on this, refuting it, and some
of their books are pretty good reputations. David Chilton has
another little book called Great Tribulation, which is good. So
if anybody's looking for like a thorough sort of like
immediate treatment. Even Bonnson has a book. I'm not you know,
I'm not going to recommend his theology per se, but
he has a good critique of this called House Divided,
I think is what it's called. Interestingly, Yeah, even the
Protestants have been all over this.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you talked about motivation a little bit. Well, today
it's obvious everybody's talking points. We what we can get
into the motivation today of holding this view or even
a partial view of dispensationalism. But at the time, could
we say that there's a motivation here or could we
split motivation with just crappy uh, you know, hermeneutics and
just adding all this interpretation like is it is? It?
Is it?
Speaker 2: Like? You know?
Speaker 4: What I'm asking is how much of it is like
sort of an innocent, ignorant impulse versus is there some
political motivation that can be talked about at this time?
With the guy on the screen, the guy in the
right there with the weird look, is there a motivation
at the time?
Speaker 5: I would say we could point to a motivation. Who's
that guy that became orthodox? He's he's put the most
time into studying this topic. I'm trying to think that
he wrote a book on the CFR. James Pearloff has
researched this a whole lot. He ended up converting to
Orthodox to a couple of years ago. So he I
don't know if he's written on this or he's gonna
write on this, but he's the first to really talk
about kind of the timing of this in regard to
the nation state of Israel. Right, So the modern founding
of it. So the Scopfield Study Aboble comes out in
nineteen oh nine from Oxford, right, And if you follow
the Quigly material, we know that the Oxford Circles, Cambridge Eton,
these are all the upper what's called Cliveden set, the Astors,
the Miliner, Fabian, Ralph Child circles. We know that they
had a plan via Balfour, the Balfour Declaration, to set
up this new nation state. It makes absolutely perfect sense
that they would want to promote through this study Bible, right,
this to prep people for if it comes out in
nineteen oh nine, right, to prep people for what a
few years later the stabs from the nation state.
Speaker 4: It's like the PNAC, it's like the Project for New
American Century, but with Church like a.
Speaker 5: Like a crappy study, but a crappy Pnack study by
way right, right.
Speaker 2: I mean Schofield Bible, produced originally by the Oxford University Press.
You know, very very suspicious. Immediately, I just think of
accents like mine, but you know, not talked that's grown
up with, and I immediately think, oh God, something's afoot,
something very vile and planned for a century in advance.
Speaker 5: So you can see the first issue came out in
nineteen oh nine.
Speaker 4: Okay, but Jay, how about when this guy was doing
all of his work in his closet? Is their motive
before that? Is there some influence there? If we go
even back further, like when this is all getting sort
of like you know.
Speaker 5: College, there could be. Yeah, Pearlof would probably be the
person to go to on that.
Speaker 2: I'm personally unaware of any but as I said, you know,
they have this idea that church is a New Testament thing,
the term itself, but that's ridiculous. The term, as I said,
eclicia exists in the Sibturgent Congregation of Israel is in
English rendered as congregation, but then church is rendered as
you know, uses.
Speaker 5: The phrase that ecclesia in the wilderness.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, so there is a linguistic difference if your
main resource isn't the Sibturgent. But even then you have
to consciously translate them differently, you know, as much as
I don't understand why the Book of Joshua is called
the Book of Joshua but Jesus is called Jesus, and
why no one decided to align them like it would
be in Greek or in Servian, you know, called the
Book of Joshua. Can you go Susinavina, you know, son
of Novi and it's Jesus, but the same way. You know,
then people don't make that connection because it's not that
obvious that Joshua and Jesus are the same name. You
have to analyze it. So to a lay person it
would be, you know, it would seem like you're trying
to pull something on them. Yeah.
Speaker 5: There's an interesting section here in the Premennial Study Bible
on the life and history of John Nelson Darby, and
one thing it notes is that early on, from eighteen
twenty seven to thirty three, Darby's Ecclesiology and Eschatology underwent
a reformation. He was disenchanted with the relationship of church
and state in England. He addressed these early writings to
the fact that the church was a heavenly institution. He
then garnered around himself a bunch of like minded people
for Bible studies in houses without ritual and higher. So
it seems like from the early outset it's just church
and states shouldn't be together. Church is a quote heavenly thing.
I'm gonna start having home Bible studies.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's just a rejection and a rebellion of authority,
just like the modern era. It's just like, you know,
what follows can be a bunch of garbage right in
any direction, but seems like the foundation every time is
always the first thing is like I'm going to reject authority.
I'm going to reject hierarchy. I'm gonna reject church, tradition, authority, historicity,
all of these things. I'm gonna make my own stuff.
And really he's like the modern I mean, I'm gonna
call people. I'm gonna call truth or these truth are
towards Darby's now, because it's the same. It really is
the same thing. It's just it's just like a different take.
But really the impulse is just the same thing. Every time.
I don't need a church. I have a fire pit.
Speaker 5: Jay. You know, who are you going.
Speaker 4: To tell me my fire pit doesn't do the job?
Speaker 2: Jay?
Speaker 5: A little side tidbit. You know who I was raised
Plymouth Brethren, another most famous person in the world.
Speaker 11: Oh really, Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you get raised in these horrid, ridiculous cults
and then you know, you end up all messed up.
Shocker exactly. But I wanted to mention that Derby, not
only is it not like a simple rejection of like
sacitoital priesthood or ecclesiastic authority adherents, or even promotion of
such authority, he saw, as you know, basically treason and blasphemy.
So it is like you go and kiss the hand
of some weird bearded guy in a dress like that's
that's basically the level of his you know, rebellion. But
that also means you get full lateral and horizon into
freedom to interpret the way you want it.
Speaker 5: Here's an interesting piece of the puzzle. It might help.
This is the person I've never heard of. It was
while Darby was at Trinity College that he came under
the influence of a theologian by the name of Professor
Richard Graves, who happened to be an advocate for Judaism
and Jewish people in the British Empire. Graves believe that
through the conversion of Israel. It would bring about the
I guess, the end of the world. It would it
would usher in the end of the world, and that
a gentile parenthesis had existed since the Jews had rejected
the Messiah. So here's the origins. It's from this person
called Professor Richard Graves, so I'm not familiar with him,
but he would probably be the key character here.
Speaker 4: Posh did say Jay is gonna, Jay will come with
the folders, and you did. You came through.
Speaker 5: Now I want to I came with an actual Schofield
study Bible with my name on it, with your name, Golden, Gold, Golden.
Speaker 4: This is interesting. You said that there is even a
connection to rejecting Christ as God as the Messiah, because
the starting point of rejecting Christ as the Messiah basically
necessitates of you that you could invent a new future
to live into that you're waiting for. So it does
make sense that any kind of rejection of Christ would
allow for, like Posh said, horizontal vertebral building.
Speaker 5: Also, remember, based on that scheme that you have there,
if you can be saved in different ways in the
Old Testament or in that period, there's no reason why
you can't be saved in other ways now right?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, books, sure, a.
Speaker 5: Separate way to be saved for gentile, separate ways to
be safe for Jesus.
Speaker 4: Book what book did you just read out of? But
yeah that what was that quote? Even though you didn't
know who was saying it?
Speaker 2: What was the So.
Speaker 5: This is a dictionary of all these people and they're belief. Okay,
this is arby entry underneath it employ.
Speaker 2: So it's not just the pictures at the cover that
are good. But I wanted to also say that the
whole apocalypticism that they're obsessed with leads to like today,
if people are Jesus, come quickly, Jesus come quickly, which
is a horrible position to hold, as the Book of
Revelations itself says that the blood of the martyrs is
crying from under the altar in heaven and the only
reason why it's not yet heeded is that God still
gives us time for as many of us to repent
as possible, So to hurry it up is not just,
you know, unbiblical, it's also cruel and shows the level
of narcissism that comes with the faith alone position, where
you sign you know your name on the saved, you know,
and there you go. Now you're safe. So you're going
to be playing a hob on a cloud and the
others can found.
Speaker 5: Now. Keep in mind, so these goobers believe that they
can do certain geopolitical actions like trying to Originally in
the eighteen thirties, the idea was they could miss be
missionaries to Israel, convert the Jews that would bring about
the end of the world and return of Christ. Right,
what does Crowley think about the Book of Revelation. He
thinks it's a ritual book that if you do it,
it brings about the end of the world. So they
have the same idea that you can do these actions
like this a technology, right, Yeah, in the end of
the world. Even Croley has that view.
Speaker 4: That's really interesting, Jay, Not to go off topic, but
Crowley's I would say intimate relationship. I don't know what
else included in that between him and Jack Parsons, who
basically uh not tried to materialize that particular view, but
there was definitely some sort of ritual in his combustion experiments.
Speaker 5: And rocket Tree.
Speaker 4: Interesting.
Speaker 5: The Babylon working is an end of the world working.
Speaker 4: See it's it's crazy how this stuff is. Like I
wish I had my truth or music cue because it
is really connected works every time. Yeah, that was fun. Yeah,
we're going to be doing another one. Hopefully Jay will
get a date and if you need any help, uh
finding it on a location. But yeah, I'll try to.
I'll just keep looking. I'm gonna keep going with this
and you guys, you guys can determine how much theology
you want to do even when we get into some
of the modern stuff. Like I said, it's still important.
But if there's any more you want to do, I
can keep going as long as you want.
Speaker 10: Here, I want to look at some of these in
a little bit more detail before we move on. The
millennium itself is a standard pre millennial conception, the idea
that Christ reigns for a thousand year period of time,
reigns from Jerusalem. All of this he shares with other
pre millennialists who basically developed similar ideas at that time
in history. The millennium is immediately preceded by the Second Advent.
Christ comes before the millennium, hence the term pre millennialism. However,
something unique to Darby's view of this is that the
Church is not present all the other pre millennial eschatologies
see Christ reigning for this thousand years through the people
who are the ones advocating.
Speaker 9: This particular eschatology.
Speaker 10: So if you're a Seventh day Adventist, he's going to
rule through the Adventus. If you're a Jehovah's Witness, he's
going to rule through the witnesses.
Speaker 9: If you're a Mormon, he's going to rule through the Mormons.
Speaker 5: You see.
Speaker 10: But Darby has a different view of a very stunning
idea that the Church is gone.
Speaker 5: And the Church is in hill the promise that the
so called unfulfilled promises to the Jews.
Speaker 4: Okay, so this.
Speaker 5: Is why Jesus. So the church is raptured. Jesus comes
back rules in Israel for the Jews to fulfill those
promises while the church is.
Speaker 4: So he's declaring the Church is gone. Right. Does that
mean so the Church is no longer physical, nor is
it existing metaphysically in a sense, he's in heaven.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: So, for example, at the beginning of the tribulation, if
you're a pre tribulation rapture person, you believe that when
the seven year Tribulation starts, the Church has been raptured,
it's been taken out, and so the Antichrist comes right
the Jews convert. The Jews then start converting everyone, and
then Jesus comes back, destroys Antichrist and then rules for
a thousand years, and then there's the Great White thrown
Judgment resurrection. So the Church is in heaven as Jesus
rules on earth.
Speaker 2: Make a couple of points. So one very basic critique
of dispensationalist in this pre millennial view is that it
says that Christ rules for a thousand years. And again,
this was not an uncommon term to use for a lot,
like a thousand years a lot to us today maybe
not so much, because we live in times of tremendous
exis of anything you can think of. But it just
means a long time, you know. We have that even
in Daniel that after a long time, you know, we
will get back to like the Second Coming or something.
But it says that after near the end of that reign,
because the strong man is bound, and that refers to
Satan that his reigns must be loosened a bit. What
bloody point is there in Christ coming back ruling a
thousand years and just let Satan loose. From our perspective,
Christ is ruling right now. The Church is alive, you know,
with all the problems that you know entails. But near
the end of this long rain, the rains of Satan
will be loosened a bit, so things will get rougher.
That is not to say I don't understand why people
are so egocentric that they think, oh, now is the
end of the world, and they find any single tip it,
which is a very very Protestant way of thinking. You know,
oh this has happened, so now I we'll connect it somehow.
World War two was a great place to think things
are going to end, and we don't know. There was
a guy who called in on this stream while I
was on and said, do you know this is the
first time so many Jews are back in you know, Israel,
or the land that is described in the Bible as
promise to Israel? You know, Okay, who says they stay there?
You don't know what's going to happen, right, but they
keep latching onto these things and use it as this,
you know, like tarot readings or whatever.
Speaker 4: Part she was saying is basically bagel prepping.
Speaker 12: Is that what you're saying, preparing the water for they
But you know they have this idea that and use
it as a techne like you know Jay described, Crowley
had his own view on that, but there is no
sense in it why Satan would be loosened a bit,
you know, at the end of the millennial ring.
Speaker 2: So so that's that's a very common one you can
all take with you and you don't need who knows
how grand a knowledge of theology to give them that example.
But again, like with all types of these niche Protestant schools,
they don't really go for logic. It's similar to Islam.
You know, Ahl is best. You don't need to describe anything.
Who needs to who needs God? Who needs to justify
what God does?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Also, Josha, the modern era, with the technology, you
think it could be in our favor to get like
a rigid, narrow truth out there, but it actually works
against us that. Like you said, these people who are
these apocalyptisismos, apocalyptismos, they're they can piece together things and
find things. Oh did you see that you know they're
all going back to Israel. Did you see this sign?
Did you see the Olympics that they're just kind of
like constantly in this state of like fielding quick bits
of information digital post it notes and filling up their basement,
right and and not that they're even aware of these views,
but they're still you know, they're actually interacting with this
paradigm that we're critiquing right now without knowing.
Speaker 2: It, and another parallel and this is going to be
important for the geopolitical aspects of it. Another similarity with Islam.
Islam teachers that Islam will go out into the world,
but it will retract like a snake, you know, between
the rocks. You know, it's going to become so incredibly
small again as it began. But it also talks about
oh we are strong, we will conquer everything. You know.
So you've got both sides of the you know, dialectic,
so you can go back and forth. Anything good that happens,
oh you see, we are right because things are going well.
If things go wrong, oh you see, we are right
because things are not going well. Likewise, with these types
of apocalyptic thinkers, you know, anything that happens is proof
that you are right.
Speaker 4: Everything is yeah, all yeah, there's.
Speaker 2: No way to disprove it because they've captured both sides.
Speaker 4: It's like climate change.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Nine, And I'm not going to read I'm going to
read relevant ones for those of you bob chat or
super chat and it's not totally relevant. I will read
it at the end. You can direct it a posh
or myself or Jay as well, But this one seems relevant.
Nine ninety nine. If dispensationalist heresy is prominent in America,
can we find any dispensationalists to obliterate in debates like yesterday? Yeah,
shout out to Jay and Sam. You did very well.
Highlight by the way, Uh, they tried to pin you
guys against each other. Sam geniusly just accepted heresy and
said pray for me. I thought that was a beautiful
moment right there. Totally deflated their their.
Speaker 5: Well, we knew they were going to do that, so
from the outset. Sam had said before the debate, he
was like, I'm just going to say I don't know
who's right on Philly o'quay and energies, whether Catholic or Orthodox.
So so I thought he was going to say that,
but that ended up being a better red rhetorical.
Speaker 4: That was awesome. Yeah, that was awesome.
Speaker 2: And as she formerly converted to any.
Speaker 5: I don't think he's formally converted. But he says that
he attends a Catholic church because Bill let him have
the Eucharist, but he has to go through a catechumen
process if he becomes Orthodox. And then he says, plus,
I don't know whether Orthodox are right, one are or not.
Speaker 2: Okay, but he hasn't made a formal declaration.
Speaker 5: That goes there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, no, here tends but but but you have to
get baptized or at least, you know, not Christ. But
we call it. Chris made it. Something needs to happen
before you're formerly part of it, and as far as
I'm aware, he hasn't. So they were just even though
they have different understandings of Islam, they were trying to
impose the same type of disparacy. Oh yeah, I mean
excellent is one of them was mean? Yeah, they're.
Speaker 4: That was funny. He didn't even flinch. Okay, we'll keep
going here.
Speaker 5: So you had a question there was a a is
preterism the same as no. Preteritism is just the idea
that many prophecies about what people think of the end
Matthew twenty four, twenty one, and even much of the
Book Revelation that it's about the things occurring in the
days of the people experiencing it. So, for example, John,
if you believe in the early Day for the Book
of Revelation, was writing about the destruction of the Temple
in seventy eight. So many of those things. I don't
think anybody really doubts unless they're super evangelical, that some
aspects of Matthew twenty four and Luke twenty one have
to be about the destruction of the Temple. There's actually
a really good Orthodox publication on this too, called Apostacy
and Antichrist from Jordanville Monastery. I think it's really hard
to get because it's out of print, but there is
a YouTube version of audio of this whole thing. So
it's only about forty pages, and all it is is
just collections of church fathers elder saints for the Orthodox
Church talking about apostasy and Antichrist and end times. And
it notes as well that much of what we are
looking at in Luke twenty one. In Matthew twenty four,
on page twenty two is the fulfilled fulfilled. In seventy eight,
it says holy fathers of the Church explaining to these
words at this point are about the destruction of Tip
seventy eight eight, which is a prototype of the future
great tribulation and into the world. So what happens here
is that no dispensationalist believes in anything preterorist at all.
So that's what's often called partial preterism. That's what I
mentioned earlier, earlier about the dating of some of the
events of the Book of Revelation and when it happened.
There's a different that's different from pre millennialism, which is
about the thousand year reign and does Jesus come back
before he sets up a thousand year early reign? Or
is the thousand year reign typically called amillennialism, meaning that
there's no literal millennium, it's just the reign of the
Church for an indefinite amount of.
Speaker 4: Time and jr. That means Orthodox and Catholics are partial.
Speaker 5: Well if they dig into it. So for example, I've
got several Catholic commentaries in Book Revelation too, and the
commentaries that I have are not they do not talk
about pretorism. But I do have the missile, the Romancalic missile,
the traditional Latin mass missile, which does mention preditos stuff.
So it's just kind of like you got to dig
and there's not really official positions in anybody's church on
specifics of end time stuff. It's kind of like, well
what it you know, like what did Christos them?
Speaker 2: Say?
Speaker 5: What did cyl say? What Athanasians say? Right, so we're
looking at them. There's not like a papal statement on
this stuff. It's just kind of like got to dig
to find.
Speaker 2: Stuff because this position was never popular in either Orthodoxy
or Catholicism, and usually you get these statements after there's
been some turmoil with people going for a position. But
I wanted to mention as far as partial printerism is concerned,
it's a very consistent pattern in the Bible that God
does something in a smaller sense and then it comes
to full fulfillment later on, you know, like a sort
of advanced payment. So we yet Israel, the old Israel.
It is freed from slavery under Egypt and brought into
the Promised Land, not fully by a man called Moses,
but a man called Jesus or Joshua again in English.
I won't complain about that too much, although it really
irks me. Likewise, the full promise is then fulfilled by
everyone who becomes part of the new Israel. The church
is freed from slavery under sin, under Satan, the prince
of this world, and brought into the Kingdom of God,
not again by mosaic law, but by a man called Jesus.
So again, over and over again we get these patterns.
Likewise that we can see the destruction of Jerusalem as
a prototype, like say, for what can happen later on.
That does not mean and like any serious church structure.
Let's say, let's I don't want to use the church
the term church willy nilly, but doesn't just look around
for any geopolitical event, any scientific advancement, and just well,
there we are chopped. Chapter seven is.
Speaker 4: Here we go Turn the page, Yeah, turn the comic
book page.
Speaker 2: The trumpet is beginning to sound, you know, yeah, totally
like a fade in is starting.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you set the stage right, getting your costumes.
Speaker 5: There's another key to this too that you can see
in the Orthodox have an advantage in this regard because
we have first, second, and third Macabees in our in
our Bible, and that actually helps us with this eschatology
because a lot of the passages where Jesus talks about
what's like twenty one Matthew twenty four, what's called the
all of a discourse. Those passages refer to a domination
of desolation, the abomination. Right, what is this? How do
we know what this is? Well, if we know the
Old Testament, we know it really well because we know,
for example, the Temple Israel was destroyed five eighty six BC. Right,
the temple gets destroyed, gets the filed. That's the first
defiling or the abomination of desolation, right when the Babylonians
come in. Then people don't know this, but if you
read the Maccabees, you know that there's another mirrored abomination.
This is the abomination of desolation of the next temple
that Daniel writes about. So when Daniel writes about this
famous abomination of desolation, this is after a five eighty
six BC, Right, Daniel's writing about what's going to happen
in this future Maccabean period. We get an abomination of
the desolation of the Maccabees. And then in third Macabees
there's another abomination with the Egyptian ruler told me, so
we get another. So there's mirroring abominations of the filings
of the temple. Right, so if Jesus in is referring
to another one, what would be the next The only
possible fulfillment would be the destruction of the temple, which
happens forty years after Jesus talks about that seventy eighty.
So we know that seventy eighty has to be one
of these clear fulfillments of the abomination of desolation. And the
last thing I would say on that is just that
the future desolation, whatever that is, that's debated. Some of
the church fathers think that there will be a rebuilt temple,
which would be antichrist temple, and because it would be
the reinstitution of the sacrifices that we're done away with
and fulfilled in Christ's animal sacrifices, many church fathers say
that would be a sign of the end because that
would be Antichrist's temple. Some church fathers say, well, the
final apostasy or the great apostasy that we read about
in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians has to be something
not in an actual temple, but in the church. So
there's a bit of a debate amongst exegetes and theologians
church will there's as to whether the great apostasy and
the when it's the text repulses the man of sin
will stand up in the temple in the Church of
God proclaim himself to be God. Does that mean a
spiritual temple of the Church where a man within the
church causes an apostasy or does it mean an actual,
literal rebuilt temple in Israel. I tend to actually think,
I mean, I think there will be an apostasy of
the church whenever that is, but I tend to think
that it is talking about a rebuilt, rebuilt temple.
Speaker 4: Jay, I just want to remind you that if something's debated,
that means there is no truth about it. So I
just wanted to according to Daniel, that dude, that was
that was really funny.
Speaker 5: And by the way, he knows good and well when
you get into the nuances of Islamic debates on the
attributes of Allah, he knows good and well. They debate
this all day long, and it's not clear and simple.
That's just a sales pit.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they actually had wolves filtering over whether the Quran
is created or uncreated. Well, and anyone as thing is wrong.
Speaker 5: Well, they'll call each other idolators in shirk over the
anthropomorphic view. So Jake and Daniel believe in anthropomorphic views,
and the other Muslims will say that they're committing shirk
by doing that.
Speaker 4: Jay, would you debate Sneako or you think it's wrong
to punch retards?
Speaker 5: I don't think Ko actually will debate anyone.
Speaker 4: No, he won't debate anyone.
Speaker 5: You No, I actually think.
Speaker 4: I think he's actually gonna I think he's gonna leave Islam.
That's my hope. Meeting him in person, I think he
occurs as like the little brother type where he's just
like wide eyed and like I want to go do
the truth man, like this kind of thing. I think
he can be. I mean, I know he can be influenced.
So that's the good news about a young a young
pup like that. So maybe debating him isn't even in
the best process.
Speaker 2: Can I say there was a super child that ask
if there was someone who is like the equivalent of
the dispensationalists like the Islamic debate from yesterday, And I'm
not sure that there is any structure you have major
like pro zionists and people who have similar eschatologies, et cetera.
But I don't think there's any form of structure.
Speaker 5: I've never heard of a dispensational debate. I mean back
in the days of like Moonsen and Gentry and all that,
and like ninety nine or like the late nineties, mid
to late nineties, they were doing they were doing these
kinds of debates. But I haven't even heard of the
debate like that since the nineties.
Speaker 2: And nowadays you just hear apocalypticism and pro Israel stuff,
you know, John Hagy and crew, you know, just going
away whoever blisicious, who is real?
Speaker 13: Yeah, this guy, I will and I will tell you
support you always support Israel forever and ever never until
the end, until the fire.
Speaker 4: Like this is basically modern politics, which we'll get into.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: I think that's going to be actually the very interesting,
palatable more palatable with this. A lot of the theology
is important, but.
Speaker 5: Well you think of this as an evangelical thing, which
it is, But I mean Rat Singer in his one
of his later books before he stepped Down, was basically
affirming a form of dual covenant theology for the Jews.
So this, this idea has basically spilled over into the
Roman Callolics as well.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of it is driven by a
certain mid century event that promotes a lot of guilt.
So now, even though you disagree with it theologically, yeah,
you know, sort of feel bad about it, so you know,
you can't really deny any of it lest you look bad.
And and then the only people who stand up are
usually crazy.
Speaker 4: Many religions, one covenant is the title Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Speaker 5: Yeah, so the so called trad pope right was saying
all kinds of crazy stuff.
Speaker 4: So okay, we'll just press play and see where this
guy takes it. I can't even tell. I don't know
if it matters the person who's presenting this, if he's
advocating or just simply described. I don't know if it
matters eight.
Speaker 10: Of Israel and Christ is actually ruling through ethnic Jewish
people during this millennial period. I don't think anybody in
the history of the Church until Darby had ever actually
suggested that particular hypothesis.
Speaker 9: The church is removed.
Speaker 10: As I say, the term of art that is used
is that the church is raptured.
Speaker 9: The term is not found in the Bible, but it's usually.
Speaker 10: An allusion to First Thessalonians chapter five. So the church
has taken out in a kind of blink of an
eye sort of event, and that takes place before this
millennial era begins Old Testament prophecies that look forward to
a time of rich blessing, And of course the Old
Testament has many of these, Isaiah, Zachariah, Ezekiel, others, all
sort of look forward. For the most part, all of
the prophets have some idea of a great period of
blessing in the future.
Speaker 4: Generally speak trump trump, trump, trump, Is that the is
that the is that one of the do you think
that could be smuggled in as that? Or you get
to choose whatever that is? Is it the eighties, I
mean the eighties.
Speaker 2: Were I sent you that picture that the maga hat
is the mock of the beast?
Speaker 4: Right right, I'm interpreting this all wrong.
Speaker 10: Those have been identified with God's work among his people
in some sense or other u in unfolding history. Classical
Christianity would say those are describing God's blessings on the
world through his.
Speaker 9: Work in the church, that sort of thing.
Speaker 10: However, Darby says all of those predictions actually refer to
the Kingdom, not anything that God is doing through the Church.
So those prophecies are actually prophecies of a coming millennium.
Immediately before the millennium is a period that Darby called
the Great Tribulation, borrowing that term, of course from the
New Testament itself. This is a seven year period of time.
It precedes the second Coming of Christ. It is also
identified by Darby. Again he appears to be the first
one to suggest this hypothesis.
Speaker 9: He identifies the I.
Speaker 4: Have a question, it might be really dumb when people
refer to the coming of Christ. Are they including the
birth and manifestation of Christ as Man as the first
or are they talking about the resurrection as.
Speaker 5: The first, the second coming, the coming into That's what
they were talking.
Speaker 10: About seven year period of the Great Tribulation as the
seventieth Week of Daniel. Now, if you've been in the
class or of otherwise study these things, you know, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 5: I know. You probably don't want me to keep interrupting.
Speaker 4: No, you can keep it. This is really you guys
are driving this basically so really.
Speaker 5: Important with Daniel's seventieth Week because it's a really important
prophecy for Christianity, because it's basically Daniel in his book
looks back to Jeremiah and he realizes certain things about
what God's going to do in history. He says in
Daniel by reading Jeremiah, and Jeremiah talked about seventy seventies
and dividing up times into sevens and seventies, and so
Daniel comes up with this idea that there would be
a determined amount of time for the nation of Israel.
Now remember Daniel's writing in captivity, so he's writing as
if the nation will be restored, and then he predicts
that there's this period basically seven years time seventy, which
is four hundred and ninety right, the last seven years
is this seven year period that Daniel was talking about,
and he says, in this last seven years, this is
really important because this is a really stupid thing that
the dispensationalists due. Daniel says that in this last week,
which is a week, is just seven years, it's a
week of years. This last seven years will include the
everybody says, seventy weeks are determined, and then I'll skip
down to the last Basically, there will be a end
of lawlessness, atonement for sin everlasting righteousness comes in the
fulfilling and sealing up of visions and prophecies, which means
that there's no prophecies after. There's no new visions and
prophecies after the time of the Messiah. So we don't
need Mohammed and we don't need Joseph Smith and to
anoint the Holy One. And then he says, this will
be the coming of Messiah the Prince. Okay, Now, the
dummy dispensationalists are so stupid that they go with the
Masoretic text, not the subtusion, because Sebtusient makes it clear
that it's Messiah the Prince. The Mazoretic text says the
Prince to come, they say that's the Antichrist, and so
they actually say that this last week is paused when
so Jesus comes, and then because the Jews rejected Christ,
the last seven years is paused to be the seven
year tribulation thousands of years into the future after the
time of Christ. Okay, there's nothing in the passage that
says anything about this. The passage actually says all of
these things are fulfilled when the Messiah comes. This is
Daniel nine twenty four to twenty seven, right excuse me, right,
and then it even says that the Messiah will be
cut off in verse twenty six, and this would be
a fulfillment of the Jesillation.
Speaker 4: So we teach they so they introduced as sort of
Nintendo arbitrary pause in their game.
Speaker 5: Yeah, because though it's identified in the very passes that
it's the Messiah, the Prince in especially for the subtuagen,
then the next verse says that after this time the
anointed One will be put to death. The death of
the Messiah is so clear, right, idiots destroy one of
the strongest proofs of Christianity and the prediction of the
Messiah being put to death. These idiots destroy it, make
it something two thousand years, three thousand years in the future.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the Jews were very aware of
this timeline in the time of Christ. And if that's
why people were already you know, if you claim they
start asking you questions, you know, they don't just hear what, well,
that's ridiculous. No, No, they were very aware of the
timeline with the seventy weeks of years, you know, that's
four hundred and ninety years years and numbers in general,
and the ancient world were rounded up massively. You know,
it's simply how things work. We are very methodical nowadays,
in large part due to the availability of writing and material,
both as an ink and as in a medium of writing.
So we are much more I want to say anal
about it, but yeah.
Speaker 5: We mean Rabbinic Jews has Saidic Jews they actually pronounce
a curse on gentiles that read this passage, because this
passage is it's so difficult for them that they'll like,
they do.
Speaker 14: A curse on the gentiles that they just spit they
just as randomly like drinks.
Speaker 5: I think they do it on puium. I can't remember that.
They're like, they'll drink wine and spit at the Jews
that reads.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they have super they have like they have super
soakers and they just spray people.
Speaker 2: Who is it Pentecostal?
Speaker 4: Wait okay, wait a second. Are you saying that the
dispensationalist view is partial to a it just happens to
be partial to a bagel view that the best possible
thing you can appeal to as far as a prophecy
of Jesus as God is rejected, which is weird if
you're taking a Christian view, right, So, you'd be like,
why would you pick the one thing that really sets
people into a into a spurgy frenzy.
Speaker 5: Right, So, and on top of this, because it's such
a damaging, dangerous passage, I also think that for they're
not actually allowed to read this for a long time
unless they're older Jews, and there's some rule about not
being able to read it until they're so uh or
or or maybe they're not allowed to talk on it
in the synagogue. I don't know. There's there's some weird
structures on it. But what's weird about that is the
passage is so clear and it even describes the death
of the anointed one that in the Talmud they have
a position that there's two messiahs. Right, so you'll hear
if you hear if you're Jews. The day they'll say
there's no passage that talks about the death of the Messiah.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: However, they're being disingenuous because the Talmud actually says there's
two Messiahs, one of whom dies. They believe in Massa
I have been Joseph and Messiah David and one of
them dies, so they even believe the Messiah dies. But
to get around these passages they've invented to different Messiahs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and like with this position of elongating that last week,
you with all Protestantism, you tie yourself to a certain
conclusion and then you reverse engineer any interpretation, including you know,
an uneasy relationship for example of Luther with the Epistle
of James, because you obviously you need to come to
this conclusion. So if anything is a bother to it,
you're going to reject it or at least discredit it.
And it's a very commonplace thing. So there's no way
this is saying what it's saying. It has to say
something that is in line with my expectation. And then
we have to listen to these exact same people tell
us how we apply different interpretive schemas in some self
serving manner. And it's again, there's no such thing as
plain reading. But if we just read it, it's pretty clear. Now.
As I said, there's no such thing as plain reading.
But it works with everything else. It works with Isaiah,
it works with the psalms we do.
Speaker 5: It's a great point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it locks with everything else.
Speaker 5: They believe in the simple, clear perspecuity of scripture, simple
meaning However, when you get to Daniel nine, oh no, no, no,
there's this like pause, and it's two thousand years later,
and it's just crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all of a sudden, perspecuity is gone. And then
they established some type of hierarchy of what is clear
isn't what is less clear, and then the more clear
interprets the less clear. And usually that means, well, what
agrees with me is more clear, but disagrees with me.
Should color be colored by what agrees with me?
Speaker 4: That sounds sounds very Islamicism.
Speaker 5: And Judaism all have the same like simple meaning and
book worship.
Speaker 2: Speaking of not talking about things in public. In the
last couple of years, there's been a complete collapse in
the Islamic argument of the miraculous perfect preservation of the Qur'an.
I don't know how anyone ever got to that point,
considering what the hadiths say. You know why it was
codified in the first place was because a lot of
it was lost with all the reciters. Quran means the recitations,
you know, all these reciters dying in battle or of
old age or whatever means of death. So they decide, okay,
we need to write it down everything we still have.
We need to write it down and keep it right.
And that was replete with problems. But a couple of
years ago, Sneaker's mentor, Mohammed jar.
Speaker 5: He just had a guy on this that it's not
just a guy.
Speaker 2: That's Yasakadi, his father wrote. His father wrote a book
on the sciences of the Qur'an. So he's not just
you know, someone who's well informed. He has a pedigree
even with these types of things. And there are multiple
you know, not interviews, but like lectures or things of
him where he to how should we say, like an
uneducated audience like plebs. He says, no perfect preservation, you know,
every dot and no difference. But then when he talks
to as they call the people of knowledge, which is
to say, the scholars, it's not that clear. And when
Job had him on, his Job kept pushing it until
he said, these things should not be discussed among you know,
before the masses, Yachi, you shouldn't talk about this. But
it was just common as filthy commoners here. This is
something for us highly educated people, which is a very
very common thing with mystic religions. You know, where you
get this progressive revelation, so to speak, where you get
more and more knowledge. This is what you will get,
as Jay said, you will get it with Islam and Judaism,
especially with problem parts, and then Protestantism. I don't know,
they don't do that. They just sort of wing everything,
and I don't know. It's sort of like you never
let them know your next move if you can't really predict.
Speaker 5: That's providential that you said that, Parst, because literally I
had just watched that video two nights ago. I'd never
seen it in this interview, and I just happened upon
this interview popped up in my my feed. It's called
that there's a guy who captured it and kind of
made a summer summation videos. He's a guy called the
Friendly ex Muslim. And if you're looking for this video,
it's called the interview muhammedda Jab tried to hide from
the World, and it's it's like a twenty minute version
of what partially talking about. I highly recommend that because
you'll see like Muhammad Jabs starting to like freak out.
That's what this guy's saying, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, things things. That was a couple of years ago.
I know David would had like a stream to commemorate
like four years since the interview, because then they kept
kept spamming, you know, striking for what copyright copyright ringement,
people who would clip and repost it yas Caldi did
that and YouTube obviously obliged, so it's not as easy
to find, but it did happen. And basically everyone who
is dealing with anti Islamic polemics state that video, so
there's no way to delete it. It's just difficult to
post and people who host it somewhere else. You know,
it's a very important thing to find, but that has
been destroyed. Another thing that's been really destroyed as the
scientific miracles, etc. So it's a religion collapse. They you know,
strike their chests and pretend like, oh we are strongly
bit yeh. But no, it's really going poorly for them.
As I said Albania. We have Albanians in the chat
recently in.
Speaker 4: The Terrible Terrible People.
Speaker 2: Well I wouldn't call them people.
Speaker 4: Okay, listen one interruption here, Jay, I want to get
a sense of you and Posha's timeline. I do want
to get into geopolitics because it's very accessible to my audience.
This is all important, but dense. I just want to
get a sense of your time.
Speaker 2: In the sense of the screen.
Speaker 4: Yeah, how much time do you have to because I
want to you guys have to serve Ja especially okay
you have beer Jay, especially because I want you here
to go over the modern implications what we're dealing with
now in our very cryptic way that we have to
do it. Probably. I just want to get a sense
you you can drive when you want to go into that,
That's what I'm saying. But I just want to give
enough time for it.
Speaker 2: So that Yeah, if you're limited in time, Yeah, you
are the expert for the geopolitical aspect.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, I don't want to miss out on that part.
Speaker 5: So well, I wouldn't even say an expert. I mean,
I just I mean, there's not a whole lot really,
that's that mysterious thing. It's pretty kind of easy to
follow and figure out basically, just you know, a lot
of evangelical uh prophecy writers for many, many years, probably
going back to the eighties and nineties, and they've had
a very close relationship with Apak. We have certain figures
who have written who are Jewish writers, who've written famous
prophecy books who work closely with foreign nations, shall we say,
And those are what they typically do in those prophecy books,
even the fiction books that are very popular, they will
promote the enemies of America and Jesus is almost always Russians,
Chinese and they will usually just come yeah, they loosely
copy paste them onto Gog and may good. Right, there's
this rabbinic tradition. I think that there's theories about where
the people groups from the Table of Nations in Genesis
ten went out into different regions of the world, and
so Gog and Magog and some of the rabbinic ideas
are you know, Russians and people like that. Anyway, it's
a lot of speculation in terms of that stuff, but
it's utilized in terms of geopolitics to push just anything
that's against you know, American, Israeli, Atlantis. Okay, interests must
be one of these predicted prophetic in times that is
that some point?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, Jay, do you want Bosh real quick before
we get into geopolitics. Do you want me to continue
and do any more? Uh more theological It's still interesting
to me. I like it, the Chat likes it. I
just want to want to count for your time, Jay
if okay, okay, we'll keep going.
Speaker 2: Right back.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Posh amazingly doesn't have a catheter.
Speaker 5: Actually, I want to go to the restaurant. I'm actually
wearing a I don't want to go.
Speaker 4: Gold could go change the diaper. Well, and this is
a good time to look at some super chats, so
I don't miss them out. Okay, why did the Muslims
say that slavery argument like the atheist Well, because FB,
if you're talking about Daniel or the other dude, they
don't really have a standard because you know, if you
saw their argument was not their argument was conceding, even
with the pedo thing. They were like, well, you guys
hold this too. That's why they try to pin j
against Sam by appealing to to Aquinas. And so I
think I think the Christian and the Muslim have to
would have to have a debate about that particular item itself, slavery,
because Christianity like what you call slavery as far as
like capturing, like for instance, slavery. Let's say there's a
woman in the wilderness and in the time of of
like in a time of a horrid circumstance, you find
a woman in the woods, now, well, a woman. From
a Christian view, you can you could actually use force
to pick up the woman, put her in a carriage,
and remove her from the wilderness. Now would a monern
person say that slavery acting against autonomy will? Sure, But
from the Christian view, you're not arguing from you know,
bodily autonomy and consent at this point, you're arguing from
a larger position. So this it really brings up the
question of like, what is even considered the word slavery. Obviously,
the atheist reddit to her always use slavery incorrectly. They
always use this modern term of a trans and latic
slave concept, and then they transpose it into a biblical
historical context, which is inaccurate. But even if you granted that,
the atheist still has no justification for why any of
this is wrong. You know, so they're not even doing
an internal critique, which Jay and myself and many others.
I don't know what it's going to take to train
our oppositeition in this this distinction called an internal critique.
I don't know what's going on with their minds. I
don't know how to do. I wish they would do
it because it's actually more fun to do to debate
that way. So Jay, you can answer this because you
were in the debate itself. Why did the Muslim say
the slavery argument like the atheists, Well, because that's their
their foundation is just as absent.
Speaker 5: Well, what they tended to have tended to do in
their approach is utilize anything that an unbelieving higher critical
scholar or an atheist uses, and so they just kind
of latch onto any kind of argumentation that they find
out there. It doesn't matter the source. And this isn't
really I think a weak a weakness of theirs, because
for example, when they when they appeal to all these atheists,
scholars and academics, they don't mention the fact that none
of those atheist scholars and academics believe in the Qur'an.
So it's like they only will utilize this argument to attack,
you know, Christianity. They totally ignore all the same scholars
talking about how silly the chronic narratives and how deeds are.
But so they just latch onto whatever's out there. But no,
I think the laws of Christianity are way more humanitarian
obviously than the traditional laws of Islam.
Speaker 2: I'd like to make a couple of points on slavery,
because there was a Protestant guy who said that one
of the worst missed opportunities for the Council of Nicia
is that they didn't ban slavery. Now, I don't know
how we expected that to happen. How a council of
bishops could ban slavery. They could put it forward or something,
I suppose, But people miss very simple historical realities. It
wasn't that maybe for the Roman Empire this was different,
but for most of human history in most places which
weren't highly highly developed. And then even there, you don't
get freed from slavery. And then you go and you know,
start working in a shop. You know, I don't know,
like never mind, I can't make a joke if I
can't remember the name of the shop. But you don't
start your own podcast, you don't start like making your
own trinkets or something that is not an option, Which
is why there's a stipulation in the Bible and the
Mosaic Law that if you want to stay as a slave,
you know, there's a process for it. You get your pierced,
and you know, certain signs of it. Why because at
least you would get food and shelter, which is not
even a probability if you just go out on your
own after being a slave.
Speaker 4: I will add really quick, really quick. A basically like
to reference the woman in the woods during a wartime,
the modern person who's oh slavery bad Christianity falls. Do
you think that woman in the woods is going to
build a treehouse and have some sort of like weird
only fans from the treehouse and she's gonna make her
way in the world. No, the man will be like, no,
I'm going to pluck you from the wilderness, even against
your will, and I'm going to make a better life
for you because I'm leading you. So continue posture.
Speaker 2: Right. So, by the way Islam teaches, you know, taking
sex slaves. That is why they say that the you're
allowed sex with women you're married to, or what is
described as that which your right hand possesses.
Speaker 4: Two right hands or one right.
Speaker 2: Hand which one right So mota is basically temporary marriage.
So it's still considered marriage. Now, the studies will tell
you that this is a sheer practice. But then again,
you know, as with all things in Islam, depends on
whom you ask, but even not that is considered marriage,
and therefore nika is permitted.
Speaker 4: Sorry sorry, maybe.
Speaker 2: Because you basically said, what's up efforts? But uh uh,
what I mean is there's no such allowance in Mosaic law,
even with the women you get who have not yet
known a man, And that is given only for specific
campaigns for specific peoples to be specifically punished for the
most grotesque practices, even amongst.
Speaker 5: And there's something probably going on with the ending of
that lineage in the in divine providence. That again, what's
happening in the Old is sure the survival of the
people to produce them. It's not because they have better
DNA or something magical DNA.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah.
Speaker 5: So people who are committed to the destruction of Israel
in the Old Testament period, that's the specific reasons why
God ends the lineage of those groups. So and it's
the same principle with the flood as we've talked about
with the Muslims. I would like to add too, because
it didn't we didn't actually get the covered in the debate.
But the Bible in no place allows the Jews or
Israelizes to grape anyone. So the most saying that you
can do that. There's no passage that you can.
Speaker 2: They mean like you can take the women who have
not yet known a man. But it says you give
them forty days to mourn and then they can decide
whether to stay with you or not. And right if
they decide to stay, they shave their head, And which
is how women would convert to Judaism, what we call Judaism.
I suppose they would shave their head. You know, can't
freely circumcize them, A bit difficult, okay, if your Muslim,
we can, but there's no biblical stipulation for how you
would circumcize a woman. But that that shaving of the
head represents like a new start. And if they refuse,
you have to let them go, and you're forbidden from
selling them into slavery. Now, the Jews the Israelites at
this point still it wasn't yet split into North and South.
So the Israelites, a lot of them didn't follow these rules.
But that's a different thing. Like people who say, oh,
we are told the Jews that Israelites were monotheistic, but
archaeology tells us and what just take the Old Testament,
you know, and you know, go to a random page
and put your finger somewhere, go five verses up or down.
It will say something about Israelites worshiping foreign gods. Right,
and so the disobedience to the law doesn't mean that
it's allowed. So God will tolerate a lot of things,
but he sets out what is the moral expectation. And
once you fill up the cup of iniquity, as it's
most often translated, then bad things start to happen. Right,
So tolerance is done. Now you have to suffer because
you will not be corrected any other way. So that
part is clear about the women, but about slavery in general.
As I said, it wasn't a free market economy. I
guess in a sense it was because things weren't as interconnected.
But there was no You would be some type of
day laborer, right, you would work all.
Speaker 4: Day and free market listen, doesn't I hate to interrupt,
but I don't want to do it. Haale spin into
Islam and all that. Let's continue with this guy's dumb position.
And by this guy, I mean this guy and then
Jay and and Posh. You can sort of influence when
you want to get into more modern cakes.
Speaker 2: You should get progressively closer total.
Speaker 4: I mean, look at that. I mean looks like what's
the movie with Ben ben Stiller where he's a model.
It's kind of like that, you know, where he's a
model and he's a camera. Yes, he's.
Speaker 2: He looks offensively irish, by the way.
Speaker 4: He is very irish.
Speaker 10: Yeah, he is some years from the going forth of
the order to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of Messiah.
So many of the thinkers down through history have played
with these seventy weeks of Daniel, all of them of
course envisioning that the seventy weeks expire with the advent
of Messiah and the beginning of the work of Christ
through his Church and so on. Darby again brings a
unique idea that the seventieth week is detached from the
first sixty nine and thrust out somewhere in the future,
and that seventieth Week of Daniel is actually identical with
the Great Tribulation. If there's ever a point where Darby's
analysis has been almost universally criticized by non dispensationalists, it's
here because at least the general assessment is there is
absolutely no exegetical justification for detaching the seventieth week from
the first sixty nine. It is a somewhat arbitrary construction.
Speaker 5: But it yeah, he has to do that to make
it work.
Speaker 2: And by the way, every time you hit it, how'd
this unique take? I should tell you everything you need
to know.
Speaker 10: Sixty nine does make seem hang together better to view
it that way.
Speaker 9: So that's what he does.
Speaker 10: The church is raptured out before the tribulation. Now, this
again was a notion that seems to have been borrowed
from Edward Irving. We talked about him a couple of
weeks ago, and at least there's fairly good documentation that
Edward Irving got the idea of a tribulation period and
a church being raptured out in an ecstatic utterance from
a young woman named Margaret.
Speaker 9: MacDonald and one of his somewhat pentecostal uh J.
Speaker 4: Why, I'm sorry you may have said this, but why
was it the week before and not like sixty eight
or something like why wasn't it two weeks? Did you
clarify that?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 4: What was the why the last week?
Speaker 5: The last week is the one that's the where all
the heavy crazy stuff happens. Oh, let me read this
passage if you don't mind, it's not long. Do you
want me to read it?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, do it, man, I'm open here.
Speaker 5: Okay. So basically, it says all of the measure of
the sins are going to be fulfilled and everything finished
and determined within this period of seventy weeks, which is
not it's four hundred and ninety years, it's weeks of years. Okay.
It will finish sin, wipe out lawlessness, the tone for wrongdoing,
bring righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, and anoint the
Holy One. You will know that there will be from
the know that from the going forth of the word
to rebuild Jerusalem. Now, this is the part that's somewhat
debated because we have to go to different texts and
look at Ezra to figure out when the most people
think artistser Sees commissioned Ezra to rebuild the temple and
four fifty eight BC, which is second Ezra seven, seven
and eight in the Orthodox study level. Okay, so there's
some debate over that, but we'll skip that debate this
for this point, because the main point is that all
of this is happening in this final seven years of
the four hundred and ninety years. Right. You will know
therefore and understand that from the going forth to build
the Temple, to rebuild the Temple and rebuild Jerusalem, that Christ,
the Messiah, the Prince, there will be seventy weeks, and
I'm going to skip down to the final week. After these,
the anointed One will be put to death and there
will be no judgment for him, and he will destroy
the city and the sanctuary with the Prince who is coming,
and they shall cut off with a flood and end
the war with an end of war. And this will
put the city, appoint the city to desolation. But know
this that he will make a covenant, and in the
middle of that covenant, the sacrifice and the and the
offering will be taken away, and there will be an
abomination of desolation in the temple and an end that
is appointed. So basically we interpret that as Christians, as Orthodox,
especially that the Messiah fulfills these things in that last week,
that last seven years of his time frame of being
a minister, and then the destruction of the Temple. It's
all encapsulated under this last in other words, the first Coming,
the First Coming fulfills these prophecies.
Speaker 4: Okay, so Jay, it sounds like it makes total sense
you'd hold off on that week because if you stop
it at the sixty nine week and have an arbitrary pause,
you can keep waiting and waiting and have control over
that final like basically any time between sixty nine weeks
and the rest of the world. You're basically correct. Like
Pasha said, You're just always right because you've hit a
our arbitrary pause, so you can just keep manipulating real
time events, smuggling them into your dispensational view. And because
you hit pause, you could you'll never be wrong. You'll
never be a wrong profit in a sense right because
because things never could come to pass, because you have
to hit unpause eventually on the on the on the
play deck there. So it's that seems very deliberate to me.
Speaker 5: Yea, not only what you just forgot that the Epistle
of Barnabas, which is not canonical but it's a very
early testament to the views of the early Church, observes
that this pass was fulfilled when the temple and the
sanctuary destroyed in seventy eight. Marnabas points out that a
true temple was built the body of Christ during this
time period. Seventy weeks is determined to mean seventy weeks
of years or four un or ninety years. The prophecy
applies to Jeremiah's seventy years from Jeremiah nine to twenty
five eleven, and it says, according to Saint Hipolotists, the
vision concerns the time when the temple would be rebuilt
as well as the coming of the Messiah. And then
our desercees commissions Ezra to rebuild the temple in four
fifty eight PC. So yeah, it's a little confusing with
the Weird Week's terminology, but that's what.
Speaker 2: Was going on, gotcha.
Speaker 9: Little style meetings. You know, it was not developed by
Edward Irving.
Speaker 10: He didn't work out in elaborate eschatology, but that kernel
may have been the most important triggering idea in the
whole thought of Darby, and he took that and ran
with it a long way. And so it was this
pre tribulation rapture that and since became the seed out
of which so much of the rest of his eschatological
schematic was developed. So the church is not only raptured
out before the millennium, actually before this tribulation period. Most
of the Book of Revelation, according to Darby, is describing
events in the future that occurred during this tribulation period.
Speaker 9: This is what's called the.
Speaker 10: Futurist view of revelation, that is describing events in the future.
We've looked at the historicist view in some details.
Speaker 9: There's other views that.
Speaker 10: Were much less influential, the preterorist views these Revelation largely
describing events taking place in the first century. Darby becomes
the most famous of the futurist approaches to revelation.
Speaker 4: Now I want to pause there. Futurists, is that like
this view, that you contrive it and make it happen,
like an accelerationist view, or is futurist view in this
context something a little bit different, where it's just describing
the chronology and it's not a matter of contriving and trying.
Speaker 5: To make describing the preterism versus futurism. So basically there's
three views on dating, and there's preterorist, historicist, and futurist. Now,
creditist believes that much of the passages are fulfilled in
seventy eight or before, and that there might also be
a future fulfillment. But historicists believes that, for example, the
Book of Revelation is talking about the whole history of
the Church. A lot of Protestant Reformers were famously historicists.
Many Catholic Jesuit theologians have been historicists, and they kind
of see like random sort of stuff like you'll see
Roman Catholics say, oh, Revelation twelve, that was the Middle
Ages when the blah blah blah or whatever. They're just
sort of assigned random church history stuff to the Book
of Revelation. And then futurists is this these people? So
all pre millennialists are futurists, but not all pre millenninists
are dispensations.
Speaker 4: Gotcha.
Speaker 2: Ok.
Speaker 10: During that time, a character known as the Anti Christ
is going to dominate in the world. He comes in
originally as a kind of champion of peace.
Speaker 4: He makes best any creations of the.
Speaker 10: World, essentially putting himself in a position of worldwide prestige.
He makes packs, including a pact with Israel. But then
in the middle of this tribulation three and a half
years in, he violates.
Speaker 9: He breaches that agreement, committing.
Speaker 10: A sacrilegious act at a temple that of course, has
to be rebuilt before any of these could take place,
and that gives rise then to three and a half
years of horrific conditions in the world, culminating in a
great battle the scri er mentioned in Revelation sixteen called
the Battle of Armageddon.
Speaker 4: Now, I want to just note as we move into
the modern cultural context of all this, is that there
the dispensationalist view allows for seeing someone like Donald Trump
or anyone else in the arena. As you can take
the view that he's the evil one. You could also
take the view that he's the scent angelical one, and
they're both have some they both have some elasticity to
them if you hold this view. So that's what's kind
of that's what you see in the meme world right.
Posh mentioned the hat the mark of the Beast is
make America great again. But then other people take the
view that Donald Trump is in fact the anti crime
because he's going to make a pact and he supports Israel.
But then he's gonna you know, all this stuff. And
it's just interesting that the elasticity that it gives you
to hold this position, because to point out out again
that sixty nine week pause button really allows for any
sort of crafting and writing in between. Anything you want
to add to that, because I just you know, all
of these things he's saying, I can't help to be
triggered into the morass of modern culture, geopolitics, and all
the takes that we're engaging with daily.
Speaker 2: So anything, I would like to restate what I said
earlier that it's great for them because you basically occupy
both sides.
Speaker 5: Of the dialectic.
Speaker 2: You can say, oh, Trump is the Antichrist because look
at him, he is a woman and eyes. He has
worked in like New York real estate, so you can imagine,
you know, there's been so if the thing's going on there,
et cetera. But you can then have like religious leaders
who stood by him. You know, God uses imperfect people glory,
you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, you could do anything. And
then you have like the Orthodox position is you pray
for those who are leading the country, right because they
everyone needs prayer. We all need prayer, We all need
mercy and grace. So you know, we don't know, he
could be, he could not be. Not ours to calculate
some pseudo geometrio or whatever. We we deal with what
we have. You know, Christ says you to pilot. You know,
you wouldn't have this authority unless it was granted to
you by my father. So we are granted certain predicaments
and we are to endure them in the most Christian
way we can. But that's not fun enough, you see.
But it's this beauty of you know, holding both sides
of the dialectic and then you know, run them through
whichever side you'd like, depending on how you think of them.
You know how many people have thought Obama was the
antis Of course there are still still people hanging on
to that thought. So you can't really reason with it
because it's not not just motivated thinking, but it's even
super objective motivated thinking because it's not just objective, it's
the word of God that says that. So it's even
higher than objective truth. And then like all the Anabaptists,
like all like Jehovah's witnesses, you know, you're just all
like climate change, and you know, you just know it's ending,
it's ending, and it doesn't end it just.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm going to point to the last three here,
Posh and Jay, is that even what you just said
kind of brings this up is that the Antichrist from
this dispensational view really reduces to not a spirit, a
sort of proclivity to a rebellion or something like a
spirit of Antichrist versus a unique person with a name.
Now I want to reconcile this for the chat because
it's interesting. What would be the difference between a pre
a dispensationalist view of Antichrist as a distinction versus an Orthodox,
let's say, in this case, view of Antichrist, because because
it seems to be they hold the comic book view
where you have to reduce Antichrist to a very specific
kind of person and it doesn't include the spirit of Antichrist.
Now is that different?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 4: It seems like a good distinction to explore.
Speaker 5: They focus, so they hyper focus on you know, that
individual and his power or what ever. And uh, you know,
for us, the false prophet is just as important as well,
because the false prophet is the leader of a false
religion that promotes Antichrist. So both of those figures are
are really important. And you couldn't have Antichrist without the
false prophet promoting the spirit of Antichrist, right, like a
mimic Messiah and a mimic Church and a memic Holy Spirit.
So it's a it's an inverted kind of trinity basically.
Speaker 4: Got you. But the from from a let's say, from
an Orthodox view, the spirit of Antichrist could exist and
something we can use in reference without the personification in.
Speaker 5: Flesh, right, because it's already at work.
Speaker 4: Right, Yeah, So that seems to be a distinct Christ.
Speaker 5: Is anyone denying the incarnation and.
Speaker 2: John many have already come, right.
Speaker 4: So gravy, gravy.
Speaker 2: But but even people who go with like six sixty
six or six one six, are you gonna rendered Nero?
You know? Uh, that's not to say Nero is some
guy who is this Ultimateieval. He is the archetype of
the evil. He is the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Speaker 5: Now keep in mind there's another key indicator that only
Orthodox have an insight into, because if in third Maccabee's
chapter one, it mentions the fact that Ptolemy, who is
a type of Antichrist, just like Nero, just like uh,
these other rulers are. Ptolemy mandates that in order to
buy or sell you have to take the mark of
the ancient mysteries of Dionysius. So you have to get
this leath tattoo or mark in order to buy or sell.
And so when John talks about the mark to buy
or sell, it's the same spirit Ptolemy had that now
Nero's having, and presumably also will be the spirit used
at the end. Whenever the end is, there'll be some
kind of attempt to control all economic transactions and so forth,
food and so forth too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and important to mention is that there's also saying
that this is the church basically offers a counter to it.
So it's not going to be, you know, a medical procedure.
You know, your local priest isn't going to get the
Holy Jabbies or something, or you know, in Greece there
was a whole mess a couple of decades ago with
barcodes because they thought, oh, you need these lines to
buy stuff. Right, So, you know, Orthodoxy isn't fully immune
to nonsense because people really like flashy things. They like
things that are easy to grasp and very they like
the immediacy of it, which is again wrong and unwise
and should not be calculated by these pathetic means. But
it's it's history plays out, and if you're going to
use certain like the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Canaan ideities.
You know that that's the image that is used to
show it to people back in that day. So like
terminologies used in certain ways, we need to maintain that usage.
That This is why pern is so important. The phone
of the church is that you need to maintain the
original meaning and take it on. And you know, if
you need to change the word, change the word, but
don't change the meaning, but keep the graphemes and the phonemes,
that that's pointless. And this is why this apocalypticism that's
there's been prevalent for the last couple of centuries among
certain strands of Protestantism are so powerful because it seems
correct even though you've actually moved from the meanings of
the words that are used and the symbols that are used,
so it bears no resemblance to the original. You know,
like Yon Mathis rode out like with like a dozen
people into thousands of soldiers and believed he would get victory.
Obviously loses. Does that stop his cult? No? They because
he was chopped up and his head put on a pike.
I think his genitals were nailed to city gates or whatever.
Speaker 4: But why does that make you so happy?
Speaker 2: I'm only two piers and I'm not too happy. But no,
it's funny because you think it would stop the cult.
It doesn't. They go and gather pieces of him into
baskets and then wait for him to resurrect. Right, So
you would think that they would be, you know, somehow
corrected by the events unfolding in front of them. But no,
it doesn't. They just recalibrate and move on.
Speaker 4: Are you guys okay? Moving in jay specifically geopolitics, modern
implications effects of this shit view? Would you like to
do that technic?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 4: You well, because you know, because we're dealing with, you know,
the Boomer. I think the boomers are really the I
don't want to call them victims because they did it
to themselves, but they really kind of ran with this view,
and the ones that are left are still proponents of
the view, and they're they're in positions of power and
what I'm if you guys are wondering what kind of
like person I'm referring to, this is a good clip
to kind of to sort of show you who I'm
talking about.
Speaker 9: Country going to hell in a handbasket, don't what the
cut who we had great.
Speaker 4: Is that's the that's the kind of spirit of it.
And before we get into the geopolitics, Jay just to
demonstrate it with another video, kind of the kind of
mess that is produced by this view for people who
don't even call themselves Christians. I think this is a
fascinating clip. We can run off this and Jay and
and Pasha, you can take it where you will, but
this is I found this clip fascinating to really demonstrate
the impact of this view and how what it looks
like and the kind of confusion it creates.
Speaker 1: This is what calls the actions.
Speaker 4: Really that Yeah, yeah, we lived in love a beautiful prison.
Speaker 5: Want to sleep people?
Speaker 4: They was there?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was not a count.
Speaker 9: Nothing, And.
Speaker 4: Help me say that you're jealous. You know you do
anything from.
Speaker 2: A count.
Speaker 7: And I can do as world.
Speaker 4: How they saying that because they believe.
Speaker 5: So we're telling again, I don't want you doing.
Speaker 4: A girl.
Speaker 7: Either.
Speaker 4: Other you're going.
Speaker 1: Say, yeah, also, learn.
Speaker 2: Your person.
Speaker 7: A TV.
Speaker 4: Yelling no I'm Jewish, No you're she's just flabberty to
your monsters. Thinks yeah he's got she's got the little
gay guy.
Speaker 2: Next, Yeah, but when I get into faces and shout
you are Jewish like this, then I'm somehow bad?
Speaker 4: You're terrible? Yeah, so so Jay and Posh. That image
right there really sort of demonstrates the sort of catastrophe
in the views collapsing and that that they don't even
know what it means to say Jewish, or they don't
know what it means to say supportive Israel. It's all,
it's all completely ripped apart, and watching that view, it's
partially funny but also horrifying. I gotta say, I'm so
happy to be on track to be in the church
because it makes sense of all of this. You're not confused.
You look at this too. You could actually look at
that woman as a cultural New York Jew or wherever
she is, and she thinks Jewish is Jewish. And then
the Orthodo, the Ortho Bagels as I call them, they're like,
what are you talking about? Like we don't even agree
with you here, And then really what they're talking about
is this distinction, like they one side sold a fake
advertised Israel and what it means to be Jewish and
the other one holds a different view. And even though
we disagree with both both of their overall world views.
It really does demonstrate I don't I don't know a
better clip that could sort of at least encapsulate the
impact of this view. Is that fair to say that
what we just witnessed is is really just like an
impact of the destruction, like rubble, the rubble of the view.
Speaker 2: To stop.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, Yeah, okay, I've got the So the best
history on this, by the way, is there's a whole
five pages in Tragic Hope that's really good on the
British imperial structure.
Speaker 4: What dude said, locks, all right, sorry, I'm immature, ortho. Locks.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, No that I can just kind of summarize
those pages when when we're ready, if you want, but
go ahead, go for.
Speaker 2: Well, I wanted to mention how the whole idea of
genetic judaism is verytant here because you that woman doesn't
look particularly practicing. But there's a great summary. There's most
few believe there is no God, but he gave them Israel,
and then they go through to show that. I've even
seen Ben Shapiro, you know, being plums about this on
on a debate stage when he says, well, how can
you say you have a right to Israel the land there,
and he says because of synagogues. And then someone said, okay,
there are Native American you know, burial grounds in the US,
so why don't you leave? You know, so they can't
ever maintain this because there is no it's not meant
to be coherent. It's just meant to be useful. And
when you see the these Hasidics, who are you know,
they're wacky in their own ways. You have strands of Judaism,
then believe, no, no, no, no no. God has to
give us the land. We can't do it ourselves. He
has to do it because that will prove that we
are ready for it. If we go ahead and usurp
the land, we have not shown ourselves, you know, clean enough,
obedient enough, which was sort of the Pharisaic view as well.
You know, we need to follow the law very very
very strictly, and then we will be pure enough and
God will send the Messiah, He will chase out the
Romans and et cetera, et cetera, you know, And basically
the only Judaism that survived from those days is the
the Pharasaic form and then mutated into metesticized i would say,
into all manner of thought. But then you get this,
as you said, some cultural New York jew blond air
a tiny nose, you know, shouting of these people about
how they have this blood obligation to support the Zionism
and they're like, no, we're religious. We believe in this
religious interpretation, and it says God has to grant it
to us otherwise we don't get it.
Speaker 4: Jay, did you want to respond to the clip itself
and then go into your thing, because I want.
Speaker 5: It's just kind of a you know, confusing situation where
a lot of these different inter Jewish groups and sex
will kind of all have elements of truth in the
sense that, you know, Jews against Zionism are themselves committed to,
you know, certain interpretations of the Talmud, and like Posh said,
like they think it has to be done a certain
way before there's a restoration in the coming of the Messiah.
The other other strands, which are more secular and atheist,
like poj said, I mean, it makes no sense because
it's like, well, there is no God, but he gave
us this land, so it's like totally a tool of
of sort of secular powers. But Zionism you know, this
comes it becomes very useful for the British Empire. I'll
get into that maybe a little bit. But so there's
it's really complex in the in the way that like
there's a lot of different factors going into this, but
it just makes all of it really makes no sense
from any of these perspectives.
Speaker 4: Is right, right? Super confusing both the sides. From our view,
we go, oh, they're both very confused about this, but
it is connected to what we've been discussing, right, It
just doesn't come out of nowhere. The cultural blonde knows
job Ju was like screaming because she's arguing a cultural
trend view. The Orthodox is holding an ancient view and
they're trying to maintain it, and they have their own
unfolding of their of their religion that they think is
going to happen, and they're pinned against each other. And
from from your view, from this analysis, there's no way
to separate what we just saw. Is at least fair
to say there's no way to separate what we just
saw as a clip from dispensationalism, that this is like
a this is an effect of it. Would you say,
clearly an effect of dispensationalist view, even though they're not Christianity.
Speaker 5: It played a role in helping America warm up to
supporting what the Ralph Childs and others wanted to do
in the Middle East. Okay, in that regard, it played
a key role in getting it marshaling American the American
engine behind a lot of these moves.
Speaker 2: Natoonyahu said that Christian Zionism was instrumental in paving the
road towards this general let's call it Zionists.
Speaker 4: So we agree with one point five percent of Adam
Green's analysis zero point three.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I now want to reject it just so
we're back to zero. No, obviously, but I think the
dispensationalism is more driven by its apocalypticism, and that was
appear to be very useful and very easy to We
don't need to talk about if it's organic now Okay,
nowadays you can trace it very easily to both intelligence
agencies and different types of funding. And that started obviously
with the start of the even the Moral Majority and
all of these groups that really pushed on things and
had this again this wind power of the Second World
War and events therein that really gave it legitimacy, not
just in religious circles, but even in secular circles where
they said, no, we just need a place for Jews
to go where they can be safe. You know. So
all of these strands, it's what's important is that they
coalesce into the idea of these people get this this
piece of land, whether you get it through oh just
to be safe, whether you get it through Christian Zionism,
to Jewish Zionism, to walk through whatever. What's important is
the outcome and what you need to say in the meantime.
Speaker 4: It just depends on Okay, so would the would the
clip that I played exist even without the apocalyptic dispensational
sort of let's call it chunks. It's like the chunks
is like what you put in the pan first onions
and stuff. It's like the base of the of the meal.
Do you think what what I just played would be
inevitable anyway without these kind of views affecting especially modern
Western American politics.
Speaker 5: I would say so, I think, yeah. I think a
lot of this stuff was already kind of baked into
the cake before America got sufficiently propaganda's with this stuff because.
Speaker 14: Okay, okay, yeah, I mean you know, Balfour Decoration and
establishment of Israel and all that is kind of already
going on by the British Empire, but they definitely wanted
to secure the supported American engine.
Speaker 4: Okay, got it, So I will retract. I will retract
that I'm making a clear distinction or connection between that clip.
I just thought that was to me, it seemed relevant.
It seemed to sort of embody the problems we're dealing with.
I think I thought it was linked to it. But
if if it's a case that that very instance could
exist very well without this this beginning process that were
sold constantly through.
Speaker 5: This, I think I think the analogy would be too.
So prior to all this, you already had the disputes
amongst Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews right and the Reform have
always kind of moved towards more atheistic agnostic type positions.
And then you've got multiple different sects amongst Orthodox Jews
following various rabbinical interpretations and pseudo messiahs. So they've had
a history of falling for various khan men, you know,
Rabbi whoever, and he was the real Messiah, and even
today a bunch of the of them believe Schneerson wasn't.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I believe I recently saw that it was
from and himself because they often use the title bail
because bail just means lord, like bail Shemptove and someone
the Jews breay to bail. But to the point about
the clip, the problem with your assertion in Jimbob is
that neither of those sides were thinking. Well, Darby said right.
And even again back to the New Testament times, you
had these You have the Pharisees, you had the Esses,
you had all types of like zealots, and you know
Scatari eye, which is where we get this carry out.
Jus carried it. But you had all of these different
interpretations of what needs to be done to get things
back in order. Right. The Pharisees thought, you need ritual purity.
This is where a lot of uh Christ's criticism towards
the Pharisees come from. You know, you will get a
tenth from your herb gardens, but then you will ignore
all sorts of things. The subdaces just completely hellenized. You know,
they reject there we accept the pentitoobe. They don't believe
the after life. The Pharisees famously do believe in the
afterlife because Maccabees. Then you've got the Essens who sort
of gave up on the whole temple thing, that go
out into the desert RD, so there is no unified thing.
And then after the fall Jerusalem again you might get
some level of unity because a lot of them, like
the sudase Is, basically relied on being keyholders to the temple.
That was that sort of power. Once you lose the temple,
you're pointless. And then the Pharisees, you know, yeah, go
out they have but even then it breaks into who
knows how many branches and people just you know, go
with your pick and choose rabbi.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm just I'm looking at the blonde woman in
the clip and going, what what could her view be
possibly derived from? If not this flawed sort of genetic
take that can be traced trauma.
Speaker 2: A lot of it is like we're persecuted all the time.
They want to make lampshades out of us, you know,
so enough of that will turn any people into just delusional.
Doesn't have to make sense, just needs to keep you safe.
Speaker 4: Right right, right. It could be it seems to be
like very culturally derived that like, she gets her identity
from whatever cultural propaganda she's getting, and it seems to
be I'm trying to make a link between what are
the culture, what's the cultural propaganda she's getting, and can
it be tracked back to this idea that you know
these the genetics is tied to the land, the genetics
is is the true or whatever that anyway, it doesn't
really matter, but I'm glad you guys distinguished that because
either way, I'm glad we've got to all watch that
clip together. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Jay, you sent this in
the link. Did you want to go off of this thing.
Speaker 5: Here or yeah? This is a kind of an unknown thing.
People don't really know about the Havara Agreement. But it's
a little later in the beginning stage of this, but
I'll try to summarize really quick what quickly says. Basically,
the British Empire was looking for models to have stable
Middle East colonies. Right, So Britain has a very powerful
empire at this time, late eighteen hundreds. They're looking for
different systems and structures that might work to stabilize it.
Amongst the British elite, they were pretty much divided you
had half of them who were very pro Arab, very
pro Muslim. Some of them even reportedly converted. Some of
the famous British spies, Kim Philby's dad supposedly became a Muslim.
Whether he really did or he was just being a spot,
I don't know. But they had a very robust Orientalist
structure which could learn the culture, master it, and then
rule it for the British Empire. The Middle East, however,
was so unstable, or so they said, you had constant
assassinations of leaders. They were looking for what would be
the most stable thing to put there, and so, as
we said, many of them favored Arabic type leaders in
government there. They were pro Palestinian or as we say
now pro Palestinian. But you also had a faction under
Lord Ralph Child who were wanted to establish a specifically
Zion estate. And this was controversial because you already had
quite a few people who were already there who were
you know, Arab Christian and Arab Muslim obviously.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 5: You get this decision on the part of the British
to set up essentially a Zion estate. This is the
British mandate for Palestine, and it was motivated by a
lot of the world Zionist Congress, the Jewish agency. This
is known as the British Mandate for Israel, which ended
in nineteen forty eight. Because after the UK Mandate you
got essentially the decision that Jews needed to migrate there.
Very controversial and it's almost like maybe they wanted this
to cause this division there, right, because what happens is
that the early Army of Israel is created out of
what's called the Haganah, and that's originally the Stern Gang.
The Stern Gang was kind of an organized crime syndicate
that functioned like the early protectors you could say, of
the Jews in Israel at this time, and they evolved
into becoming as a proto intelligence agency an army. They're
behind the famous assassination of one of the lords of
the United Nations because of his policies. Lord Moyne was
assassinated by the Urgun Gang in nineteen forty four, and
then they famously domb the King David Hotel. This is
because now the Jews are getting tired of the British
rule in Israel and in Jerusalem, they want to throw
that off. Then it gets even more complicated, because this
is the crazy part. From the British Empire perspective. They
wanted to manipulate and rule. Then we get this, check
this out. During the years of nineteen forty five to
nineteen forty eight, the Jewish Agency sought to establish the
Jewish State and Palis and removed the British restrictions on
Jewish immigration. So Jews Brits were now putting restrictions on
who could go there when previously they want them there.
These were resisted not only because of Britain's desires to
maintain amicable relationship with the Arabs, but also from the
obvious lack of simply for Zionist calls within the British government.
So the Labor Party comes to power in nineteen forty five,
and because the Labor Party were Fabian socialists, they actually
tended to be pro pro Islam and pro Arab. The
immediate demand for the admission of one hundred thousand Jewish
refugees from Europe was rejected by the British and efforts
to smuggle some of these in gave rise to conditions
of quasi warfare between British and Zionist groups. The Arab
League of the neighboring Arab States, which had formed underneath
British sponsorship in nineteen forty five, took as the chief
aimed the destruction of the Zionists and to block Jewish immigration.
When the Labor government in June refused Zionists requests for
admission of one hundred thousand Sewish refugees and instead sought
to arrest members of the Jewish agency, the Irgun and
reprisal blew up the British headquarters known as the King
David Hotel in Jerusalem and got rid of one hundred people.
The World Zonis Congress elected Peter's figure who were supposedly moderate,
like Heim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion. The former won
the election, and then you got the support for British
mindate from the United States, which was unobtainable since Washington
generally favored the Jewish side, while the British favored typically
the Arab side. Thus, death sentences were carried out on
the various Jewish terror groups, and in nineteen forty seven
the British sought to escape the situation by appealing to
the United Nations, and basically they just handed this over
to the Israeli government. So then Ben Gurion steps into
power in nineteen forty eight as the first first President.
I guess you could say prime minister. September twentieth, the
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the chief Muslim religious leader
of the want and collaborator with Tony mustache Man, and
he proclaimed an Arab government for all of Palestine. It's
funny is that he's a British intelligence agent. He's the
guy that looks like exactly like Ryan Gosling. You should
yeah that I wanted to mention that he's an m
I six operative and he's I didn't know that, the
Grand Moftie of Jerusalem. Yeah, he's a British intelligence operative
and he's working together with Tony mustache Man. So basically,
the British are always trying to play both sides of everything,
and I seems to not really work out here, and
so you end up getting the through a bunch of
E R R O R the establishment of a Zionist
regime which is not explicitly religious, but utilizes the religious
imagery and ideology to sort of bolster support. So that's
the irony here is that Christian Zionists in America support
all these people who are essentially intelligence operatives and organized
crime people in nineteen forty eight who don't believe anything
religious at all.
Speaker 4: Wow, you ain't kidding, Ili, that's funny.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 4: The truthers are going to lose their The truthers are
going to lose their ship. That the body double you know, Ah, okay.
Speaker 2: Some apparently has had many doupled gangas throughout history. But
this person is rather peculiar in his function, in his
cooperation with a man whose mustache was even tinier than mine.
And that's right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that takes a lot, so Jay, based on what
you laid out here and the the agreement that we
went over a little bit there that we had on
the screen, a lot of Americans who are maybe completely
unaware of the history just we went over it with
dispensationalism and how it then plays into sort of the
narrative of geopolitics in America especially. They're unaware of it,
but they're participating in it. So do you think that
it's it's useless or feudile to even uh educate those
kinds of people who just have this kind of impulsive loyalty.
I'll look at Ryan and Cosling with little Musla at that. Yeah,
they're talking about tea way.
Speaker 5: You're interested in a book that covers the how he
was a British intelligence it's fy on Ingolf's book Lost
Headgeam on whom the Gods Would Destroy.
Speaker 2: He's basically just details. There's an old.
Speaker 5: Chapter on Graham Moved as a British intelligence operator.
Speaker 4: But sorry, go ahead, No, I was going to say, like,
what's the what's the methodology?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 4: Like obviously doing a stream like this or anything like
it that sort of sheds light on the summary of
this view and how it plays into modern politics. I
feel like we're we're in an era where people who
take this immediate, impulsive loyalty to Israel in the political arena,
they're not going to really care what kind of history
you bring up, right, So it's like, I guess what
my question is, like us as people who talk about
this stuff and you know, analyze it and put it
into its proper categories, is it useless? I mean, not
to blackpill, but like, what is our duty here? As
far as like revealing, I think it needs to be
talked more.
Speaker 5: The key is to understand. To note, I'm not saying
you this, but do not hate groups of people in
collectives because people are raised in things and people are
in auction with things that are And I was thinking
about this the more I was, you know, ruminating on
the Muslim debate from last night, like people are sort
of imprisoned, you know, in these systems, and the systems
are not going to make you happy, you know what
I mean. They don't provide what they claim to provide.
So I see a lot of the people being manipulated,
you know, the one hundred thousand Jews that we're trying
to migrate, they were supposed to migrate.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 5: It's sort of like refugees are geopolitical tools on the chessboard,
and so we should feel sorry for the people. But
at the same time, like for example, Muslim refugees, like
they're also being used. So there's no easy answers. I
think that the more that we do understand the historical
nuances of the situation, we have to try to be
compassionate and concerned for people. Not that you guys aren't,
but there's a reactionary tendency right where people are just like, oh,
it's all this group, Oh it's all that group, you know,
I mean, these people are pawns, they're tools, they're used.
I think that the Ralph Child group utilizes these people
that they I don't know that they really believe the religion,
and I think I see it as kind of like
a tool that they use to control people, much like
a lot of Muslim caliphs probably didn't believe the religion,
but they use it as a tool to you know,
energize armies and so forth, to loot and plumber. I
mean Mohammed seems to have done that, right, So there's
a pattern of using ideologies for these geopolitical ends. So
I wouldn't say it's black pilling. I would just say
it's more like understanding the nuances of the situation. And
it's not always or totally one person's fault. But between
the two people debating that we saw a minute ago
and screaming like they're both kind of goofy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, because we mustn't. I rail against abstractions all
the time, because the problem with abstractions, as I say,
it's a common phrase, abstraction is subtraction. You need to
take out a lot of peculiarities in order to have
it as some type of abstract notion, and we tend
to forget that these are human beings. If you're born,
for example, into Islam, your family is Muslim, so you're
going to have an innate, you know, desire to defend
Islam because no matter how it's not no matter. But
when people tell you, oh, Muhammad was this, who we
did that? And this is false? That is false. A
lot of their thinking is, my family can't possibly be
supporting this guy. My father is a great guy, my
friends are great, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So
it's a human thing. It's not input out, but they're
not machines. And good thing that they're not machines. Those
who do decide to convert or even abandon Islam take
massive risks. The families are put at risk. So with
the clip that we saw earlier, right, these people grow
up with is the I grew up. I'm cradle orthodox right,
and a lot of things that were blind spots for
me because it just that's how it is. You know,
when people ask me, you know, why do you pray
to saints? You know, I know, because they're awesome thing
and they help you out right, But then you have
to go and study the theology. Most people do it
because pure inertia. Others like Sneaker or someone might be
just grifters, but might simply be completely demoralized by the
state of the world and they're looking for refuge. And
if your idea of Islam is it's like Christianity but
hasn't been you know, wimpy, and you know, you get
four wives instead of one, and it's like no trinity
and that's basically the difference. And we go to the
mosque on Friday, right, we don't go to church on Sunday.
And that's basically it. You know, you go for it,
and you know, the Islam is a very pr oriented religion,
so they organically basically go for praising you. Anytime you
say anything nice about Islam.
Speaker 4: If you convert, they have you right on their they
have you right on their podcast immediately.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 5: It's like a bad tist, but like you know, the
bad start. You can like say the Sinner's prayer and
then like you're giving the test you're giving your testimony
and preaching next Wednesday.
Speaker 4: Right, yeah, totally. It's like it's like brigger you that
any any leftist who says anything in Hollywood, remotely classical liberal,
they slap them on an orange and blue meal immediately,
you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know. I had to watch Michael Knowle's interview
Ryan Long, who's just a comedian, he's goofy, he's not
a political activist, and I had to watch it because
I was expecting every single thing that Ryan Long says
it was going to be, well, you knew the left.
Speaker 4: You know, the left is the bad, the real bad.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, and that's exactly what happened. But the problem
is that Ryan Loong is so a political that basically
anytime he said, well, you know, the left does this,
but the conservatives, yeah, but sort of those the bush eras,
so that's supped, you know, and you can't get it.
But these people are so ideologically obsessed that they have
to shape anything that's even remotely approbatory of that position
into like a confirmation. And what I like to say
is it's winning either way. There's even a higher level
of that when if let's say a child agrees with
your position, it's even a child sees that this is correct.
If a child agrees with the opposing position, only a
child could agree with that, you know, it's just rhetorical flips.
There's nothing to it. And I'm afraid that because we're
so abstract, we're so detached from human life, and technology
has made that very very possible and very pronounced. We
just see people as as as I don't know data points.
It's very stalin Esque, you know. Deaths and millions is
a statistic. Likewise, with conversion, if a friend of yours
converts to Orthodoxy, youre great. But if a million people
convert to Catholicism is like it happens, and it's humanizing.
And as far as the approach to all of this,
my suggestion is the strength of Protestantism is that it's
so sloganieri, it's so short and snappy, you know.
Speaker 5: That's what Daniel tried to argue at the beginning of
the debate last night was look, Islam is simple, it's easy,
It's got four lines, so it's got to be clear
and true.
Speaker 2: That's what no. So my suggestion is just try to
make short arguments like I gave the one with why
is if Christ rules for a thousand years, why is
in the future right he establishes a thousand years of
just pure haven on earth. This kingdom and then loosens
up the devil at the end of it was the
point at that with our expectations, like we're in the
millennium and when the end is coming, you know, the
reigns of Satan are loocidbit makes perfect sense. So that
may be something you need to fight to them with snippets. Unfortunately,
because the moment you use more than five sentences, all
of a sudden, that's not that's not.
Speaker 5: That's philosophy, Like like Sam's really good, for example, when
he debates the Muslims in like because he's done it
for so many years and so many times, Like he
knows like three sentences right of how to spit out
like a problem for the Muslims within like dary sentences.
So he's really good at that.
Speaker 4: I want to point out that in our assessment of
the dispensationalist view, its perversion of herma Inous in scripture,
and its implications of policy, the reason I came, I
asked us all here is is saying, like asking the question, well,
what should we do? How do we is it more folders?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 4: Do we show more folders and reveal the truth of it?
And I want to make this distinction that like if
you use the exposing dispensationalism and it's all you know,
the names and you know the bagel people, and you know,
you know, properly show people, wake people up, you know,
this kind of truth or take it seems to me
it's all useless if you're not bringing people to the church.
And so in the end, it's like if we're using
it for a cultural uh you know, sort of a
cultural trending use for it, we're using it as like technology.
We're really just participating the same game. And so you know,
that's why I made sure to let people know, well
it's not a blackpill. To look at the stuff and
properly examine it. But the purpose of it isn't so
that you can then use it for some sort of
left right dialectic like oh and to get more people
to understand this inside yeah, yeah, more liberalism, right. So
that's that's what that's my sentiment here, is that the
purpose is to properly categorize things. If you're going to
appeal to scripture Christianity, this is what it looks like
to pervert it in some sort of notion towards the
future that you want to craft in your own view,
I feel like that's what Darby did that he really
perverted and uh and turned scripture and the practice and
the faith into some sort of technology toward a end goal.
And from our view, we don't know when that end
goal is and we couldn't claim that, and so our
job is to practice, bring people into the church and
and uh, and it's a much more uh, you know,
we're we're in humility. I mean that view is in
like sort of conquering dominate, like getting the point across.
And I know people in the chat are frustrated, not
in this chat, but just generally speaking, they want something done.
We're in a culture. We're in a culture our war.
We got to fix this. You know, everybody's fighting this
kind of war. And it's it's kind of difficult to
balance your theological view and practice with some sort of
like utility in the world that you're trying to get
something done and plant your flag. And I know it's
difficult for people because they want those results. And I
don't know if you guys want to add on that,
but how to balance this kind of notion of like
getting results in your culture and winning the cultural war
and planting the flag of victory versus well, that might
not happen. You might have to actually practice Christianity when
you're losing your whole life. So I mean just want
to remind people of that.
Speaker 2: It mustn't be confused with some type of crypto prosperity
gospel that if you're doing the right things, things will
go well in a material sense, Tomato, there's there's absolutely
no guarantee of it. In fact, you should expect things
to go poor loose. Yes, I also keep saying, don't
let things you're you're for be a function of things
you're against. So don't oppose dispensationalism because you're against Israel.
That's that's not a good, that's foundation if you want
to support Israel because oh it's a counterbalance to Islam,
it's the only democracy in the Middle East, whatever you want.
You know, my biggest contention with it is that it's
not Christian. It's it's not what the Church teaches, it's
not biblical, it's it's heresy. That's my because and I
am against heresy because I'm for Orthodoxy. And you can
twist yourself into so many pretzels or bagels. Although they're
not twisted. You can loop yourself in so many But
because you're against something, you know, oh, I'm against communism,
so I'm going to the Bible wants free markets and
load taxes and gun rights like Okay, if you believe
the Bible supports that, don't tell me because it's against communism.
Mm hm right. That you can't have these negative things
because they are also very easily manipulated by surreptitious actors.
They see you or against something, so they'll just you
know what I How I like to illustrate it is
if you're going to do the opposite of what I say,
I just tell you to do the opposite of what
I want, and then you do the opposite, and you're
again doing what I want you to do. This is
why everyone who's the names, et cetera. It's so incomplete,
because people actually have to live their lives. You can't
and even most people don't care. But you can't have
this revolutionary opinion or movement succeed because a lot of
revolutionary thinking is only bound together by the opposition towards
a system. The problem is, if the revolution succeeds, then
you have to go into the affirmative. Yeah, and then
it turns out we all disagree and then they start
slaughtering each other. Yeah.
Speaker 5: In fact, that the reason I wrote that Havara agreement,
if you know about I forgot to mention this is
that in Tragy and Hope quickly speaks as if the
elite kind of wanted world War one and World War two,
and so that they have multiple reasons as to why,
and that agreement shows. One reason is that it allowed
for what's happening in the thirties and forties in the
Middle East, and not everything necessarily went totally according to plan.
But you know, we couldn't be here without where we
are now without world War One and World War two.
So certain entities wanted World War one and World War two.
So anyway, that's partly what what that explanation with Havaro
is about. I have to run, but I want to
thank you for having me and a really great chat today.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Yeah, thank you so much. You want to plug anything,
obviously you stream Jade Iyer. You can find him on
YouTube specific ones you're coming up.
Speaker 5: Yeah, if anybody's in the Nashville area and you want
to come to the event, Uh, Friday and Saturday, I'm
speaking with Jimbob's closest associate, James Lindsay. I think you
guys are you guys have been bff since my Space
space right, like you'll have a joint. You had a
joint MySpace you shared.
Speaker 4: I think such a dick to that guy. It's because
because I can't get his attention, so I just like,
you know, I'm just ankle biting him and just being
like you're wrong, You're wrong, You're wrong.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I'm just on psyops.
Speaker 5: So uh, we have mutual friends.
Speaker 2: So I'm are you're going to go sage like this guy.
Speaker 5: He might not even be there when I'm there. He
might like to speak, have no idea.
Speaker 4: Now there's there's hope for Lindsay because you look at
his Instagram and everybody is like, dude, you're still not
dealing with the classical liberal problem and and so from
that view, it's hopeful and I can lighten up a
little bit.
Speaker 5: Not I mean, yeah, I don't know. I'm not telling
you lighting. I'm just saying like he might not even
be there when I'm there, because it's like ten speakers,
So I'm just speaking at this event that he's speaking.
Speaker 4: What's a topic you're speaking on? Particularly?
Speaker 5: Okay, so I don't know what he's talking on. But
but there's a bunch of other people that have John
Classac speaking, who does the school World Order book. Anyway,
that's this weekend. You can go to Cognitive Liberty Conference
dot com if you want to watch that or come
to that Nashville Friday and Saturday. And then you can
get my books at Jays Analysis and in the shop.
I'm working on Estrala with three and I've got almost
two seventy eighty pages. So that's it's coming along, should
be should be finished maybe the next couple of months.
Speaker 4: So cool. And then the as in the deboot sphere,
the fact that Fresh and Fit had you that's a
pretty big platform. And is that something you want to continue?
Obviously you debate whenever you want, but do you see
something promising by transforming some of these sort of like
I would say, they're like, you know, you know, they're
dominated by the three h four class of people, but
they have this opportunity to do proper debates and and
things like that. Is that something in your experience you
thought was fruitful or it.
Speaker 5: Seems like it I mean it seems like it's already had,
you know, across rumble x here maybe four or five
hundred thousand views, which is crazy.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: So you know, you and Andrew had that viral thing
with your other bff.
Speaker 4: The other I'm gonna been texting him along.
Speaker 5: So I mean, you know, I think one reason we
did it was that, you know, Myron, I think is
professing a professing Muslim, and we wanted to be willing
to say, you know, we'll come over on your home court, right, Yeah,
I'm open to it, just depending upon you know, yeah,
who it is and what's going on.
Speaker 4: Yeah, because I was looking at that and I'm like,
obviously the Muslim versus Christianity, who's got their metaphysics and
epistemology down properly, which is more coherent, is valuable. But
I find I hope there's a follow up debate, honestly,
and I think you could do this debate as well, Jay,
as that there's this sort of pushed unity between the
two and this assumption that we should pair up with
Islam for a cultural war to fight this evil. And
then and then there's this like this naive take that
at the end when we fight evil, then we'll figure
out who has the true you know, theology. And it's
like that's not a good bed.
Speaker 5: Honestly identify evil without the world.
Speaker 4: That's right, right, right? Yeah, yeah, Sneaker wrote. Nico wrote,
Muslim Islam and Christianity team up against Satan, and I
rewrote it like evil in truth team up against evil.
It's like, you can't. You can't take the bait on that,
even though it's tempting. It's very tempting, not for me,
but I can see with other people.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, that debate last night. The main reason I
was happy to do that was that those guys they're
really notorious for kind of running from Sam.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Sam knows is Lom way better than me. So I
really wanted it just to be the vehicle for Sam
to come on and let loose against those guys. And
that's seemed to have worked well. So you know, I
don't even I'm not a Muslim Islam expert.
Speaker 4: So well you've I mean, you're able to defeat Islam
just by talking about a foot. That's what I learned.
I was like, oh shit, I don't know.
Speaker 5: I mean, I always want to go off into like
you know, all these other topics and what's happened. I
think that Posh was getting to about kind of the
online internet is really being a difficult thing for Islam
because people are hearing now for the first time in
the last few years, not just Christian evangelical goobers on
the defensive. So for a long time, Muslims go out
in debate and it's always Christians on the defensive. Now
it's Christians on the offensive, and then we begin to
see how flimsy it is.
Speaker 2: One thing that the Internet has done is that their
sources are now available. You can go to souna dot
com exactly and read the hadith. Because when Muhammed Hijab
a couple of years ago had a poll on Twitter
asking what is like Muslims? This is anonymous, so you
can answer sincerely, you know what is your biggest source
of doubts in Islam? And he gave like science, scientific
you know, knowledge claims of other religions. What one out
is the personal morality of Muhamad. So because people are
now getting acquainted with these problems, about about ten years ago,
you would be called Islamophobic if you mentioned I shall
six when he married a nine, when he consummated. But
there are worse things, and I think by next week
i'll prepare. I have Jimbob and Andrew on for the
funniest things in Islam. Jerry, if you want on, you're
free to come on. It's just the silly things, you know,
Like most punishment of the graves is because people make mistakes.
Urinating because men have to crouch, you know, squat when
they beat. If you don't, Angel will talk.
Speaker 5: I got to run. But thank you guys so much.
Speaker 4: Thanks, I appreciate it. Zee man, that's funny. Definitely posh.
We need to interact more so offline so that I
can prepare visuals and memes.
Speaker 2: Make sure we do that, okay, thinking whether that's better
or whether it's better to get organic reactions.
Speaker 4: That's true to you. Well, well, I'll put it this way.
I'll prepare some visuals and then use them if I
need to in the background as a you know, put
them in my holster. But certainly a list of the
most absurd, right, So it's Hadith and Kuran references that
are most you know, peculiar and strange.
Speaker 2: Right. Sam ruined one of my favorites, which is that
a large's bit on the wiena by the womb?
Speaker 4: What by the by the what the womb? The womb?
Who's womb? It's not even a brown recluse or anything
that we know of.
Speaker 2: You know, mega something floating about, I suppose and he
shout stop it.
Speaker 4: Stop that right now. Yeah, that's gonna be fun. When
is that two weeks we can have?
Speaker 2: I hope I can get it ready by next Thursday
or something.
Speaker 4: Okay, cool.
Speaker 2: We're in the middle of a heat wave. It's it's
absolutely hallish. I was wearing a white beata so bad
that I had to put on this shirt nice. I
was wearing a white beata so white beatery that it
seemed like I was offering like a service. That's I like,
white beaten for a fair price.
Speaker 4: When you when a Serbian says there's a heat wave,
I assume they mean there's bombs going off. Like I
don't know the distinction. We're like. I was, I'm like, posh,
can you stream next week? And he's like, well, there
are bombs going off in the distance, so I think
it'll be fine.
Speaker 2: Warry Stone quarrying here and you can hear when they
blow up stuff, so that triggers great memories.
Speaker 4: Right right right, you can use as propaganda if you want, right.
Speaker 2: Sure, it makes you sound whiny.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, that's true. That's true. If there's any other chats,
I want to go through and make sure I didn't miss.
Speaker 2: Me too.
Speaker 4: So true, and we'll stick around. Thank you, new members,
Thank you. Shout out to Rachel for ten memberships there.
I'll go over to the Bob chats at a second
because I saw some come in.
Speaker 2: I'll get the beer.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you get another beer for those in the chat.
Is there any other questions you have? I know maybe
some of you wanted to ask Jay questions, but times
of ticking. Shout out to Jay for coming on. Appreciate that.
I hope you guys learned something about dispensationalism. It's perversion
and its impact on modern geopolitics. Not that there's suddenly
a button we can hit where everyone wakes up, uh,
as is the case in the Truther sphere, where you
just open the golden folders and the rays of light
bless upon your face and you're awakened and illuminated forever.
We don't hold that view. That's not as It's not
quite that easy, is it. Let me see twenty dollars,
thank you so much. Over at bob Chat for the Muslims.
In the chat, Mohammad prophesied that the wall of dull
Karnaine Surah Coronaane this is a parenthesis Surah eighteen eighty
three to ninety nine in the Hadiths, would stand until
the last day. There is no massive wall of iron
and copper between two mountains holding back armies of fourteen
hundred years. Therefore Muhammad is false prophet. Find the wall
or leave your cult. He didn't say this, you're all gay.
Speaker 2: That part of what the connane is going to be
part of the stream, definitely, because for those who do
not know, vall Karnane means man of two horns, and
it refers to Alexander the Great, who had this title,
you know, as he went about conquering, he also went
about undergoing ceremonies that would render him the Avatar, the
Sun or whatever of the local deity, you know, And
he has a depiction of you know, like a helmet
with two horns, etc. So he is the man of
two horns. And these stories reflect what's called the Alexandrian romances.
So it's obviously crypt But as Muhammad went along. He
just picked up stories about local, well known people. And
the wall of the Colnen is built. I come. Remember,
it's copper and iron smelted down, you know, and they
build a wall to entrap your George and not a George,
which is a rough equivalent of Gog and Magog. But
Gog and Magog in the Bible are a completely different thing,
because yeah, George and George are basically like these mutant
people who outnumber the Muslims nine hundred and ninety nine
to one. So is that their nephlom, No, it's it's
it's not the same manufacturing, So they are mutated. You know.
They have like shield like faces with tiny eyes. So
some have speculated the Chinese, but.
Speaker 4: Well, yes, but what is that is that Serbian piss?
Speaker 2: Well mine might be that's yeah, it's plum brandy. It's
it's actually on unesco or it's not unco some un
about heritage, you know. It's it's one of the best
things you can ever drink. This is why I never
liked whiskey.
Speaker 4: I grew up with Oh really and like all.
Speaker 2: Like whiskey and gin woll tasted medicinal to me. Yeah,
like I felt like I went into the medical cabinet
and started chugging. But back to your juja. So they're
supposed to outnumber the Muslims nine hundred and ninety nine
toy one. So let's say it's not for now, it's
like for when Islam is smaller. And let's say there's
a one hundred thousand of them left. If you have
a one hundred thousand times a thousand, that's one hundred million.
So we're suppose to find one hundred million. It's all
medicine for everything, plus a cleaning agent, and we're supposed
to find and again I'm being very generous, one hundred
million people locked somewhere but behind a giant wall of
iron and bronze or copper, doesn't matter, And they dig
every day and they almost break through. But when they stop,
they go back and Allah restores it during the night.
Speaker 4: But one go how convenient.
Speaker 2: But one day they won't leave by saying tomorrow we
will finish. They will say tomorrow we will finish in Chollah,
Allah willing, and then Allah won't restore it. So the
next day they will finish it and break out, and
there will be so many of them they will drink
entire lakes and rivers and it's glory.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it sounds a lot. I mean, I feel like,
I mean, what's her name, Greta Tunberg could have written
Islam based on like the structure of how they're like,
well it will all this stuff could happen, and then
and then it just like, you know, it's just this promise,
this promise, this promise, and then there's nothing that actually
corresponds to reality. The only thing about Islam that corresponds
with the reality of human beings and our existence over
time is Christian. It's like, you know, the only thing
that they that they describe accurately, it seems to be
borrowed from a Christian worldview. I don't know how they
get over that. Now they might get something descriptive things right,
but but their whole foundation. I always tell the Muslims
who jump on the comments that I go okay, they say, oh, well,
Islam is true Christianity's falls, and I just simply say,
for Islam to be true, you need Christianity to be
partially true. For Christianity to be true, you need none
of Islam to be true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I think David would coin the phrase the
Islamic dilemma or the Quranic dilemma. But basically the Korana
firms the Angel and the Torat, which is basically the
Gospel and the Torah. So maybe you want to take
a contracted view of those and you know, just saying
geel okay, just the Gospels or the Torah, just maybe
the pentateook or something. The problem is there's no way
to render it where you either have to accept the
legitimacy yes, and everything else. Like I mentioned the Alexandrian romance,
pagan stuff is also local and.
Speaker 4: A Gnostic, as as our Albanian. The one Albanian we like,
the the accordion player. He did a stream. I would
do another one of those, by the way, because like
that's really interesting to track back Islam too early gnostic.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, like you like the Jesus wasn't actually crucified,
he was replaced. That's not the universal that's I believe.
It's a majority Islamic view, but not universal. You have
those who don't believe that, and they have their arguments.
But obviously a lot of things, just just as I said,
it's the most improvised religion ever. But but what was
I talking about. Yes, the Qur'an basically says you need
the Christians, you need to go to your Angel. The Jews,
you need to go to the Torad. And there's a
hadith where Mohammad was asked to solve some dispute after
conquering like a Jewish place. So he's in charge. They
go to him for the dispute and he says, bring
me a copy of the Torah. And they bring him
a copy of the Torah and he gets up from
the cushion he's sitting on. Right, this is the Middle East,
and they use chairs because wood is hella expensive as
the children say nowadays, And he places the scroll on
the cushion as a sign of reverence and he says,
I believe in you and the one who revealed you, right,
so he confirms it. There are critiques of the Jews
and Christians that we pervert the meaning. That's a completely
different thing. And then there's the passages where the Muslims
are sharing for what we call the Byzantine Empire, right,
the Roman Empire against the Persians, because the Persia are Zoroastrians,
the fire worshipers as they're called there, and the Romans
are the people of the book because they're Christian, they
have revelation of Allah. Now we're talking about seventh century Byzantium.
Things were handled at that point as far as what
constitutes the New Testament. So if Muhammad was saying these people,
we're cheering for these people because they have the revelation
of Allah, that means that what they had is the
revelation of Allah. Not to mention also that they say, Oh,
Jesus came to the Jews, and a portion of them
accepted him, another portion rejected him, and Allah will until
the judgment day make sure that the ones who accepted
him were made superior. So those who accepted Christ will
be kept superior until judgment day to those who rejected
And because it can't be the trinitarians, obviously we are
all idolators and polytheists, right, So who are these people then? Yeah? Right?
Is there some super secret Jewish sect that's monotheistic and
basically would have to be Muslim So it makes no sense,
as they said, it's winging it. But then they latch
onto things like, oh, the Trinity is illogical, as if
you can just impose logic on what God is.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that brings up you mentioned seventh seventh century. I
don't know if it's six or seven. I don't know
if it matters. But Jay's hypotheticals is a pretty sharp
knife against the islam debater, isn't it.
Speaker 2: That's the Islamic dilemma because if the scriptures we have
are unreliable, then the Quran is wrong. If they are
reliable and they contradict the Quran, then Islam is wrong. Yeah,
so it's wrong either way, will go. It's corrupted. But
we can prove Mohammed from.
Speaker 4: Script So because like this, the Koran is right and
it's based on scripture. The parts that are wrong about
scripture are wrong because it doesn't go with the Quran.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it doesn't have to make sense.
Speaker 4: It just don't even You don't even need three beers
to laugh at that. Wow, And they don't see a
problem with it. They just fart. They just fart.
Speaker 2: Well, I have no.
Speaker 4: Response, So I think Jay should start fo rhetorics. Did
you watch that debate, by the way, all the way through,
You're just gonna get snippets.
Speaker 2: Or what get too because it started at midnight and
today I was preparing mostly for this dream. So I
have to finish it. I did get a sizeable portion in,
but ultimately I have to sleep as well.
Speaker 4: Who farted his opponent? The squeaky guy, the squeaky moles
mole sounding guy.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Uh, that guy got into a lot of trouble
for racially abusing some Chinese Christians Chinese. There are good
sides to him. Good job job redeeming qualities. Uh time.
Speaker 4: Same go to Jay's social media. He did a pretty
good job of putting it on every single one of his.
Speaker 2: Accounts, like goes into a gym and like plays it
on the TV.
Speaker 4: Part poor guy, All as fart is all as fart,
is all as fart, like any human part.
Speaker 2: Uh actually doesn't have an anus? Oh right, right, right,
there's the difference between Adam.
Speaker 4: And Oh really, Oh it's serious. Oh you're not even
being acetious. Well I can't even tell. I can't even
tell when when Pasha is refuting Islam, I don't know
when he's being sarcastic or not. That's how bad Islam is.
Speaker 2: You have no idea how, and I will introduce it
to you and Andrew, I.
Speaker 4: Oh yeah, we should do. That's a party, Are you
kidding me? Four of us watching like looking over the
most funny things about Islam? Are you kidding me?
Speaker 2: Do you know how horrible it is for me to
have all of these in mind right now and not
be able.
Speaker 4: To not say them? No, no, no, don't roomy.
Speaker 2: I gotta see it because I believe the better creating
it created.
Speaker 4: Actually, I want to go over that real quick before
we finish up the This seems to be fatal. The
question is the is the Quran uncreated? Because they view
similar to a Protestant who sees the Bible as some
sort of like uh image, material eternal feature of reality
that just happens to materialize itself with no tradition or history. Similarly,
are you saying that the when you ask? When we
ask is the Qur'an uncreated, we're asking a similar question, right,
We're saying, like, is this thing itself? Uh, the the revelator,
the reflector of revelation itself as an item, as an object.
Speaker 2: I'll explain the logic to you. Just because Jay says
there are actual thought hadiths. So there's one where that
Ridvan show j where the chap runs away from hearing
Muslim prayers and fats do not hear them as a yeah, yeah, yeah,
no no no no no, no, no, no, no like
that exactly. There is a hadith that has been popularized
recently that the eyes of the leather straps of the anus, okay,
which means that while you're awake, you know, you have control.
Speaker 4: Over the demons come unto your butt. Right, that's a
weak spot.
Speaker 2: It's that while you're sleeping you could fart, and unless
you do your ablutions, like your ritual cleansings, your prayer
won't count. That's why when you wake up you have
to do your ablutions because you might have farted in
during your sleep. Okay, okay, so very important.
Speaker 4: Okay, all his messenger said in the when when don
is pronounced, Satan takes to his heels and passes wind.
Satan farts with noise during his flight in order to
not hear the adon.
Speaker 2: So there is.
Speaker 4: Fart defense.
Speaker 2: He's got a wind attribute.
Speaker 4: How do you how do you teach that? I mean,
this is the kind of thing like you know, like
like if we were in like divine liturgy and our
priest was all and then God, you know, farting to
make sure you don't hear ship, we wouldn't even know
what to do with it, like like that's just like now,
now there is The Muslims would say that's not fair.
We don't accept all the hadiths because these are sort
of like these higher uh, this kind of an elected
symposium of smarty pants people looking back, right, you know,
to be fair, the hadiths is a collection, right of
of reflection or philosophical reflection on the Quran. Right is
that is that accurate? It's like a it's like a
post sort.
Speaker 2: Of very okay, Yeah, I have this guy.
Speaker 4: The fart teeth. That's good.
Speaker 2: Uh. You have this guy called Bohari al Bahari and
I can't remember one or two centuries off to Muhammed.
He goes from basically Central Asia.
Speaker 4: The shittergy sorry sorry, go ahead.
Speaker 2: So he goes over to a saudio not Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 4: But fair enough.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and he collects the oral traditions and there's a
whole methodology as to how reliable it is, you know,
the chain of narrations like this guy's Mohammad said this,
and he said it to this guy. This guy said
it to this guy what they call the chain of narration.
And that's how you get you, you know, the grading system,
you know, and sometimes in the chain of narration there's
a guy who's known to be unreliable, so you rejected.
The gradacious system is basically you've got four potentially four
and a half gradings. So you've got the rejected ones.
I can't remember the word for that, something with the
starts with an M. Then you've got the weak ones
called dai, which means you know, we're not too sure,
but it gets a passing grade. You know, this is
very important because people tell you, oh, that day, we
don't have to believe that. Meanwhile, you no, you actually do.
It's just that it's not as reliable as the next one,
which is hassan, which means good, so it's pretty solid,
you know. Then you get sahei, which means sound, and
that's for proof. That gets an A as far as
gradings go. And I said four and a half because
you have a subset of sahi hadiz called motawa, which
means repeated. Okay, so you get them from multiple sources.
They aligned. So it's so you have scholars who say
rejecting is like rejecting a versus the Koran. And then
obviously you get the Quran. You also have like sonas,
which is means life. That's where you give the terms sunny,
because they're following the son I think that's how it's said,
like the life of the profit of Allah. Right, So
that's why they dress a certain way, they behave a
certain way, because they're emulating the life of Muhammad. Right,
that's what Sunni means Ali, which means the followers are Ali.
That's a different thing, right, But that's where you get.
You also have the tough sears, which are the commentaries
on on on these topics. But here's how it works
in practice. It can be any of the grades except
the rejected, if it works in their favor, like, oh,
Mohammed fed like a starving orphan. No warriors, but oh
this is great.
Speaker 4: This is just cruel if that's true.
Speaker 2: Mohammad was apparently a red head, that.
Speaker 4: Makes definitely false if he was a redhead.
Speaker 2: Related to Elizabeth. I've heard that it was a process
of dyeing your beard. You have certain clerics who do
that nowadays.
Speaker 4: Why because it's like a holy color or something.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Obviously, you could say
like red was associated with royalty, which is why when
you look at our iconography. You see Christ whereas red underneath,
blue over that because he is God who has taken
on humanity. And then with the Theotokos, she wears blue
underneath and red over because she's human but has been
granted this royal status as the Mother of God, the
queen Mother by you know it's granted, right, But I'm
not sure that's just a slightly important speculation.
Speaker 4: In the Saints have not said to make fun of
Oh no, oh, you're saying, like our joke about the Islam. No,
we're making light of Islam. Okay, we're not making light
of the Holy Liturgy or anything else.
Speaker 2: I mean you would have to go argue with the
prophet Elijah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we're fully making fun of Islam. We're not just
because we're using a reference. We're making fun of their
iteration of these things.
Speaker 2: Okay, Right, So that people draw conclusions, oh, he was
a redhead, I sincerely do that not impossible because you've
got this Indo European strand going from all the way
to northern India. So possible. But the courage not particularly known.
What is very emphasized in the hoodieth that he was
very very white.
Speaker 4: Are there even any historical references of very powerful people
who were redheads and had that very irritated skin. Look.
Genghis Khan was a redhead.
Speaker 2: Barbarossa, uh Friedrich Barbarossa, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Barbarossa is literally Italian for red beard, so he stunning
d Sims in our chat.
Speaker 4: D Sims is the only one I like that I
know of.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there are some, I suppose and the Irish.
So as long again, there's very silly religion. That's why
I want to make it like a fun thing, because
there are there are silly aspects that aren't particularly fun.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, well let me know in advance. Because I
can animate too, Like if there's any like a break
time that I can make an animation that could potentially
get us killed, I should we should do that, Because
I can do that. You just got to give me
heads up, like maybe there's like a little section of
a minute that I can make something or.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'll have to calculate it without consulting you, because
I'd have to tell you what you need to know
without your knowing whether you are.
Speaker 4: Yeah, without me, well you might have to forfeit me
laughing one to one on the phone with you, and
I'll laugh again, of course, like you won't ruin the.
Speaker 2: Definite experience watching with friends, but I'll pick some out
I can give it, like general spoilers, like you have
no idea, how glorious the idea of how babies are born.
Mm hmmm, because women haven't wait, can't wait, there's a
male and the female spem.
Speaker 5: That's that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's actually it's actually funny because I just I
was thinking of a game where while you were talking,
I was playing a game with myself on Google trying
to write hadith about X whatever it is, and sperm
was one of the things I inserted, like hadith about sperm,
Hadeeth about donkeys, hoodieth about It's called hadith about is
the game I play, and I see if it comes
up as something. I think it's a fun game. They
have collections of it, you know, so be like a
home board game teeth or not. Is this in Hadeeth
or not? Right, you read something ridiculous like there's no way,
there's no way. You're like, oh, with the actual oh
he is everyone drinks you know, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And by the way, all the things about like
sex and drinking and stuff that are prohibited are prohibited
at the moment.
Speaker 4: No, no, no, this is coping if you're defending right now. No,
we're not talking about liquid. We didn't say liquid. No
did we say liquid?
Speaker 2: Liquids that come together and make a child, and it
determines which one comes first, determines whom the child will resemble.
And this isn't this did exist in surrounding cultures.
Speaker 4: By the way, blood is liquid too, So I mean
you're trying to reduce it to some.
Speaker 2: More broad Well, the male sperm you can call it.
Speaker 4: Oh the are you he's saying it's he's saying you're
using the term sperm, and it's really they're using the
term liquid.
Speaker 2: Is that what it is? Here's the thing. Sperm basically
means seed. This was my famous statement when I was
on Jaystream. No one confuses like sperm meaning seed. No
going to say Johnny Apple sperm.
Speaker 4: They should They should from now on.
Speaker 2: Technically you could, but in English that's not how it works.
But sperm basically means seed. So there's a so you
can call it a liquid, but it's a seminus liquid.
You know, something that has to do with reproduction. It
describes that the male seed is thick and white, the
female seed is thin and yellow. So they're basically describing
urine and one of the pants one of the fame
favorite words of since we're enumerting your best friends the
lard king, so basically describing squirting as as some type
of seminal fluid.
Speaker 4: So it's ancient. So the modern take, you know, unfortunately,
we're we're, we're we're basically undated with it online. But
there's this, there's this this myth of quote squirting right
whatever it's you know, and it's been pissed all along,
and what you're saying it sounds like posh. Now, I
don't want to falsely accuse you of this, but it
sounds like you're blaming Islam for this myth.
Speaker 2: I may or may not, and I'm going to maintain
wait until next week when But it says that they
come together and that's how.
Speaker 5: You start heavy thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, what's that?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 4: Male or female? We don't know, do we?
Speaker 2: I know? But embryology is definitely like reliant on like
very ancient medicinal knowledge. This is this isn't a fun part,
so I can say it here. Yeah, it also gets
where they stem from. But just so you know, just
so you know, male sperm does not come from the testicles.
That's that's what idiots.
Speaker 4: Think comes from the green.
Speaker 2: Now, interesting that this is what is long teaches. But
when they got African slaves, they knew how to castrate.
Speaker 4: Interesting, that's a weird thing to do when when the
first premise is true.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, but back to this which isn't again, this
isn't fun. It's a bit sad because that's how they
got the knowledge. But it shows how ridiculous it is.
They say that that's basically at the start of the
process of the formation of human being in the womb,
it's a blood clot and then it develops on and on,
you know, sids getting bones in the meat on the bones.
The reason I say it's sad is because a lot
of these speculations stem from knowledge of miscarriages, you know,
and after you see what comes out, you know after
a miscarriage, you know, you sort of have to work
with that. So they from squirting is from the hearts.
More ridiculous than that. It's so random. No one's going
to guess it unless you cheat and look it up
right or know it already, but you couldn't guess for
the life of you. Neither could I. But basically they
get this. You have Greek writings on this, you have
Persian writings on this. You know, they basically have an
idea that because if both animals and human beings have miscarriages,
you get this, you know, rejected fetus and it's just
bloody and gory, and that's they somehow deduced from that
or try to reverse engineer. Okay, so it started like
some type of blood and then develops more and more,
and if it fails at a certain point, you know,
we get this. But if it fully gets to the
point of development, then we get a human being, which
is not something I would say. So Greeks were retarded
because they couldn't figure it out. No, But the Quran,
which claims that it starts through a blood clot, the
Quran doesn't claim to be the musings of Greek philosophers
or Persians or Indians or whomever whoever. It claims to
be the revelation of an old knowing God. So that's
a problem for Islamon.
Speaker 4: Did you have this one planned? I hate to ruin
all your jokes ahead of time. Posh. But if a
man has sex with a sheep and one of the
thought was that sheep gives birth to a human, if
that's the case, if that happens, he can lead prayers.
Are you saying the sheep could lead prayers or the
man who actually produced a child through a sheep could
lead prayers. I'm hard to tell.
Speaker 2: That's not something I know. I have to look it
up because there are passages. Again, I won't be including
like gross gross things. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I want to
give it light. But there is like, oh, you have
to do this ritual if you have sex with a
camel or something. If they're going on on the Hudge
or right the pilgrimage to Mecca.
Speaker 4: If you happen did need to have sex with a camel,
make sure to make these preparations correct. Is that where
camel skin came from?
Speaker 2: Uh? But there's a point which Mohammed says he sees
a very good looking woman and so there's a lot
to cheat on his wife. He runs to his wife
who is dealing with leather production, which involves done for
those who don't know, and you'urine, that's what people have.
So I'm not saying they were primitive. That's something nowadays
can deal with you to advanced chemistry. And he just
goes on at her. Thank god.
Speaker 4: Wait, when is this.
Speaker 2: One of the most disgusting smells you could imagine? What
is like the leather production, leather work, like the leather tanning.
Speaker 4: I suppose that's what my last name is, posh, it's
an insult to me. What that my last name? My
real last name is leather worker in Italian?
Speaker 2: Oh, I never can remember your last name.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I tell you that. I didn't tell you the
time I went to Italy and I I ran around
the town and I kept running into these little little
shops that had my name on it, and I showed it,
show the shop owner my license. That's like equivalent to
coming to America and going into a Ralph's. Posh, you
don't know. Ralph's is just basically grocery store and bragging
to the clerk that your your name is Ralph. It's meaningless.
Speaker 2: It's American to go.
Speaker 4: Look at my name. It means you're the name of
your store.
Speaker 2: You're like the thirtieth guy.
Speaker 4: And yeah, they're just like, get out of here, dude.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, Well that's good to know.
Speaker 4: We need to come up with a good name of
this stream. It's gonna be on your channel, correct, Yeah, okay, good.
So potentially me, you, Andrew and and jay Uh manifesting
absurd hadiths and references perhaps in the Quran and maybe
adding some visuals to it, you know, yours truly will
help with that.
Speaker 2: So there's one I wouldn't conclude for the disgustingness. But
he says nothing can make water impure. So there's an
episode where he does his ablution in like a like
a pit that's full of water, but also have corpses
of dogs and like we're people where women throw their
menstrual rags. So he's like, that's it's not even menstrual
rat stop. Uh. He's washing himself with that and people,
what are you doing? He says, nothing can make water impure? M.
He also has a theory that you don't have infectious
diseases because how we get the first disease?
Speaker 4: Right? Actually, it makes me want to look now that
I have this this thing called I want to start
an app. The hadith says could you believe it? Or
something like that hadith about drinking urine. I mean we
can just go that's fair right.
Speaker 2: Different different yeah, different, including a w h O but
who cares? But different like charities and like you know
that doctors, boarders whatever. I had to say, please stop
drinking county.
Speaker 4: Right, stop it please or not? Yeaheeth or not. That's
a good one, critic, that's the one that's good either
not downloaded, it's free on the app, you know, hadeeth
or not and you have to vote right, Oh my gosh,
can you imagine like like, well, the problem is with
given time, people would just memorize too much and it
would like it have it would.
Speaker 2: Have a shelf life quickly, and we have to get
someone like Sam.
Speaker 4: Right right, right, But imagine the rating like how many
you got? Right? And people are high rating on the
app as like people they're like, oh ship, you got
like a thousand and twenty on.
Speaker 2: Whether you want to post it because yeah, totally maybe
it's right.
Speaker 4: Preparing for sex with camel.
Speaker 2: And here's the thing. Here's the thing. These people like
Kika Chuw and her job Ada Jazz, like they want
you to think that Islam is about monotheism VI. You
just accept one god, you know, Yeah, that's it. That's
that's that's very manipulative. No, this is the argument that was.
Rachel retweeted my response to Lauren Chen. Yeah, the chapter,
but Lauren shen saying, oh do you know that Arab
Christians called God a lah? So you shouldn't make fun
of Allah? Like and I not nothing personally against Lauren Chen,
like she she is getting progressively more based.
Speaker 4: Yeah, she's still a female though, so she can never
make the full jump.
Speaker 2: He's like half Slantai. That's just one of them. Okay,
we're not going to get banned for anti semitism, but.
Speaker 4: I want why want Lauren Chen come on my podcast?
Speaker 2: I don't know, all right, Yeah, she's half Oh God,
let's make let's make a video so everyone knows how
to defend disposition?
Speaker 4: Yeah yeah, did you watch the stream on dispensation? It
was really serious, really rigorous, really in depth. Jay was
on I don't know, did you stick around when Jay
left though? I don't know, I don't know what happened there.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have to private this and I'm gonna chop.
Speaker 4: It's gonna just be an abrupt chop. When Jay lean
to'd be like, all right, some stuff coming up in Nashville.
Speaker 2: You gotta you're gonna pop up, you know. Are you
sure you want to continue?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, would you like to continue? Please check? You know,
please is this a rope?
Speaker 2: You know?
Speaker 4: Please select where a bike is on the image?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Maybe maybe you will need to actually chop it
up as to be shareable. That's true because we're getting
into like, what four hours.
Speaker 4: It's insane, so it's so counterintuitive.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, So when someone sends me like four hours,
like I better be just look at it.
Speaker 4: You're like, what are you kidding me?
Speaker 2: And then I need to think, like, like, if I'm
going to the gym.
Speaker 4: I might yeah, yeah, I'll chop that part off, make
that members only and be like I'd need this section
where Posh and jimbabber kind of drunk making fun of
Asian people. The most important part of it about the dispensationalist. Amazing,
really in depth informative.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, so back to the point she was talking
about a lot, and I said, that made the point
about bail. You know, bail just means Lord, and worshiping
bail means sacrificing children. Allah is Lord. It's one of
his titles. So sacrificing children to bail is worshiping a
lot right right, Logically, this is the logic we're going with.
And people started disputing with me, and then someone from
from our community, Yeah, just agreed, you know, And I
came up with another example.
Speaker 4: Yeah, yeah, yeah, Jimbob, I found this, you know, I
was just on your computer and it says it says
sex with camels drinking urine? What too is? What does
Martha say about Seamen's prep it's preparation for stream with posh?
With posh, I swear.
Speaker 2: With Andrew it's more believable with.
Speaker 4: Yeah, maybe that's the trick of Islam, tricking Christians into
looking up really messed up ship.
Speaker 2: Standing in the bi.
Speaker 4: Only counts.
Speaker 2: Oh, I know where David would an aposti prophet. There's
a common commentator like a regular yeah runs who goes
by only goats?
Speaker 4: Mm hm, I've seen that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so so it's been done with goats.
Speaker 4: The rapture is going to happen by the time the
stream is over. Yeah, based if we keep talking like this.
Speaker 2: Is now saying Jesus come quickly right right? Yet?
Speaker 5: Stop it stop?
Speaker 4: Oh yeah?
Speaker 2: Where it is?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, is there anything else?
Speaker 5: Posh?
Speaker 4: We should close this out? I hope not. Yeah, yeah,
thanks for the support new members. Thank you. Shout out
to everyone who bob Chatted, super Chatted and became a member,
anyone who bought something unmade by jimbob dot com. The
memes keep coming, the streams make the memes apparently, Posh
and I will announce I'll talk with them offline when
we set a date. I think, Posh, we should set
it at least a week ahead of time, if not more,
because of the anticipation of such a funny concept and
the kind of ship we're going to get back from
in the stream.
Speaker 2: I constantly think, Okay, maybe we should add this. Maybe
it's too much, so I'm ridiculous from that manner.
Speaker 4: No, it's gonna be great. It's gonna be your most
highly populated stream. Jab can you look up Sarah sixty
five in the Koran and tell us what you think
it says, Well, well.
Speaker 2: It's already been addressed all this channel with what is it?
Sam Fellow because it talks about a divorce and it
says when you can divorce. So for women who menstruate,
you have to wait three menstrual cycles. And for those
who are too old to menstruate, and those who have
not yet menstruated, the wait period is three months.
Speaker 4: So they're assuming that your wife is pre menstrual, which means.
Speaker 2: Pre it gonna be any of them, so at least
they've got that. But someone like I know Mohammed Hijab
went to a speaker's corner and started arguing with people
who are what they call Koran only Muslims and quoted
this Aya means verse, sorrow means chapter. He says it
allows for a severe form of pedophilure. So that's how
he's trying to defend hadith. He says, you need hadith
to stop this hardith are not much better, but there
is no lower limit. So it says, you know, those
who are too old or those who have not yet menstruated,
and all the commentaries up clear that it's about too
young to have you know, achieved maturity physically to stop.
So you don't have to look it up. I I
know that one. It's a very famous one.
Speaker 4: You want to, Oh, I see you were You wanted
me to just look it up and kind of react.
Sorry about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we had we had someone trying to filibuster that interpretation.
But it's very clear. It's just people who who will
tell you if it's a hard if we don't have
to accept it, it's not the Quran, but when it's
the Krano will mangle it up to make it seem
like it's not saying what it's saying.
Speaker 4: Posh, Do you think arguing against Islam or arguing again
against atheism are they Do you think that two are
equal in priority? Because I've been I've been struggling with
this because I have such a fun niche of just
attacking atheism because it's so stupid. But now you're proving
that there's something actually dumber than that that happens to
be more cohesive somehow. Isn't that interesting that, like, something
dumber can be morehesive.
Speaker 2: Because its dogmatic and dogma allows for cohesion. Atheism is
just like, well, there's.
Speaker 4: No god empirical dogma.
Speaker 2: That's you can be a pine Creek doug.
Speaker 5: Yeah, but.
Speaker 2: You can also be you know, some complete degenerate. So
that's why we talk about cohesion because that's the only
claim of atheism. It doesn't mean although most of them
end up some type of ridiculous progressive. Yeah, you don't
have to. You can be just the most, you know,
a racialist, sexist, or whatever. Like a person, it has
no bearing on it. You would have to take a
separate position in order to fight for or against.
Speaker 4: Yeah, do you agree with this statement? Is it easier
because I talked about this and I actually took the
opposite approach, But I don't know. Is my impulse it
was like I thought it was harder, might be harder
to convert a Muslim because you're really probably talking about
a whole history inherited view of dogma that's much harder
to get over than let's say, an apathetic atheist who's
just kind of like bitchy about gods in general. But
maybe I'm wrong. Maybe because someone presupposes God, it's easier
to make a bridge than someone who presupposes non God.
I actually don't even know how to come to the
conclusion about this.
Speaker 2: I think it's a pointless thing to ponder because if
someone comes from a strict Muslim family, and from a
Muslim family, as I said earlier on when Jay was on,
like they have a sense of duty towards their family,
they have a fear of retaliation potentially because apostasy is
punishable by death, and that can even affect the family,
not you know, maybe mob violence or something. I don't
believe it's prescribed to you know, punish the family, but
it might happen, you know, by osmosis or something. But again,
if you have some you know, well a Muslim, you know,
which is a lot of them, like here in Serbia
Muslim we have a part that is majority of Muslim I.
Basically they don't eat pork and that's about it. They
get wasted all the time, so alcohol isn't even the thing.
But you know, a person like that, we had I
was on with Garrett Dawn a couple of weeks ago
and we had this guy who grew up Muslim in
Bosnia moved to London to work and we had to
talk with him and he was very open to it
because it didn't grow up in a dogmatic family. As
long as it's rather pacified in our parts because we
went through communism and communism clammed down and religiosity and
with the resurgence of Christianity with Orthodoxy, it doesn't produce
you know, like extremism. It can, but it usually has
to be paired with like nationalism.
Speaker 4: Ye wait a second, hold on posh and I think
this might be the first thing we really disagree with.
What's wrong with extremism.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying there's wrong, something morally wrong, potentially, because
it would have to depend on what you view as moderate,
and that's going to and even moderates can be extreme.
Like if you think it's a moderate position to trans
the children, I think you will be extremist. I think
the properly moderate thing would be okay if there are
children struggling with the gender identity. You know, it could
be a lot of factors, you know, lack of a
father figure or a mother figure, some type of trauma
or something. So yes, I think it's I think another
extreme would be just you know, it's not beating the
child or something, just enforce it, you know, by ignoring
the fact that there's probably something wrong it needs to
be helped and healed. But when we're talking about Islamic
extremism or even like it's Orthodox extremism, would be like monasticism.
Speaker 4: Right, right, There's no other way because it wouldn't be
based in immediacy cultural revolution kind of like stuff.
Speaker 2: Right, you can form a certain type of zelotry if
if you combine it with a certain type of.
Speaker 4: Nationalism zeal Like if you took an orthodox zeal like
New Convert zeal instead of going to the church, they
took their zeal and impaired it with like a groper.
Speaker 2: Exactly if you Orthodoxy is like a cultural marker, you know,
you follow, you know, you go to church and everything,
but like the theology doesn't particularly matter. Matter is just
what you are, what you subscribe to. Sure, and I
think it's outstandingly improper to go Yeah, and Zealots were
literally these types of people, like people who would kill
Roman officials to try and get it.
Speaker 4: I'd be a Zealot, I honestly, you know. You know Peterson,
there's a clip of him being like, I'm not sure
what I would do under the circumstances. Sometimes when I
look at culture, I do have this, you know, the
dark side of me goes. I may you know, given
the right circumstances, I might actually be drawn to sort
of active xelotry. I mean, just have to admit it.
That's just how I feel. Well now, I would like
to fight it and like call Posh and Jay and
my brothers and be like, hey, walk me out of this.
But I'd be lying to say I didn't have like
an impulse toward well, you know something, Sometimes you just
want to take the you know, you just.
Speaker 2: Want to the thing people are saying in the comments
in the chat zealot, I'm a zealot. That's because nowadays
we see zeal as basically commitment. You know, I strongly
believe in this. I won't compromise it. That's not what
zelot meant.
Speaker 4: Now, that's just conviction.
Speaker 2: Basically like a like a terrorist group speak. So unless
you think you're going to be I shouldn't say it.
Speaker 4: Maybe now I really have to edit the stream.
Speaker 2: So unless you're thinking of going violent, Like you're not
a zealot in the classical sense, but if you're a
zealot in the modern sense, great, have all the zeal
in the world for the Lord. I support it.
Speaker 4: So yeah, yeah, anything else you want, I'm gonna start
shutting this down. And heard my family come back in.
We have to go somewhere.
Speaker 2: Less fully unawares of my own life.
Speaker 4: Uh go follow the posh redneck over YouTube. We I
will post it when he has a thumbnail. If you
need help with that posh, I'd like to make a
good thumbnail. If you want for that stream. It's so funny.
Speaker 2: Well we'll figure it out. If you say you need
a week notice, we'll we'll do it for not the
next week, but the one after. Because it's so bloody hot,
I can't do anything serious, literally one hundred and ten.
That's aximal, like seventy minimal, disgusting, Just everything is sticky.
And but I might go live on the weekend talk
about something less, less academic, Like I've been thinking about
how there are no more classes in the classical sense.
We're all middle class basically just depends on how much
money you make, because that's an interesting you make. That's
what we've got. But that's true, and people like Jimmy
Dare and all these people are trying to we need
to unite as a working class. Doesn't matter if you
are a progressive or a Trump supporter. You know, we
need to fight the system. And I'm thinking you can't
really make a movement out of Hey, we make roughly
the same amount of money.
Speaker 4: Let's get together, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: You can make a negative case for fighting the system,
but as I said, you, if you succeed now you
have to implement a different system. Yeah, all disagreeing view
it's so true.
Speaker 4: It's very true. I always say that you could never
take the low class out of me, because if I'm
suddenly in Dad with a million dollars, I'll still be
following the odd person around the party room.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: Oh is that shrimp like like classless, like just eating
off of plates?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but so many technology has changed so many historical
realities that there is no such thing as classes as
as mocks would have described them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, well that's good. We'll talk offline posh about the
the Islam. I think that's hilarious idea. I don't think
it's done quite. It hasn't really been done because most
of it's so serious. Oh, let's debate Islam. Let's get
really into it.
Speaker 2: But this is going to be I had a woman
like ripped by camel because she was mocking him. Like,
people go for this.
Speaker 4: That's actually actually that's pretty fun. That's actually fret fun.
See I find that funny. So we'll include that. Uh okay,
so yeah, go follow the posh redneck shout out to
Jade Eyer for jumping out. I appreciate that. I'll keep
this up. I'll review it. I might uh repost sections.
So it's easily consumed. And now and uh, I think
that's it for me. I'm gonna play us out with
what I brought us in with, which is.
Speaker 15: God bless you posh, see you many.
Speaker 9: Ye.
Speaker 1: When it's trying man and Dreda, I shall play. Made
that out of play. And when it's crying ready and Trada,
I shall play. It has a lovely body. It's with
Lexo short and thinness. But when it is so tired
in frocks.
Speaker 3: And then I went more rad Trader commede it out
of play.
Speaker 1: When it's drying it Dreno is always playful and loves
to dance and spin a happy game of trail complaint
out it's begin more prad. Tatles commede it out of clay.
Speaker 4: And when it's drying.
Speaker 3: Traddles, I made it out of claves.
Speaker 1: And when it's trying ready there.
Speaker 4: Audio friends, God bless you all.
Speaker 2: Hmm