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