Speaker 1: Oh well, thats are hello and welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: This is the Cult of Conspiracy, and my name is Jonathan,
Speaker 1: I'm Jacob and today we have a long awaited show
Speaker 1: that has been in the works for quite some time.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if we could have thought of
Speaker 1: a better person to get on this show than Robert
Speaker 1: mordem from True Devil Worship on TikTok if you want
Speaker 1: to go check them out. I see you go live
Speaker 1: all the time, and I love when people are coming
Speaker 1: and battling you. It is the best. Dude. Could we
Speaker 1: kind of go down the path of understanding how you
Speaker 1: got here?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I get as that every day a lot.
Speaker 3: Well, actually start off forgive me what brand of Satanists
Speaker 3: are you? Because we have so many different nuances. We
Speaker 3: just did an episode last week where there was like
Speaker 3: ten different types that we were speaking about a lot
Speaker 3: of them were very Levey, you know, spin offs or transhumanism,
Speaker 3: worship of oneself or the divine being within us and
Speaker 3: all of these things and not shitting on those. But
Speaker 3: for your specific brand of Satanism or devil worship, I've
Speaker 3: heard you use both of these interchangeably.
Speaker 4: What specifically would you classify yourself.
Speaker 2: As yeah, yeah, this is this is actual devil worship.
Speaker 2: So that's theistic satanism, which is the earliest form in
Speaker 2: the term itself. Like I don't agree with Anton Leavay
Speaker 2: or atheistic satanism. I think that's like a self contradicted
Speaker 2: concept earliest sources. I mean I got Arthur Waite, for instance,
Speaker 2: in nineteen eleven reference to Satanism under the umbrell of
Speaker 2: Satanism coinciding with the grim warrion barm, which is a
Speaker 2: Latin tex where we get the sigial elucifer from. So
Speaker 2: that's where I'm part of that as far as I
Speaker 2: know all other uses of the word satanism, as it's
Speaker 2: after the pantheistic form.
Speaker 3: Okay, so when you are worshiping your higher power, you
Speaker 3: are in fact talking to the dark Lord. You're talking
Speaker 3: to the bad guy from the Bible, not like a
Speaker 3: metaphor of the bad entity, like you fully are speaking
Speaker 3: to that guy.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 2: That is actually right of the Greek term Satinus, which
Speaker 2: coincides with the same root prefix and our word for
Speaker 2: Saturn Greece before that. So we don't worship the biblical satan.
Speaker 2: I think the way Christians view gods is a lot
Speaker 2: different kind of view them. Like people, we are animists,
Speaker 2: we are pantheism, so we look to nature's mystical attribute
Speaker 2: for like the divine and any pantheistic theology wook.
Speaker 3: So how would this differ from wicca or nation a
Speaker 3: nature worship so to speak, or even gnosticism. How does
Speaker 3: this kind of differ from that?
Speaker 2: Well, I'd say it's all matter for me. For like
Speaker 2: sources like who was doing this the earliest as far
Speaker 2: as we take it back to the earliest pantheistic cultures
Speaker 2: worship devil statues, as far as we could take it back. Now,
Speaker 2: as far as gnosticism, I think that that could just
Speaker 2: go hand in hand as devil worship, just like you
Speaker 2: could kind of have witches practice in astrology practice and magic.
Speaker 2: It all goes hand in hand. So gnosticism, devil worship, occultism,
Speaker 2: and actual satanism all coincide.
Speaker 3: I would say, So you put astrology also in the
Speaker 3: realm of satanistic.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely, being a pantheist, and so that's how we
Speaker 2: tap into nature. And now I would say that some
Speaker 2: brand like a lot of pagans come in my chat
Speaker 2: in my lives of all time, and we love it.
Speaker 2: You know what, We're very eclectic. We go to all
Speaker 2: cultures theology to look for Satanism, and so yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: I think it's a great perspective.
Speaker 3: So to uh, let's say a Nordic pagan who's reaching
Speaker 3: out to you and is asking about how your beliefs
Speaker 3: might coincide with their beliefs, you might draw comparisons to what.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got, buddy. In the Nordic they love the
Speaker 2: show Loki. Of course, many people familiar with it described
Speaker 2: as what many would admit as kind of like a
Speaker 2: devil figure. But I would also say, with the sky
Speaker 2: wolf Skull, you have a motif tapped into of the
Speaker 2: solar ecliptic lunar worship of Skull the skywolf, which fits
Speaker 2: with Rahuik serpentine worship in the East practiced by Hindus invaders.
Speaker 2: So to me, that's very satanic and rooted in the
Speaker 2: same kind of stuff we see. So would I would
Speaker 2: draw the parallels in Norse veganism, the nature focus things
Speaker 2: like that I think we see.
Speaker 3: Old I might have missed this when you said that
Speaker 3: you compare the the sun wolf and lunar wolf in
Speaker 3: the Nordics to did you say a serpent to the east.
Speaker 2: Yea Rahu is a solar ecliptic sky serpent, coinciding with
Speaker 2: all devil theology, that all of these Satanistic cultures that
Speaker 2: were dating back, like I said, all view like the
Speaker 2: solar eclips the lunar clips as, like the centrality of nature,
Speaker 2: the equilibrin of correspondence. That's what the baphomet really entails,
Speaker 2: is that kind of balancing process of me.
Speaker 3: So yes, okay, so you brought the baph met. I've
Speaker 3: heard a lot of people say that that is not
Speaker 3: true satan worship. That is more of a hermaphroditic sigil
Speaker 3: or symbol, if you will, that people have kind of
Speaker 3: taken and made into a thing.
Speaker 4: Where are you at on this?
Speaker 2: I said, That's why I love source work. I go
Speaker 2: back to eighteen fifty four, the guy who actually drew
Speaker 2: that famous, the most famous drawing of the Bathmint Bribe
Speaker 2: as a pantheistic the explanation of the figures right in
Speaker 2: the beginning of the book. This would coincide with the
Speaker 2: goat of Mendez, which I would say, I'd argue was Ahmit,
Speaker 2: And just like the clip thing I told you moment
Speaker 2: ago that the notion of baptism we're so accustomed to
Speaker 2: you today is derivative in the Greek term baptizzo and
Speaker 2: other inflectuble forms. So what I would say is that
Speaker 2: was to immerge and cover the bap of omits in
Speaker 2: the sky is the Bafomet. It is the immersion of
Speaker 2: the sun and moon. And this was also had to
Speaker 2: do something called kansu, which was the moon and water
Speaker 2: element in Egypt. So the goat of Mendez, the bafa Met,
Speaker 2: the sun and moon are all esoteric and animistic depictions.
Speaker 2: People who take this picture and just turn it into
Speaker 2: like a guy that they worship, and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 2: that's a perversion of the batman. But the initial stuff
Speaker 2: makes sense.
Speaker 1: I would say, now, who is the devil to you?
Speaker 1: Just out of curiosity. I mean, I know that you
Speaker 1: mentioned the book earlier. So is the devil not properly
Speaker 1: depicted within any of the religious books?
Speaker 2: Well, not in the Abrahamic religions, because they're too late
Speaker 2: in the game. We have the term devils derivative in
Speaker 2: the stands for it dev diva, which had to do
Speaker 2: with the light bear like Lucifer again with comparisons, and
Speaker 2: the Debies and Devas were a masculine, feminine application of
Speaker 2: the Baphomet. You could say, which is the all encompassing
Speaker 2: reality of nature itself. So we look at that the
Speaker 2: same I would say the term Satan likewise prefixed. You
Speaker 2: have the Greek, you have some Hebrew and later forms
Speaker 2: that would argue all this stuff is going before the Christians.
Speaker 2: So the elites, I get asked that all the time
Speaker 2: in life. What about the Playboy cardy? What about the government?
Speaker 2: What about all this stuff? I'm not convinced as ran
Speaker 2: by satan is. Look at Looching Greece in the Satanic Temple,
Speaker 2: which I'm not a part of. But that whole thing
Speaker 2: they're making about the Ten Commandments in Washington, That's what
Speaker 2: I mean is this is a Christian country.
Speaker 3: You could say, no doubt, no doubt. You said earlier
Speaker 3: that it was mentioned in Sanskrit. Now most scholars would
Speaker 3: argue that Hebrew predates Sanskrit.
Speaker 2: So Aaron I agree with scholars like I'm in Hilman
Speaker 2: for instance, who's also studied the Cony Greek language. Over
Speaker 2: I think like fifteen along with me, and we say,
Speaker 2: guys like that We're gonna put the Greek before that.
Speaker 3: It's got a why I think Greek predates Hebrew. The
Speaker 3: Greeks took over Israel. Bro, Like, what do you mean?
Speaker 2: Well, look at the sophistication in the etymology, at each
Speaker 2: breaking down from Greek, Latin and English. There's a takeaway.
Speaker 2: You cannot get the sophistication and meticulous details of the
Speaker 2: Greek language out of what the Hebrew gets. You can
Speaker 2: get the Hebrew detailed out of the Greek, though, And
Speaker 2: so when you're understanding how transliterative process of transmitting text works,
Speaker 2: I'd say the Greek goes before that. And all the
Speaker 2: guys who actually take the courses in Greek or teach
Speaker 2: Greek agree with me on that. Like I'm and Hillman
Speaker 2: for instance. You know, the guy may be into whatever,
Speaker 2: but as a Greek scholar, he knows his stuff too.
Speaker 3: That is one common Hillman's the guy that went on
Speaker 3: saying Christos was the ointment thing correct.
Speaker 1: He was the one that basically said that Jesus was
Speaker 1: a pedophile leading little kids into a park.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, that was Danny Jones show.
Speaker 3: I think is when I first heard him speak on it,
Speaker 3: and then later there was like five scholars that broke downe.
Speaker 3: That is actually where the example of like how language traverses.
Speaker 3: Even within the Greek language, words don't mean the same
Speaker 3: thing every single time they're being used the same way
Speaker 3: that in our language we have a butt dial in
Speaker 3: a booty call. Somebody reading American English two thousand years
Speaker 3: from now would look at these texts and think somehow
Speaker 3: these are the exact same thing because the words combined.
Speaker 4: But that's not how language works.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The reason that I'm in Hillman when my mod sentence.
Speaker 2: Never heard of a guy before. But what caught my attention.
Speaker 2: But he said is that the sept tuigen predates the Hebrew. Now,
Speaker 2: I've been saying that for fifteen years that there's no
Speaker 2: evidence to the sept two agents of translation. There's no
Speaker 2: underlying text. It doesn't match them as a retic or.
Speaker 2: That's these grows exactly. There's a lot of textual variance
Speaker 2: there that lends credence and I'd say balance in our
Speaker 2: direction that the Greek is earlier than the Hebrew.
Speaker 1: So the septuagen is written in Greek. Argument, Okay, the.
Speaker 4: Sept tuigin is written in Greek.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but I mean you also have to keep in
Speaker 3: mind and when the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, like
Speaker 3: before Greece was even what we even think of is Greece.
Speaker 3: They were using the Hebrew language, they were speaking the
Speaker 3: same That's okay, fair enough.
Speaker 2: We can we can go in there the Egypt the
Speaker 2: Greco Egyptian connection, like you brought up her Meticism, Hermes
Speaker 2: Tursm of Justices a Greco. It was the Greek magic papyrus.
Speaker 4: And that was all well after the Hebrews left Egypt.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily, because the earliest sources we have of the
Speaker 2: Hebrews is presumably three hundred PCE or so in the
Speaker 2: Dead Sea scrolls. I would argue way before that we
Speaker 2: have evidence with the Egyptians with the cuneiform tablets, even
Speaker 2: with the Canaanites with the cycle of bail tablets. El Elion,
Speaker 2: this was their deity. It pops up in Genesis fourteen.
Speaker 2: You know, we could root it back there. Just like
Speaker 2: we wouldn't say that Greek comes out of the Canaan language.
Speaker 2: We wouldn't argue that, we'd say no.
Speaker 3: But we would also say that the Egyptians didn't use
Speaker 3: cuneiform b the Samerians.
Speaker 4: Did the Egyptians use their own version of.
Speaker 2: Hieroglyphsifix though, which is of the same branch, I would argue,
Speaker 2: so it's very similar. And I'd say a lot of
Speaker 2: people are traveling back and forth to Greece and Egypt,
Speaker 2: and we have a lot of evidence and manuscripts for that.
Speaker 4: This is true.
Speaker 3: But I mean even still, we didn't even know how
Speaker 3: to read cuneiform b until the nineteen fifties. We've learned
Speaker 3: how to read hieroglyphics since Napoleon. And it's not like
Speaker 3: those are a one to one comparison by any stretch
Speaker 3: of the imagination.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that the Rosetta Stone's a good example
Speaker 2: that at any point in time an etymologists could tap
Speaker 2: into parallelism in a language, especially as a comparative theologian,
Speaker 2: where you could draw theology matching it as well. And
Speaker 2: that's often, like the means, I rely on a lot
Speaker 2: of scholars just rely on maybe like one method, I've
Speaker 2: seen the barge well, you know, like you say, the
Speaker 2: Hebrew this is famous. Here we have some Greeks translating
Speaker 2: in the culture here. Here's the issue with that. Why
Speaker 2: in the hell would they be translating a Hebrew monotheistic
Speaker 2: language into a pagan encoded polytheistic language. Keep in mind,
Speaker 2: like you said, words today or not like back then.
Speaker 2: Back then they were used sacredly, They were used cannotatingly
Speaker 2: with their spirits. So Hebrews cannot intermingle in this strict
Speaker 2: Hebrew only God, these pagan words. I would think, that's.
Speaker 3: I hear you, But the Rosetta Stone is not a
Speaker 3: religious text, Like, there's nothing on it that speaks about God.
Speaker 3: It is hieroglyphs, it's Hebrew, and it's Greek, and I mean,
Speaker 3: none of that speaks about any kind of deities or
Speaker 3: after life of that stuff. We use that as a
Speaker 3: way to break down the code of these languages that
Speaker 3: we couldn't understand before.
Speaker 4: So you know, it's it's not the same like.
Speaker 2: A polyglod is. What i'mant is that methodology could be
Speaker 2: used to figure that out. I would say, I mean,
Speaker 2: but they.
Speaker 3: Weren't translating the Hebrew into pagan languages for the purpose
Speaker 3: of proselytizing. If anything, the Hebrews and the Jews have
Speaker 3: been famously not into the whole proselytizing thing.
Speaker 4: They don't really take many conference.
Speaker 2: It's a whole process that doesn't work. Isaiah fourteen twelve
Speaker 2: as a graphic example. Hebrews repudiate the notion that Lucifer
Speaker 2: does that translation justice there of Hallau in the Hebrew,
Speaker 2: but like you just said, they take in the Hebrew
Speaker 2: and going to pagan languages like Latin. I don't see
Speaker 2: how that's consistent, but you know, some people see it.
Speaker 3: And I'm glad that you brought up the Book of Isaiah,
Speaker 3: because there's examples of the Old Testament where they bring
Speaker 3: up Satan and Lucifer, and then later on they even
Speaker 3: use these words interchangeably. Hell, the Book of Enoch uses
Speaker 3: snake and Saraphim almost interchangeably at times, and Saraham is
Speaker 3: a rank of angel and snake. They meant to mean,
Speaker 3: at least in the context and all that to mean
Speaker 3: one of the dark lords of not Satan or one
Speaker 3: of his demons or something.
Speaker 4: I would have to look at the direct quote.
Speaker 3: But they use this interchangeably a lot, and a lot
Speaker 3: of that goes back to the like you said, the
Speaker 3: etymology and the symbolism that was used. A lot of
Speaker 3: the I would even say not Christian obviously, but the
Speaker 3: early Hebrew sigils that they would use to refer to Yahweh.
Speaker 3: One of them, I'm drawing to blankle the name, but
Speaker 3: he was a scribe for a has the King. His
Speaker 3: schigul for Yahweh actually was like a circle with a
Speaker 3: crown on top of it, with two winged serpents on
Speaker 3: either side. But those were meant to be seraphim, the
Speaker 3: angels that would be on either side of God, not
Speaker 3: wing snakes type of thing.
Speaker 2: That's from Isaiah chapter six. The Sarah are serpents there.
Speaker 2: In fact, the assumption I'd say being made, if anything,
Speaker 2: at least in a compound form of the suffix, is that, hello,
Speaker 2: there's something called a nominous sacra, which is more of
Speaker 2: an abbreviated utilization of the letter in these manuscripts, to
Speaker 2: save space, to save time, what have you. You could
Speaker 2: argue technically that the hallel saraf that the howling serpent
Speaker 2: is depicted and included there, and hence Lelucifer and Lucifer
Speaker 2: would fit to the Latin at least as far as
Speaker 2: the phonetics and the constant.
Speaker 3: It depends on the context, right, because Lucifer in some
Speaker 3: cases means light bringer, and sometimes it does refer to
Speaker 3: the dude running hell.
Speaker 4: If you're according to the story and all that. So
Speaker 4: it depends on in what context.
Speaker 2: That is true, of course in all cases. And I
Speaker 2: would say at least a word in Latin, because keep
Speaker 2: in mind, Jesus is called Lucifer in the Latin vulcate
Speaker 2: and Second Peter, chapter one, verse nineteen, kind of hard
Speaker 2: to translate these Christian values into these Pagan words because
Speaker 2: it caused a lot of confusion.
Speaker 3: He's referred to as the morning star. That's that's not
Speaker 3: the word for that would be Lucifer, but it's not
Speaker 3: calling him the name of but it does.
Speaker 2: Call him the name of Lucifer in the Latin bulgate.
Speaker 2: You got to check the Latin vulgate though it's Second
Speaker 2: Peter one nineteen.
Speaker 4: I think, okay, I'll definitely check this out.
Speaker 3: But okay, so let me let me ask you this,
Speaker 3: how did you get into this? And you know, not
Speaker 3: the whole backstory of your childhood, although if you want
Speaker 3: to go that route, we can no doubt, but most
Speaker 3: people don't get brought into this type of thinking, this
Speaker 3: type of would you call it worship?
Speaker 2: Yes, that's on, you know, with that Greek term plasta
Speaker 2: net owent tales as far as worship, Like you said,
Speaker 2: I have nothing to do with the way the Christians
Speaker 2: are using that term. I'd argue, okay.
Speaker 3: So how did you get started in this and get
Speaker 3: as concrete in your beliefs as you did or as
Speaker 3: you are I should say.
Speaker 2: Christian theologian or fifteen years ago and coming, you know,
Speaker 2: just a debating basically every single denomination we could come across,
Speaker 2: every single religion we can, and just knowing it. Eventually,
Speaker 2: you know, you just start getting used to it and
Speaker 2: realize that you start expanding. I guess what happened. So
Speaker 2: gnosticism and ancient Egypt is exactly what I started looking into,
Speaker 2: as well as Elfis Levi, which was very influential on me,
Speaker 2: and the occult and the association of the bathman and
Speaker 2: how everything that these likewise former theologians. So I can
Speaker 2: relate to these guys on that Heiner Cornelie is the grip,
Speaker 2: but elf Is Levi, you know, even Alista Crowley's writings
Speaker 2: that caught my attentions as a guy coming out of Christianity.
Speaker 2: So that's how I got into it. And I'd say
Speaker 2: the occult and just taking it serious and knowing how
Speaker 2: people bullshit around in the church, I was able to
Speaker 2: kind of diverge through the bullshit of like pseudo occultism
Speaker 2: that's on the internet very early on as well. So
Speaker 2: that's how i'd say I got more advanced disperspective faster.
Speaker 1: Okay, at what age were you really starting to become
Speaker 1: interested in learning about this?
Speaker 2: Well, I was raised Christian, so since I was born,
Speaker 2: so about age twenty or so, I started, you know,
Speaker 2: hopping into the stuff serious, debating guys like from different
Speaker 2: parts of the world on an app called Paltov that's
Speaker 2: actually software on a computer and start you know, debating
Speaker 2: the Bible, debating the Muslims, debating the Jews and everything.
Speaker 2: And we were just doing this for like sometimes twelve
Speaker 2: hours a day. So that's probably back in like two
Speaker 2: thousand and eight or so sevento and eight. So you
Speaker 2: know the stages. And I say that I'm confident that
Speaker 2: the fear that promotes the subjugating process of staying to
Speaker 2: Jesus not going to other demons and spirits, I didn't
Speaker 2: have that fear because I know the bullshit involved with
Speaker 2: the Bible translations. I know that word for hell is
Speaker 2: like five different breaking words, and they're fucking around. So
Speaker 2: that had me more open to say, like looking into
Speaker 2: the devil and noticing a lot of weird things. Since Jesus,
Speaker 2: in this Bible I was believing at the time, says
Speaker 2: to be wise his serpents? Why not wise is God?
Speaker 2: Whis his angels? Why is the prophet? Why is his serpents?
Speaker 2: The serpent is a very prodatory term in the Bible
Speaker 2: and emphasized for that reason. So this was a contradiction
Speaker 2: in me. I'd say that Adam and Eve knowledge and
Speaker 2: Genesis and God got mad at that fact, the fact
Speaker 2: that he apparently lied and said they would die in
Speaker 2: that day lam in the Hebrew, in the day they
Speaker 2: eat of it, they would die. They didn't lie, serpent
Speaker 2: told the truth. They would become like God's and meaning
Speaker 2: in the narrative at least they did Genesis three twenty two.
Speaker 2: So that also was more examples of just how bad
Speaker 2: is the serpent? The gnostic or Marciones eating of that,
Speaker 2: I could say, is what had me open my mind
Speaker 2: more to the serpent Satan think from the right perspective.
Speaker 3: Now, what is your argument towards us. Now we're bringing
Speaker 3: up the Gnostics here. They didn't even come around util
Speaker 3: the first or second century a d. And all they
Speaker 3: did was basically plagiarize certain books of the Bible and
Speaker 3: throat on their own deities and their own pantheons to it.
Speaker 3: They took a little snippet here and a little snippet there,
Speaker 3: but most, if actually all, of the Gnostic texts were
Speaker 3: understood to be not canon and not based in any
Speaker 3: kind of reality. Literally before like the first Christians got
Speaker 3: together at their first meeting here.
Speaker 2: Well, the first meeting with the canon was Council of
Speaker 2: Carthage and the Council of Hippo, and the late three
Speaker 2: hundreds before that, Marci started the whole can. The pre
Speaker 2: eminent Gnostic, if you will, he was, if anything, influencing
Speaker 2: the Antoniciene early Church fathers to do a canon, because
Speaker 2: he had a different idea of a cannon, and he
Speaker 2: was teaching the same things I was just saying, So
Speaker 2: I disagree with scholars that couldn't keep in mind at
Speaker 2: for a time the sources from Gnostic for a while
Speaker 2: were simply based on the Catholic Church fathers. That's like
Speaker 2: asking the joker about the Batman for a good source
Speaker 2: of fucked the motherfucker God. I don't agree with him.
Speaker 3: Gotta get this, but I mean, the Catholic Church didn't
Speaker 3: start in the late three hundreds. They can argue that
Speaker 3: because the first meeting happened, but the u the stan
Speaker 3: Neil Binn said, all the shebang of the Catholic Church
Speaker 3: didn't come around until way later.
Speaker 2: Well, what I'm saying is there is that they were
Speaker 2: relying on the Catholic Church of sources, Gnosticism, the heresiologists
Speaker 2: and people writing against them, and doctism in the practice time,
Speaker 2: these are the sources. My point is when they discovered
Speaker 2: the Nagamadi, that is when we actually have first hand
Speaker 2: tapping into the gnostics own sources. And that's what matters.
Speaker 2: Saying there was a meeting, there could be a meeting
Speaker 2: of a bunch of pagan candle burning guys at the
Speaker 2: Christian sea. I don't think the Christians will take those
Speaker 2: meetings to series. It's not them, it's their enemies. In fact,
Speaker 2: cultures like that.
Speaker 3: I hear you, but I mean even the Nagamati texts
Speaker 3: perfect example that was there discovering nineteen forty five by
Speaker 3: Muhammad Ali in Egypt. And when they were discovered, no
Speaker 3: one really it wasn't earth shattering information. Now granted, in
Speaker 3: nineteen forty five when they were discovered and brought forward, like, okay,
Speaker 3: there was other shit going on on earth at that time.
Speaker 3: There was a whole Hitler situation. So like people weren't
Speaker 3: worried about ancient texts, and I get that, but all
Speaker 3: of the texts within the Nagamatis, that all of it
Speaker 3: was known about the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Peter,
Speaker 3: the Gospel of Jesus Wives, the whole nine. They already
Speaker 3: knew these to be forgeries and fakes. And hell, half
Speaker 3: of those didn't even exist until the fourteen hundreds.
Speaker 2: A d well, I would dispute a lot of us.
Speaker 2: For instance, the ascension of Isaiah's quarterly first century, and
Speaker 2: that's coded as dulis. I would say that the Gospel
Speaker 2: of Thomas. Some juggle that this is not gnostic. I disagree.
Speaker 2: I'd say that you have in the very first complete
Speaker 2: New Testament Codex Codex ana Atticus, you have the Epistle
Speaker 2: of Barnabas. People actually say that this is not gnostic.
Speaker 2: The entire thing is worst being sacred notices. Basically anyone
Speaker 2: read it for themselves. They removed that from their own
Speaker 2: New Testament. So these inconsistencies showed that we don't have
Speaker 2: like the Gospels really how they say it until the
Speaker 2: fourth century after those canonizations. Coincidentally, we don't really have
Speaker 2: that in the papyri. Those are just little fragments in
Speaker 2: public he says, with no cannotated context. We could argue
Speaker 2: that was Gnostic. I agree with Robert M. Price that
Speaker 2: he put a lot of his Paul stuff being written
Speaker 2: before that influenced by Gnostic teachings. Based on the fact
Speaker 2: that A Paul says the Arkans crucified the Lord first
Speaker 2: Garuthians two eight. I believe in the Greek and these
Speaker 2: are the arcticons that are not flesh and blood and
Speaker 2: effhesion sticks. We could argue arctent time, and so therefore
Speaker 2: we know that that ship was just something going on there,
Speaker 2: It was not an actual crucifixion. I could argue many
Speaker 2: of the arguments in the Knakaimodi and the Gnostic texts
Speaker 2: show that whoever's writing the Gospels, it's a better argument
Speaker 2: to say they're influenced by the gnostics by it for
Speaker 2: that reason because inclusions of people like Simon the Sirene
Speaker 2: who carries his cross makes no sense. God pops out
Speaker 2: of nowhere, just like it's his cue to hop in
Speaker 2: a scene. Go ahead, Mel Gibson hops in and that
Speaker 2: in uh is it the Great Spirit text or whatever?
Speaker 2: The treaty is a great step. This is this is
Speaker 2: like gnostic intentitism that Jesus is not actually Christmas by
Speaker 2: someone else. Right.
Speaker 3: I believe that as a matter of fact, they are
Speaker 3: a very Gnostic based which is why they weren't added
Speaker 3: in the Bible. They were in nowhere. This clearly why
Speaker 3: they shouldn't. Gospel of Thomas perfect example. You look at
Speaker 3: the way it's written. It is a conversation for one
Speaker 3: hundred and fourteen lines and two extra sideddendums. None of
Speaker 3: it goes into the pattern of how Jesus spoke, how
Speaker 3: he teached, how he worked at any of that. And
Speaker 3: the very early Christians knew about the Gospel of Thomas
Speaker 3: and knew that it was heretical and threw it out.
Speaker 3: The Gospel of Peter, for instance, the entire Gospel of
Speaker 3: Peter makes it seem like Jesus wasn't even there. He
Speaker 3: floated from place to place, which is why when he
Speaker 3: was on the cross, he wasn't bugging, because like he
Speaker 3: wasn't actually there. It was like a hologram. Clearly that
Speaker 3: wasn't true. Jesus worked on people, He touched people, Thomas
Speaker 3: put his fingers in the hands in the whole nine. So,
Speaker 3: like there's clear reasons why these weren't added to the Bible.
Speaker 3: Like it's not even a point of contention. It's very clear.
Speaker 3: If anybody would like to read these for yourselves, go
Speaker 3: for it. I'm not saying people shouldn't read them, but yeah,
Speaker 3: it's clear why these wouldn't be included.
Speaker 1: It's a completely different level of understanding. If you can
Speaker 1: read the Bible and you know, kind of get through it,
Speaker 1: it's it's very different than than whenever you're reading the
Speaker 1: nostig I actually got to say that I believe that
Speaker 1: there is a more spiritual understanding to the Gnostic text
Speaker 1: than there is throughout most of the verses in the Bible.
Speaker 1: Bro Like there is a certain present, there's a certain
Speaker 1: resonance that whenever you read it, you're like, Okay, I
Speaker 1: get this, it makes sense. But that's just my own
Speaker 1: personal understanding. I'm not judging one way or another, but
Speaker 1: I did have a question for you though. What is
Speaker 1: very interesting to me is that the nagamadis Yes, they
Speaker 1: were found in nineteen forty five, was it? Yeah, out
Speaker 1: in Egypt? And yeah, dude, these these were originally written
Speaker 1: between the second and fourth century.
Speaker 3: Okay, some of them are than thirteen and fourteen hundred,
Speaker 3: but continued, most of them were older, Yes.
Speaker 1: Mostly translated. Yeah, mostly written between the second and fourth century.
Speaker 1: But either way, let's just say that they were Let's
Speaker 1: just say hypothetically they were all written in between the
Speaker 1: second and fourth century. Okay, don't you find it interesting
Speaker 1: that this was an original let's call it a gnostic
Speaker 1: plagiarism that somehow survived that many centuries. But the original Bible,
Speaker 1: like quotes and books and works and all that stuff,
Speaker 1: nobody can get their hands on that because it just
Speaker 1: withered to time. Nobody could get there.
Speaker 3: Like you know what I'm saying, It's not weird scholars
Speaker 3: that are dealing with the ancient original versions of the Bible,
Speaker 3: like Codex Sinetica. Billy Carson went on and on about
Speaker 3: the Sinai Bible. It's Codex Sinetica, and yeah, people work
Speaker 3: with that daily.
Speaker 1: What do you mean, bro, like the original book that
Speaker 1: was written, I'm talking about the guy that wrote the book.
Speaker 3: The Bible isn't a book. It is a compilation of
Speaker 3: books and books. It's it's combinations of things, and it
Speaker 3: was written over you know, hundreds, if not arguably over
Speaker 3: a thousand years.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they date those biasedly though, like they're separating all
Speaker 2: the Gnostic findings into different datas, and the Bible in
Speaker 2: the fourth century they found on Codex. So I say
Speaker 2: it's inconsistent. What I'd say is what I was reference.
Speaker 2: There was the actual Snoptic Gospels, Gospel John, things like this,
Speaker 2: not the Gospel Thomas necessarily earlier that those sources are
Speaker 2: drawing off gnism. And of course any any people that
Speaker 2: I've seen actually show a tremendous gnosticism based knowledge, like
Speaker 2: doctor Robert M. Price, who was mocked by bart Erman
Speaker 2: as Bardierman mocked the nunciations of Zoroastrian language in their
Speaker 2: debate Whenever a Goo. My point being is that the
Speaker 2: people take the subject serious agree with me, and there's
Speaker 2: reason for that too. There's things like saying, hey, this
Speaker 2: is obviously not with the teachings of Jesus. It's dosstism.
Speaker 2: It wasn't natural crucifixion in the gospels. That shows otherwise
Speaker 2: that Simunce slides in replaces Jesus. That first Christian Is
Speaker 2: fifteen described the cruise of fiction as this spiritual based
Speaker 2: concept for First Christians too accurate, and that is a
Speaker 2: different type when they say, oh, those who deny Christ
Speaker 2: in the flesh are the gnostics. Even Christians fifteen shows
Speaker 2: christ flesh was not of this same nature that it was.
Speaker 4: He was half to vine.
Speaker 2: Yeahsta, that's nastic.
Speaker 4: Is How was that gnostic? Though?
Speaker 2: That First Christians emphatic and Robert Price would agree with
Speaker 2: that as an emphatic example of gnosticism influencing Paul. I'd say,
Speaker 2: and so that's why I'm going to go back to there,
Speaker 2: and people who disagree have to get past barriers like that.
Speaker 2: The other thing I think he was asking about, what
Speaker 2: was I'm sorry, sir, the other Uh didn't he say
Speaker 2: he was asking something? I thought there was one more
Speaker 2: point one to address. I'm sorry, Oh, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, I was just kind of talking about like how
Speaker 1: the Nagamadi was able to stand the test of time.
Speaker 1: But somehow the original books of the Bible weren't able
Speaker 1: to which I just find interesting.
Speaker 2: They have all right, go on, because yeah, I was
Speaker 2: just addressing what he was mentioned before. I believe like Nasis.
Speaker 2: So it's a very good, healthy dispute that a lot
Speaker 2: of scholars have changed their minds on over more recent discoveries.
Speaker 3: Like he said, now, talk to me about Paul. How
Speaker 3: are you saying that he was gnostically inspired? You said
Speaker 3: it a few times now. Paul was a rabbi, and
Speaker 3: not just a lower level rabbi. He was seen before
Speaker 3: he had his epiphany and all these things. This wrote
Speaker 3: most of the New Testament and got thrown in jail
Speaker 3: and all these things. For what he was saying before
Speaker 3: that he was a very righteous dude per the Hebrew Law.
Speaker 4: He was a rabbi.
Speaker 3: He was actually the one burning Christians in their churches
Speaker 3: at one point in time. Then did a whole phase change.
Speaker 3: You're saying that what he did after that was very
Speaker 3: gnostically inspired.
Speaker 4: Break this down for me.
Speaker 2: Elements with hex I'm not saying there's no Christian theology
Speaker 2: in there. At the same time, the guys just seriously
Speaker 2: saying that the Arkans, which are not a flesh and
Speaker 2: being concept.
Speaker 3: But he sticks I thought he was calling the Pharisees
Speaker 3: the arcons like he was like calling them a bad word,
Speaker 3: so to speak.
Speaker 2: Well, not based on this, the first Christ called the
Speaker 2: rulers of this eon, I believe, which is a specific
Speaker 2: application siding on the darker side of things John twelve
Speaker 2: thirty one. For instance, the ruler of the world, Satan
Speaker 2: got it as world. Some embark you, So I would
Speaker 2: say at that point those are spiritual concepts crucifying Jesus.
Speaker 2: It comes down in Ephesian six. If the arc and
Speaker 2: tie the alleged authorities and archons, like the hyposthesis text
Speaker 2: teaches us as anosena, if these are the ones crucifind Jesus,
Speaker 2: it can't be a flesh and blood crucifixion unless we're
Speaker 2: going to say they're flesh and blood like Ephesian six
Speaker 2: says they're not. And so that's Paul's usage consistently, and
Speaker 2: anyone saying otherwise I just don't think is being fair
Speaker 2: with that.
Speaker 3: So it's not just him calling them evil dwellers. Same
Speaker 3: as how Jesus told he literally said Peter would be
Speaker 3: the guy that I built my church upon then the
Speaker 3: next line said get behind me, Satan.
Speaker 4: That that was something else.
Speaker 2: Addiction that I would say, uh is going to put
Speaker 2: the crucifixion to Peter if any in that kind of
Speaker 2: Satanic We see this with things like Samuel one text
Speaker 2: and the grimare Barmadale. He's a nice arcane Alex Sigel
Speaker 2: over here, Samel is the Satanic cabalistic character banging Lilith
Speaker 2: the pride of Satan, which in my opinion, that just
Speaker 2: demonstrates that.
Speaker 3: Okay, so we kind of got off here. How did
Speaker 3: you get started all this? You said it was you
Speaker 3: were You said you got involved with a theologian or
Speaker 3: you worry theologian.
Speaker 1: I could know it was a It was a software
Speaker 1: program that he had that he had on his computer
Speaker 1: and basically he was on there twelve hours a day
Speaker 1: and they were basically debating, which I think is a
Speaker 1: really good way of learning other religions and different types
Speaker 1: of philosophies. And you know, and that's uh, that's interesting
Speaker 1: that that was kind of like the gateway, if you will,
Speaker 1: to what led you to, uh to devil worship?
Speaker 3: Were you raised with some sort of a religious uh
Speaker 3: flavoring in your household growing up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Christian, he said what brand.
Speaker 2: Applic initially later Protestant. What I was going to say, Theologian.
Speaker 2: All the theologians are two thousand and seven. And even
Speaker 2: the most famous Christian YouTubers like Venom fang X and
Speaker 2: the Amazing Atheist will go to Pound Talk to debate,
Speaker 2: And so I was there debating Keith Thompson, another famous
Speaker 2: old YouTuber, one of the smartest Christians Calvinists. I was
Speaker 2: debating in three hours twenty ten and so yeah, we
Speaker 2: would go on there to doctor White, was there, Matt Slake.
Speaker 2: A lot of guys are on that software and we
Speaker 2: would debate all the time, and some guys that were
Speaker 2: not known were just really fucking good and New Greek.
Speaker 2: Some guy in Australia would just hop on bring up
Speaker 2: shit I've never heard before as a twenty year old
Speaker 2: at the time, and so I'd say that was kind
Speaker 2: of the gateway of how I got started. But being
Speaker 2: aware of that kind of environment is when I delt
Speaker 2: into the occult side of things. Have me for the
Speaker 2: occult I did at a much speedier level.
Speaker 3: I guess, okay, okay, So when would you say you
Speaker 3: really did the whole phase change, like you completely left
Speaker 3: behind any kind of Christian.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: How you worshiped back when you would consider yourself a Christian,
Speaker 3: if you prayed daily or however you did. But at
Speaker 3: what point did you fully say all right, no longer
Speaker 3: praying to that guy.
Speaker 2: Two thousand and eight where I draw the line. I
Speaker 2: thought I was saved, and I talked to some guys
Speaker 2: who really knew to Bob good there now you're not saved,
Speaker 2: and they were like, you know, God's very wrathfuling God
Speaker 2: does all this stuff. You better fear it. In the fact,
Speaker 2: that was a false God. Your files just like that's
Speaker 2: what shattered to like start questioning to like false like prophets,
Speaker 2: false teachers, all this shit. To see that early on
Speaker 2: I just backed office saw it was all like bullshit.
Speaker 2: But in that strong Christian upbring, I think it was
Speaker 2: like gradually just coming off me around that time. And
Speaker 2: then that's no fear and study in the occult, because
Speaker 2: keep in mind, Christians are afraid to look in the
Speaker 2: occult me and don't want to go to Hell. I
Speaker 2: was a big believer of Hell at the time, no doubt.
Speaker 4: Okay, So worshiping and you don't pray to Satan, do.
Speaker 2: You, Lord?
Speaker 4: But I asked this out of ignorance.
Speaker 3: I completely asked this out of ignorance, because again, the
Speaker 3: only types of Satanists or Luciferians or whatever else are.
Speaker 4: The leavey type.
Speaker 3: I've actually, to my knowledge, never spoken to a true
Speaker 3: Satan worshiper. So I don't even know what the mechanics
Speaker 3: look like of how you worship, how you would pray,
Speaker 3: how you would ask for intervening, intervening into your life.
Speaker 3: I have no idea how that looks like.
Speaker 2: On this side of the coin antative ceremonial evocationalism, some
Speaker 2: authors like as Conley and the book, they'll get invocations,
Speaker 2: evocations just trying to need someone writing on it on Amazon.
Speaker 2: But I would say even the LaVeyans that Anton Lavay
Speaker 2: had a book called the Satanic Rituals right after next
Speaker 2: playing that one to me, atheistic ritualism that right, And
Speaker 2: I would say that's why Aquenna left the Church of
Speaker 2: Satan informed the Temple of set which I'm not saying
Speaker 2: I agree with him necessarily on everything, but I'd say
Speaker 2: at least he's going to a more pagan description to Satan.
Speaker 2: There It shows exactly what I would argue that we
Speaker 2: don't worship the Christianity state for that kind of reason.
Speaker 3: So you're worshiping more or less the all encompassing across
Speaker 3: all platforms, all paganistic, all whatever versions of it. They've
Speaker 3: got a dark lord that they talk about. That's the
Speaker 3: guy you're talking to.
Speaker 2: Also polytheistic demonologists a cultd But you know in that
Speaker 2: in the midst there's a lot of devil worship, and
Speaker 2: that's the initial form of Satanism was devil worship. And
Speaker 2: there's a great devils and evil spirits and Babylonia I
Speaker 2: think from like nineteen oh three or so, and ken
Speaker 2: Waite for antonmib was putting out Stantic Bible and sources
Speaker 2: like that. You know, use the term devils. In fact,
Speaker 2: the pseudo to monarchy uses they spelt the div e
Speaker 2: l and that's archaic English that's going to come side back.
Speaker 2: The Sanskrit diva says, you know, the the light bearing
Speaker 2: kind of one that we see with lucifer, phosphorus, hesters,
Speaker 2: et cetera.
Speaker 1: Okay, So fascinating, dude, Like just learning all of the
Speaker 1: almost like the etymology of all these words is like
Speaker 1: it's crazy because we know that that the Bible and
Speaker 1: a lot of Christianity has been kind of a grouping,
Speaker 1: a bringing together of sorts of all different cultures and
Speaker 1: and and beliefs and paganistic beliefs and stuff like that. Right.
Speaker 1: It's the reason why we we uh celebrate Christmas. That's
Speaker 1: the reason why we celebrate Easter. It's like, you know,
Speaker 1: they had to bring in all of these other cultures
Speaker 1: for one, in order to squash those cultures, and for two,
Speaker 1: in order to kind of bring everybody together almost like
Speaker 1: a like a like a cattle corral.
Speaker 3: Yes, and no, dude, but I mean, okay, for instance,
Speaker 3: Easter being celebrated as the you know, good Friday and
Speaker 3: the Resurrection all that, that's not based in paganism. That's
Speaker 3: because Jesus was taken after Passover, which is around that
Speaker 3: time of year, December twenty fifth being used as to
Speaker 3: celebrate his birthday. Yeah, we understand that we don't actually
Speaker 3: have his birth date. We have a lot of beliefs
Speaker 3: on that. But if you look at like how Christmas
Speaker 3: to celebrate the Christmas Tree, everybody swears up and down
Speaker 3: that that's paidagan but it's actually based in Christianity that
Speaker 3: the Pagans took from the Christians, and then the Christians
Speaker 3: retook it from the Pagans.
Speaker 1: The Pagans took the Christian the Christians tree from the Christian.
Speaker 3: Show around I say it was three hundred to four
Speaker 3: hundred to five hundred a d.
Speaker 4: There was a a not a.
Speaker 3: Ritual, but there'd be a celebration that would happen. It
Speaker 3: was kind of a They would have a pole in
Speaker 3: their home and they would decorate it with little trinkets,
Speaker 3: little ornaments and whatever. Right, this was done as a
Speaker 3: way to celebrate Jesus. The Pagans had a version of
Speaker 3: that of their own, and they took it. And that's
Speaker 3: when the evergreen trees came into the mix, and all
Speaker 3: these things that wasn't a Christian thing, but celebrating with
Speaker 3: some sort of a gift giving and all these things
Speaker 3: around that time was Christian based. The Pagans did something
Speaker 3: with that, and then later on the Catholic Church appropriated
Speaker 3: their version of it from them. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 3: it's it's not like Christianity is a amalgamation of paganistic beliefs.
Speaker 3: If anything, it's one of the only on the theistic
Speaker 3: religions that there's ever been ever on earth.
Speaker 2: So you know, man, what I'd say is that, well,
Speaker 2: I would say, you know, Mythrism the whole December twenty fifteen,
Speaker 2: that's Rsia.
Speaker 3: Myth, no doubt Mythrism was if you're not mistaking the
Speaker 3: Silk Road religion, which is fascinating to look at. Not
Speaker 3: gonna lie, but I mean the Persians are more into Zoraster.
Speaker 3: They had their Mythra people, but they were more into
Speaker 3: Heramazda and and that's.
Speaker 2: Why these guys like Richard was it Richard Carrier are
Speaker 2: pointing out like in these presentations with the fucking projector
Speaker 2: out like that. That was that kind of dualism, that
Speaker 2: polarity at the time. And then out of nowhere in Isaiah.
Speaker 2: You know, you got all these gods like God's just
Speaker 2: getting like oc about it. Numb besides me. I'm the
Speaker 2: only one by the way that I mentioned there's numb
Speaker 2: besides me. Where these come from? You know, yeah, we
Speaker 2: know that God Israel types of you know, the God
Speaker 2: is one here. He's just popping out of nowhere as
Speaker 2: if there's some competitor or something like that. So I'd
Speaker 2: say they're tons of and staff the Pagans say. At
Speaker 2: the end of the day, like you said, certain things
Speaker 2: could be added to Christmas, clearly Christian things. I could
Speaker 2: sader Christian holiday utilizing a lot of pagan esthetic for
Speaker 2: some of those reasons of like we were saying, the
Speaker 2: tree Jeremiah tendsay is not to do ship like that
Speaker 2: OVA's witnesses did. We were like strict Christians back in
Speaker 2: the day. So yeah, it's an interesting topic.
Speaker 3: It is, especially when you look at what the early
Speaker 3: Christians I'm talking about, the ones that actually were being
Speaker 3: persecuted in ethicis and shit, what.
Speaker 4: Their practices and rituals looked like.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Catholic Church isn't a fan of that because
Speaker 3: it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the
Speaker 3: mass at all.
Speaker 4: That was all added on way later.
Speaker 3: The early Christians were, you know, just worshiping the dude
Speaker 3: who just died and shit, and it was they were
Speaker 3: dealing with first and if not second, if not third
Speaker 3: hand accounts of what happened. They weren't going off of
Speaker 3: a written word. Some of them later were going off
Speaker 3: for written words, but a lot of them were going
Speaker 3: off of you know, the grandfather of this Church who
Speaker 3: literally walked with Jesus in his grouping. Shit, what polycarp Well,
Speaker 3: I mean, sure we could go that route, but I
Speaker 3: mean we can even look at Antioch, We could even
Speaker 3: look at uh John, John the Young, that John the
Speaker 3: Beloved excuse me, because he was the only one that
Speaker 3: died of old age, and of course because he was
Speaker 3: writing the narrative, he always mentioned how Jesus loved him
Speaker 3: the most.
Speaker 4: That's why we know him as John Beloved.
Speaker 3: I get it, all right, there's there's things with this,
Speaker 3: but like, that's not to say that the the like
Speaker 3: I said, the adoption of a lot of these pagan
Speaker 3: beliefs and these types of envelopments of it. I believe
Speaker 3: that's also why the Catholic Church believed in starting to
Speaker 3: praying to saints and things like that, because they wanted
Speaker 3: to appeal to a wider audience of like, oh, you
Speaker 3: got a pagan god that does this, and this, dude,
Speaker 3: we got a saint that has a very similar story.
Speaker 4: It's wild, but and I don't agree with that by
Speaker 4: any means.
Speaker 3: But I also don't believe that is indicative of the
Speaker 3: entire Christian faith. I believe that's one denomination. You know,
Speaker 3: Sunnis and Sheites are still fighting over one misunderstanding of
Speaker 3: the same fucking.
Speaker 2: Kuran's Martin Luther came out I think in the fifteen Hunters, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, it was just like it was. It was
Speaker 2: a rat. Now there was a different kind. But the
Speaker 2: Catholics were kind of the Christians throughout history, and then
Speaker 2: you had some Orthodox but I would say that they
Speaker 2: were those early church fathers teaching the Eucharist, and anyone
Speaker 2: who studied the Antonicene Church Fathers knows they do that.
Speaker 2: Now some Protestants get upset with that because they want
Speaker 2: those church fathers, so they'll say, no, that was them
Speaker 2: right into the Gnostics ear this and that, and Catholic
Speaker 2: theologians go, no, it wasn't. Here's why and things. And
Speaker 2: that was always interesting to see too. As the Satan
Speaker 2: is looking back, I see a lot of Catholic Christian
Speaker 2: history taken from pagan shit, and I see Protestants coming
Speaker 2: out at the Catholics. At the end of the day.
Speaker 2: The Bible, I would say, it's a very contradictory, problematic
Speaker 2: source at the end of the day, and that's kind
Speaker 2: of the basis of the Abrahamic.
Speaker 3: Is it the Bible that is contradictory or is it
Speaker 3: the humans that are working with it that are contradicting themselves?
Speaker 3: Because Martin Luther is a perfect example of that. Of
Speaker 3: his ninety nine ethos that he nailed on the door,
Speaker 3: fifty four of them, the Catholic Church changed the rules
Speaker 3: for they agreed with what he was saying, and they
Speaker 3: actually made changes like over half of what he said.
Speaker 3: It was the other shit that he wouldn't let go
Speaker 3: that they said, all right, fine, dude, fuck you.
Speaker 4: And let's keep in mind Martin Luther wasn't exactly.
Speaker 3: A great guy. He wrote a very very controversial book
Speaker 3: on the Truth on the Jews, which good luck finding that.
Speaker 3: It's actually kind of a hard book to find. You
Speaker 3: can buy it, you can get it. It's difficult. But
Speaker 3: even Martin Luther, the guy really really was an anti
Speaker 3: Semite as well. A lot of people don't know this,
Speaker 3: but it's like, you got to draw your sources from
Speaker 3: where you can. And a lot of what he had
Speaker 3: nailed on the door was about buying your way into heaven,
Speaker 3: which the Catholic Church was like, yeah, all right, you
Speaker 3: got a point on that.
Speaker 4: That's kind of fucked.
Speaker 2: I think like guys like John Calvin were coming out
Speaker 2: and when his Bible's getting translated, you know, William Tindale,
Speaker 2: all that jazz. You know, you start getting these reformers
Speaker 2: in there going, whoa God, We're just hands like clay
Speaker 2: and he's just predestined in us, and shit, roma's not
Speaker 2: early guys. I think like, uh, fucking what's his name was?
Speaker 2: Was kind of Augustine was when some of the convinist
Speaker 2: kind of shit you could earn. But like E reading that,
Speaker 2: I don't think it was just his interpretation personally, you know,
Speaker 2: if anyone reads a lot of that shit, that plainly
Speaker 2: says And so for me, that's what I mean, is
Speaker 2: like the character that God is very opposing in certain
Speaker 2: spots that if you could justify reconcile contradictions. I used
Speaker 2: to be pro with that with atheism, like two thousand
Speaker 2: and seven, but some of them being honest with just
Speaker 2: the opposite of each other, and it's very conflicting and
Speaker 2: the answers are very desperate, And so that's what I mean.
Speaker 2: Like you said earlier moment, you said that the Bible
Speaker 2: is not a book, it's a compilation of sources exactly.
Speaker 2: So it's no surprise for the contradictions, and I think
Speaker 2: it's mythology we could learn from where they took a
Speaker 2: lot of that stuff.
Speaker 3: Well in contradicting as far as the Old Testament the
Speaker 3: New Testament, yeah, they're supposed to. They're not supposed to
Speaker 3: necessarily jive together. They're supposed to lead one into the other.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of things that Jesus spoke about that
Speaker 3: the Hebrews disagreed with, even though they couldn't disagree with
Speaker 3: it per.
Speaker 4: Their own law.
Speaker 3: There was ways of why he spoke the way he did,
Speaker 3: why he preached the way he did, But yeah, he
Speaker 3: was there to the New Testament was the new way
Speaker 3: that we're supposed to live. And yet there's even Jews,
Speaker 3: I forget what it's called the uh not Kavanaugh, what's
Speaker 3: their book that's actually like their Bible, And they have
Speaker 3: less books than us because they don't have like first
Speaker 3: and second Kings or first and second chronicles. They just
Speaker 3: have kings and chronicles and Samulans. I'm trying to remember
Speaker 3: the name of it.
Speaker 2: Shit. Well, the Jewzis tore the Penitude source.
Speaker 3: Well, that's the first five books of the Bible. But
Speaker 3: they still have the rest of the Old Testament in
Speaker 3: their texts. They just don't see it as necessarily canon,
Speaker 3: the same way that the Book of Enoch is referenced
Speaker 3: later on in the Book of Jude in the New Testament,
Speaker 3: but it's not in the Bible, reason being it was
Speaker 3: a very well known and understood text that pretty much
Speaker 3: everybody of the day and age would have known. So
Speaker 3: it wasn't like you necessarily needed to reference it in
Speaker 3: the like to have it in the Bible for people
Speaker 3: to understand it the way he saw it.
Speaker 4: Everybody knew what.
Speaker 2: It was tradictions, not just hey, God's given a new
Speaker 2: covenant and it's going to be the opposite of the
Speaker 2: last one or whatever. We're kind of showing them a
Speaker 2: subjectivity in morality. In my opinion, I would say that
Speaker 2: what this shows is like, for instance, I think Isaiah
Speaker 2: sixty five gets this display just like Revelation, one of
Speaker 2: those glints back in times that God's can crate a
Speaker 2: new avenue earth and after that there is death for
Speaker 2: one hundred years. In Revelation, after the first heaven first earth,
Speaker 2: there's no more death, and he wipes the tears, and
Speaker 2: this is a big problem that I know not because
Speaker 2: we're just picking up because as a Christian, we would
Speaker 2: sit down and try to figure ones like that out.
Speaker 2: We would see, does God lie in the Bible when
Speaker 2: Titus says he can't, I'd say he does by any honest,
Speaker 2: non liar reading it. That's how I see it, though.
Speaker 3: But you're also referencing books that are meant to be interpretive.
Speaker 3: The Book of Isaiah and the Book of Revelations. These
Speaker 3: are meant to be interpreted and dug deeper, and they're
Speaker 3: not supposed to be so clear cut.
Speaker 2: Brought our best to get the best interpretations, but at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, I'd say, the way it's
Speaker 2: worded just kind of traps things, let's say, And that's
Speaker 2: a couple examples I was given with godline as well
Speaker 2: as about getting me. But these things, to me are
Speaker 2: not like a problem for like truth seekers. I think
Speaker 2: it's just some people are raised or spend a lot
Speaker 2: of time Christian or for whatever reason their bias and
Speaker 2: just need to somehow make all that hit. And I say,
Speaker 2: if you just let it go, it just it doesn't.
Speaker 2: And that's just an honest view a mount it.
Speaker 3: So all right, I know you have to roll here
Speaker 3: in a bit, and I appreciate the time that you've
Speaker 3: given us today for sure. So all right, And then
Speaker 3: again this is I'm asking this completely out of ignorance
Speaker 3: to a person who is, let's say, no religious bias whatsoever,
Speaker 3: very agnostic towards things. Why would they want to get
Speaker 3: involved in Satanism or at least your brand of it,
Speaker 3: Like what's the end goal? There's a lot of speculation
Speaker 3: to say that, like, oh, well, Satanists are doing what
Speaker 3: they're doing so that they can achieve.
Speaker 4: Power and wealth on earth, or they're.
Speaker 3: Doing it so that they can have a set of
Speaker 3: hierarchy when they get to Hell, because they know the
Speaker 3: book and they know where they're going at the end.
Speaker 3: They just want to be in the like the smoking
Speaker 3: section of Hell, not the non smoke It's it's something
Speaker 3: I'm joking on that one, but you see what I'm saying.
Speaker 4: What would be like the end goal on this one?
Speaker 2: I want luxury in the back could burn me a
Speaker 2: little out, that's it though. No, No, A few with
Speaker 2: Satanisms that never study it usually and everyone in my
Speaker 2: live stream every day knows that. But the point is is, like,
Speaker 2: why should they do it, I'd say for the knowledge
Speaker 2: aspect of it, they're going to get much better results.
Speaker 2: Being a pantheis and the earliest pantheas worship devil statues
Speaker 2: as far as the evidence goes from my studies, and
Speaker 2: so many people are coming side for that reason. Seeing yep,
Speaker 2: I don't have to have faith. It's not based on faith.
Speaker 2: Like the Gnostics, we utilize sacred knowledge. Keep in mind
Speaker 2: the heresiologists called them evil for that. Keep in mind
Speaker 2: the serpent got at them and need knowledge. It's going
Speaker 2: to help people advance them. And I think the more
Speaker 2: we step back and are skeptical, those agnostics and atheists
Speaker 2: that are sitting there like I'm examining, I'm examining that,
Speaker 2: but I'm just going to trust whatever this thing said
Speaker 2: without sourcing sciences work for it. Satanists are there to go.
Speaker 2: You should have questioned this too and found this source. Actually,
Speaker 2: it's kind of like the speed of it, I would say,
Speaker 2: because we live as our own gods and that's an
Speaker 2: application many call sin and stay away from that mentality,
Speaker 2: you're going to get difficult of that mind.
Speaker 3: So it's basically for the knowledge that you can gain
Speaker 3: from it and therefore you can apply to your life
Speaker 3: and just live a better life as a result of it.
Speaker 2: Statanisms for people that care about this life yet, and
Speaker 2: I would say, the end goal is the now goal,
Speaker 2: and in the now, live in the now, live with
Speaker 2: a wise mind. The future is the future. It's in
Speaker 2: their mind as far as we can tell, we're in
Speaker 2: the press. And the more people just worry about the
Speaker 2: end day Buyer pit Pool party of the Lake of Fire,
Speaker 2: have anxiety and fear and get vulnerable and start getting
Speaker 2: down to just believe the stuff and a mere fact
Speaker 2: that just escape a fire sentence, not because it's true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a lot of people really take that whole Lake
Speaker 3: of Fire thing to think that hell is a giant
Speaker 3: oven like nah, that that is mentioned only a couple
Speaker 3: of times, and it's you look at the context, that's
Speaker 3: not what it is. But that hole has brought up
Speaker 3: a couple of times, and that's also a whole other
Speaker 3: other thing.
Speaker 1: But just to ask you something first, uh there, Robert,
Speaker 1: just out of curiosity, I know that a lot of
Speaker 1: people will attach uh satanic ritual abuse to your brand
Speaker 1: of Satanism or really Edd.
Speaker 3: On the show talk about performing abortions in the name
Speaker 3: of satan to get things one hundred percent brow.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts on that whenever that's going on,
Speaker 1: Is that's really going on, or there's some people that
Speaker 1: you know, maybe you don't claim as far as all
Speaker 1: that shit kind of goes, or is it is it misconstrued?
Speaker 2: If the human sacrifice comes from the Bible Actually Genesis
Speaker 2: twenty two, godm a had this idea to take your
Speaker 2: son at sacrifice them, and evidently, being ignorant the obvious
Speaker 2: morality of being the person, actually goes to go along
Speaker 2: with this. I think perhaps knowing it's a bad idea,
Speaker 2: things like that, I would say from the Bible, JPS
Speaker 2: sacrifice his daughter to God. It was done. This culture
Speaker 2: is doing animal sacrifice. I would say it's cruelty to
Speaker 2: do things like that to animals to appease from God.
Speaker 2: In your head's read, we don't do that. Satanism. People
Speaker 2: doing those things, those are not Satanist sources, None of
Speaker 2: us sort of this seeks to do those things. Those
Speaker 2: people saying that are from the Satanic temple. A Catholic
Speaker 2: guy the other day, as we went to the page
Speaker 2: it said what it said, this is the Satanic Temple doing.
Speaker 2: I think the Abordin that's them. We're not the Satanic Temple.
Speaker 2: And really I don't know what the hell they're doing
Speaker 2: behind the scenes.
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm with you to a degree here, but
Speaker 3: Abraham didn't do that just out of nowhere. Every tribe
Speaker 3: around where he lived, we're sacrificing their firstborn sons to
Speaker 3: ball and that was a whole thing. There was a
Speaker 3: whole ovens that they would throw their children into. That's
Speaker 3: not indicative of just that region of the world. For instance,
Speaker 3: the Astechs also sacrifice their children to their rain God.
Speaker 3: It was a very painful thing. The more the baby scream,
Speaker 3: the more rain would come. That's been done for many
Speaker 3: cultures around the world. That's never heard of the Bible.
Speaker 2: The source is that what people do is they'll take
Speaker 2: like Kronos for instance, they look, he's eating the planet.
Speaker 2: The planet's eating something. Raho eats the sun. It's called
Speaker 2: an eclipse. People reading those texts, like Christian texts, are
Speaker 2: not sourcing improperly. The Christians say this is historical. They
Speaker 2: say God told Abraham go into the mountain and do this,
Speaker 2: and so that idea to do something like that. As
Speaker 2: far as we can source it this from the Christians
Speaker 2: or at least the Hebrew and then the Christians have
Speaker 2: Jesus have a douicinal sacrifice that he laid his own
Speaker 2: life down on. And so in my opinion that as
Speaker 2: long as they keep it in the Bible, that's them.
Speaker 2: Satanists have no sources teaching you stuff like that, and
Speaker 2: at a people like I was just going to say
Speaker 2: one more point is that that's like me saying, David
Speaker 2: Koresh the Heaven's Gate cult, the People's Temple. Look what
Speaker 2: the Christians did. We are so fair in the debate.
Speaker 2: We're not going to source that as Christians, and to
Speaker 2: try to be fair, go to the Bible debate. I
Speaker 2: think people doing that trying to pin on us is
Speaker 2: from like the Satanic panic bullshit. They were banned at
Speaker 2: horror movies in the eighties as well.
Speaker 4: Fair enough, fair enough, the Satanic panic was a big
Speaker 4: thing with you.
Speaker 3: So okay, yeah, you're saying that it's about living in
Speaker 3: the now, and I could understand that on a humanistic
Speaker 3: or not humanistic, on a human aspect.
Speaker 4: As a dude living and talking to you right now,
Speaker 4: I get where you're coming from. You do believe that
Speaker 4: you have a soul.
Speaker 2: Correct, Well, soul is the Hebrew word in the fashion
Speaker 2: has to do with living consciousness. I think consciousness of
Speaker 2: Buddhism and cyclic consistence incarnation makes more sense personally.
Speaker 3: Okay, so you don't believe that after we die we
Speaker 3: go somewhere else. You think we just kind of rinse
Speaker 3: and repeat.
Speaker 2: Well, the resurrection thing, now that means like to walk
Speaker 2: in dead. I like the idea for movie aspect of it.
Speaker 2: I don't believe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, not resurrection, just you personally take away all the
Speaker 3: other what people believe. When you die, you believe that
Speaker 3: you get reincarnated.
Speaker 2: I'm saying this, This Abrahamic idea of heaven has to
Speaker 2: do it a resurrection, and for things like this, we're
Speaker 2: going to make stuff up and believe in it. What
Speaker 2: are we really doing in heaven for getting bored? If not,
Speaker 2: I guess we got a non boredom. Shot what I
Speaker 2: would say psyclic existence. Things like deja vous are very intrigued.
Speaker 2: I think death is very mysterious. I think studying necromancy
Speaker 2: and spiraitistic seances is appropriate. Ecdoplasms, medium ship, things like
Speaker 2: this is fine. I think the fact Christians call stuff
Speaker 2: like this evil is atrocious, And although I agree with
Speaker 2: the Bible, thou out murder those statements, right, I would
Speaker 2: say that at the same damn time, we don't need
Speaker 2: Caveman to tell us that we don't need the rest
Speaker 2: of the Bible. That's a very atrocious things.
Speaker 3: So you say that the necromancy, perfect example, you're talking
Speaker 3: about communing with the dead.
Speaker 4: You're talking about not to varying degrees.
Speaker 3: Maybe it's a weigi board, maybe it's a full on
Speaker 3: SaaS to talk to you, mama, to whatever level.
Speaker 4: Fine, I also.
Speaker 3: Agree with you, by the way, that that is real,
Speaker 3: one hundred percent acknowledge that is real shit. But how
Speaker 3: does that tie into reincarnation? Because if you die and
Speaker 3: go right back into or do you go to like
Speaker 3: a waiting room for a little while and then come
Speaker 3: back down, and like in that waiting room is when
Speaker 3: people can holler at you, like, how does this go?
Speaker 2: Oh no, there's an elevator. I swear I don't just
Speaker 2: make shit up on that. I'm just saying that that
Speaker 2: a lot of the stuff in the Borrow total that
Speaker 2: book did makes more sense and the resurrection stuff to me,
Speaker 2: So I leave more in that direction, necromancy is practicing
Speaker 2: those cultures. That's tapping into nature's animism. I would argue,
Speaker 2: Elfis Levi writes great on that stuff, very skeptical, very
Speaker 2: esoterically scientific. Just read what I was going to say
Speaker 2: is I don't just make up beliefs, like if I
Speaker 2: do this, I'll come back as one of those lines,
Speaker 2: go around and get those zebras Nature's cyclic consciousness. I
Speaker 2: don't see how it's just going to diminish, Okay.
Speaker 3: And I'm not saying you make up something. I mean,
Speaker 3: but you have dug into so many books, You've dung
Speaker 3: into so many beliefs, and you have formed at least
Speaker 3: a belief structure for yourself personally. So you're saying that
Speaker 3: a reincarnation just makes more sense based off of the
Speaker 3: the information that you have found across all all regions,
Speaker 3: all cultures, all religions.
Speaker 2: That's what I like to belief on it, because the
Speaker 2: term belief in religious stuff usually needs assumption like I
Speaker 2: proof of God, believe in uh not like that. It
Speaker 2: seems more like an ideology, like an application experience this
Speaker 2: kind of way. I'd say that its yeah, it seems
Speaker 2: to fit with the alchemical cycle of nature. Seasons are cycling,
Speaker 2: the sun and moon cycling. Why all these things like
Speaker 2: I'm a new regrets and a guy, you know, getting
Speaker 2: a job at the lawn. It's all gonna work out
Speaker 2: for every sense to me, and and dharma and things
Speaker 2: like that. And that's just an honest view mine.
Speaker 4: So it's not a this is a belief that you have,
Speaker 4: but do you have faith in this?
Speaker 2: Really?
Speaker 4: Where are you at with the belief versus faith debate?
Speaker 2: I wouldn't say I believe I'm coming back as a
Speaker 2: or B. No, I don't think science necessarily even works
Speaker 2: that way. We have tr to be consistent, have an
Speaker 2: hypothesis and a conclusion. That's it. Other than now, it's
Speaker 2: a mystery and so.
Speaker 4: Near that the experiences. For instance, when somebody and depending on.
Speaker 3: The culture, there's people that born and raised in India,
Speaker 3: they have a near death experience, they see Vishnub, they're
Speaker 3: raised in Germany they have a near death experience, and
Speaker 3: they meet Jesus and everything in between. Oh, what do
Speaker 3: you personally attribute these two? Because I mean, on this
Speaker 3: and there's really no wrong answers. I'm just curious.
Speaker 2: I'm just really not sure, and I think that just
Speaker 2: gloss on them over here, say, wouldn't be the best
Speaker 2: way to go about it. We know that the Amity
Speaker 2: Bill horror sounded like there was some truth to the
Speaker 2: actual stories until skeptics came in and started saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: what happened with dead child's he and well the windows
Speaker 2: fail and then he went to the hospital. Where could
Speaker 2: we check the records? You know what? We put bandiates
Speaker 2: on them? Actually, how do I know it's not? People
Speaker 2: like that saying fact? I think for these testimonies the
Speaker 2: fact they're contradicting may show, just like when Christians say, hey,
Speaker 2: there's a bunch of red water like revelation. People apparently
Speaker 2: looked into some of those locations, though it had to
Speaker 2: do with algae in certain cases and iron inclusion of
Speaker 2: waters and others. I'd say that people that I you
Speaker 2: could see what they say about it high consciousness into it.
Speaker 2: Perhaps similar to a coma. There's a lot of people
Speaker 2: that appear to be dead come back and claim have experience.
Speaker 3: Who knows, no doubt we I actually know a couple
Speaker 3: of coma Uh I would say victims, but people that
Speaker 3: were in a coma and when they came out there
Speaker 3: pineal Gland had been decalcified, and they were clearly seeing
Speaker 3: angels and demons around them, and they only a couple
Speaker 3: of days later recalcified because adults do that and they
Speaker 3: couldn't see it anymore. But absolutely, coming out of a
Speaker 3: coma is something that people have a lot of experiences with,
Speaker 3: for sure, and.
Speaker 2: Stuff like that just give examples of the mind states
Speaker 2: that who knows what other mind states and not have
Speaker 2: tapped into for a while. People may not have been
Speaker 2: aware of how, you know, cognition works. So we're just
Speaker 2: being ship and so in the Bible. And then when
Speaker 2: they saw desert with an angel a I saw, wasn't it.
Speaker 2: But at the end of the day, yeah, I think
Speaker 2: it's great study these things, question them and if we're
Speaker 2: just going to just make up hell and be afraid,
Speaker 2: like a lot of people didn't know if they're going
Speaker 2: to get the best results in that study.
Speaker 3: If you're living in fear, then you're living the right way,
Speaker 3: that's for sure. And I say that to a lot
Speaker 3: of Christians too, like, yo, if you're living this way
Speaker 3: and you're doing this because you're afraid of the alternative,
Speaker 3: then you're you miss the fucking point by a long shot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel the same way because people will ask you,
Speaker 1: are you a god fearing man? It's like, I mean,
Speaker 1: should that be how you are viewing God as fearful?
Speaker 1: First off? Like that's the first thing that you think
Speaker 1: of whenever you're thinking about God?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 4: Dad?
Speaker 2: He don't hit me?
Speaker 1: Like it shouldn't be like that. It should be like
Speaker 1: he's a loving god, He's a caring god. He created
Speaker 1: this world, he created this universe. But for some reason,
Speaker 1: he wants us to know that, Like he's a fearful guy. Right,
Speaker 1: It's weird.
Speaker 4: It's fear and respect.
Speaker 3: I mean again, even the ancient Greeks feared and respected
Speaker 3: all of their gods, like you should like at least acknowledged.
Speaker 3: It's the same as like, Okay, a dude that is
Speaker 3: three times your size. You don't need to be afraid
Speaker 3: of him, but you need to acknowledge that he could
Speaker 3: fuck your world up if he so chose.
Speaker 4: Oh, I welcome living in welcome that what it is.
Speaker 1: No, I love the challenge. That's how I look at it.
Speaker 1: Though that's just from a football standpoint. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: in a fight, I'm just saying, you know, I always
Speaker 1: like taking on the bigger boys, just for the challenge
Speaker 1: of it.
Speaker 2: Nature is very fearful. Look at thunder, look at a
Speaker 2: lightning bolt, striking the lightning bolt the same as a
Speaker 2: person doing it. No, nature is fearful. I have no
Speaker 2: problem with you, I'd say. The Bible promotes fear in
Speaker 2: the way of light people believed to be kind of
Speaker 2: like a person away. The Bible promotes hey, the fear
Speaker 2: of the lord's beginning of knowledge. Proverbs one seven. Job
Speaker 2: describes this being afraid and terrified in the Book of Job,
Speaker 2: and Jesus says, not to fear those who killed the body,
Speaker 2: but he cast you hanner fear beyond people killing the
Speaker 2: boxy error and afraid they were flying am it God?
Speaker 2: At least in served passes, because other ones, Jesus says,
Speaker 2: do not fear it, go away and me or is I?
Speaker 2: And and then they think it was a fantasma, which
Speaker 2: is something the Greek fashion.
Speaker 3: That's a fair point though the Book of Job old
Speaker 3: test and also we know that it's a story and
Speaker 3: not a true story that happened. It was like a
Speaker 3: parable because the very beginning of it Satan goes up
Speaker 3: to God and communes with him and makes a deal
Speaker 3: with him. God doesn't make deals, and Satan can't be
Speaker 3: in the same room as God. That's the whole reason
Speaker 3: he's not allowed within God's presence. So, like we know,
Speaker 3: the Book of Job is in fact just a story,
Speaker 3: and there's an argument to say that it's actually the
Speaker 3: earliest written book in the Bible, because that goes back
Speaker 3: before the actual transcribing of the Book of Genesis.
Speaker 4: There's an argument to say that it was a part of.
Speaker 3: The oral Torah, because there's an oral Torah in a
Speaker 3: written Torah, and they always said that you had to
Speaker 3: have both to understand the entirety of it. The oral
Speaker 3: Torah was passed down orally as it does. And I
Speaker 3: think that the Original or the Old Testament mentions Job
Speaker 3: so much, and the New Testament mentions Job's enough times
Speaker 3: where they were like.
Speaker 4: Okay, we actually have to add the entire story to
Speaker 4: the book.
Speaker 2: I think that even if it's like some kind of metaphor,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what that will be teaching as a
Speaker 2: metaphor if God looking like that, But at the end,
Speaker 2: to have.
Speaker 3: Faith, to have faith and trust in God, and no
Speaker 3: matter what the circumstances, I.
Speaker 2: Guess the way they painting him was evil in the process,
Speaker 2: be cause Joe forty two to eleven. It says God's
Speaker 2: one brought all the evil upon it on Job. Even
Speaker 2: though this alleged abolvement of Satan, it seems to be
Speaker 2: God got his hands with bloody there. But what I
Speaker 2: was going to say is that at the end of
Speaker 2: the day, I think that the New Testament Jesus statement
Speaker 2: as well saying don't fear those who killed the body
Speaker 2: to fear him. And then if you look at the
Speaker 2: Book of Job, you could see that they were terrified
Speaker 2: God like a healthy thing in their mind. People today
Speaker 2: I often hear say, no, it just means respect, like
Speaker 2: your parents or something. I just don't see some of
Speaker 2: those pastors.
Speaker 3: And to that point about in the Book of Job
Speaker 3: where they're saying like God's the one that did all
Speaker 3: this to you. That was his wife who was talking
Speaker 3: shit and basically saying like, why are you still praying
Speaker 3: when all this is happening to you.
Speaker 4: God's the one that did it to you.
Speaker 2: At the end of the narrative talking Joe forty two eleventh.
Speaker 2: The narrative in the beginning. Yeah, the wife was one
Speaker 2: talking shit too, but I think she was right in
Speaker 2: a sense. But that's just my opinions, to be honest.
Speaker 3: Though there's not many times where women are brought up
Speaker 3: with reverence, there's a few. There's a few, the Book
Speaker 3: of Ruth, Book of Vester, I get it. But there's
Speaker 3: also a lot of u there's a lot of old
Speaker 3: school ways of thinking as far as like dealing with
Speaker 3: women and dealing with your wives and shit. And then
Speaker 3: you look at how Paul wrote about them, and I
Speaker 3: think he kind of had to stick up his ass
Speaker 3: as far as how women should be treated. But I mean,
Speaker 3: you know, that's that's its own thing. Because he was
Speaker 3: a traditional rabbi and so he was of the belief
Speaker 3: that women were supposed to be basically silent and submissive
Speaker 3: and all these things. And it's like, Okay, who was
Speaker 3: he writing that to, because we know that the Bible
Speaker 3: wasn't written to us. It was written for us, but
Speaker 3: it wasn't written to us. The Bible was written to
Speaker 3: the people of the day and age that it was
Speaker 3: being written to. Right, Like when in Timothy when he
Speaker 3: talks about women being silent, submissive, he wasn't speaking to
Speaker 3: all of womenkind. He was talking about the exact church
Speaker 3: because the women of that church were acting in ass
Speaker 3: and he was telling them to chill the fuck out.
Speaker 3: But people will take that and be like, yep, we're
Speaker 3: supposed to just no, no, no, look at the context,
Speaker 3: look at the time, place and audience.
Speaker 4: It's very important to get the meaning from it.
Speaker 2: I think when when we look at that too, like
Speaker 2: as somebody's I think they still hold them accountable for
Speaker 2: the stories, don't they. They're like, you know, for instance,
Speaker 2: like just telling a story like yeah, Abraham and all
Speaker 2: this stuff happened, happened in Hades burning and here's a story,
Speaker 2: and you know you're accountable for that. What happened with
Speaker 2: them two? Or you know is that the Christians us?
Speaker 2: So I think sometimes like reference in Old Testament stories,
Speaker 2: they're supposed to be some fine value like Jesus like
Speaker 2: you will be given the Sign of Jonah, like have
Speaker 2: you not read the scriptures? Type of shit, like like
Speaker 2: are you not accountable? In other words, I think they
Speaker 2: were holding them accountable even though they were writing about
Speaker 2: stories to other people like you said, but I just
Speaker 2: want to see more. Thing is I think that even
Speaker 2: though you could argue some stuff like that, I think
Speaker 2: Christians and choose that conveniently sometimes, like which commandments there
Speaker 2: to obey and which ones are written at the time.
Speaker 2: I think because today people are more smarter than no
Speaker 2: misogyny for obvious reasons that I figured they should have
Speaker 2: known that. They say that was just for the time.
Speaker 2: You know, we argue that, But I do have to
Speaker 2: get out of here soon. So if you guys wrap
Speaker 2: it up with me involved, and I don't know how
Speaker 2: to tap me out of here, but we give you out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, brother, Well, look, we appreciate you coming to hang
Speaker 1: out with us, and we hope that we can maybe
Speaker 1: get you on again sometime and maybe we can go
Speaker 1: a little bit longer, get weird on here, dude, like,
Speaker 1: because I feel like you do. You've done your research.
Speaker 1: You bring a lot of knowledge, a lot of great perspectives,
Speaker 1: and I like the idea. Actually, I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: I'm going to be converting to devil worship by any means,
Speaker 1: but that being said, But that being said, I like
Speaker 1: the idea behind It's it not being a faith based thing,
Speaker 1: that it actually being a more gnostic kind of way
Speaker 1: of understanding. That's kind of the way that I've always
Speaker 1: really been pulled to is just more of the nosis,
Speaker 1: more of the understanding and knowing rather than just like
Speaker 1: being I don't know, kinda led by what other people
Speaker 1: have said to be led by I don't know either way.
Speaker 1: Love you, man, and this was great and we can't
Speaker 1: wait to do it again. If you could, could you
Speaker 1: tell our cult members where they can find you.
Speaker 2: Well, we're waiting on to see what TikTok does with
Speaker 2: the whole thing with the band, but you know that's
Speaker 2: that true devil worship is the main account on TikTok
Speaker 2: the Instagram's Robert Mortem and so those two you could
Speaker 2: go to.
Speaker 1: Awesome.
Speaker 3: Hell yeah, bro, I appreciate your time today and I
Speaker 3: really look forward to having you back on here here
Speaker 3: hopefully soon.
Speaker 2: Man. Yeah, I had a lot of fun discussing topics.
Speaker 2: You guys seem to be into them a shit, and
Speaker 2: most people aren't, you know. They come to the mic
Speaker 2: and people bitch at me like I'll bring some you know,
Speaker 2: smart people aware, open to discussions with anybody as you
Speaker 2: see them right here, and so we try to get
Speaker 2: more people into these concussions, even those who disagree with us,
Speaker 2: You're welcome to them all the time and love it
Speaker 2: because they although they may not agree with everything, they
Speaker 2: understand a lot of shit, I'm saying. At least it's
Speaker 2: making a lot of sense. That's the value of it.
Speaker 1: Oh dude, you learn a lot more from people you
Speaker 1: disagree with then people you do agree with. Right, very
Speaker 1: well said, thank you, thank you, So all right, well
Speaker 1: yeah we'll do it again. But anyhow, Yeah, Robert, we'll
Speaker 1: see you next time. Brother. Those books that were found
Speaker 1: in nineteen forty five are the books from the second century.
Speaker 1: It's not like a replica, it's not like a reprint.
Speaker 1: It's literally that was from that time, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not denying that, but that's my point. Whenever
Speaker 3: these are discovered in the forties, it's not like, oh,
Speaker 3: we found this new thing. It's like no, no, no,
Speaker 3: you found this old thing that has already been talked
Speaker 3: about and debated and thrown out.
Speaker 4: Like yeah, I mean known.
Speaker 1: My point being is that how could that survive? But
Speaker 1: the most important book ever created couldn't?
Speaker 4: Did the Dead Sea Scrolls not survive?
Speaker 2: Sir?
Speaker 1: I mean, and that's not the original I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the original Bible. That was put to put together of
Speaker 1: the sixty six books, I could see the Old Testament
Speaker 1: the New Testament. You couldn't keep some of that shit around.
Speaker 4: They're more of the New Testament is in existence than
Speaker 4: the Old.
Speaker 2: None.
Speaker 4: There's zero like the original.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's zero of it. There's not a single book
Speaker 1: that is still around that. That's what that page that
Speaker 1: just said, hold.
Speaker 4: On, hold on, you're all right, let's fucking do this
Speaker 4: I put in.
Speaker 1: Do the original books of the Bible still exist? Even
Speaker 1: Google AI says no, the original manuscripts of the Bible
Speaker 1: do not exist, but there are many copies of the
Speaker 1: Bible that are considered to be accurate. They're all gone.
Speaker 3: Well, now it makes sense seeing as to how the
Speaker 3: Romans did everything they could to kill the Christian cult
Speaker 3: before it could spring, and then just Sinian finally made
Speaker 3: it legal to be a Christian, then the next year
Speaker 3: made it hey was a Christian, and then the next
Speaker 3: year it made it the national religion of Rome. But like,
Speaker 3: up until that point, they were seen as enemies by Rome,
Speaker 3: so it makes sense that they were like torching them
Speaker 3: alive in their.
Speaker 4: Books and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: But the Bible didn't say anywhere in there that the
Speaker 3: original words, the original scrolls will be preserved.
Speaker 4: It said the original word would be preserved.
Speaker 1: But don't you find that fucking weird? Like the the
Speaker 1: literal original, the original print. I mean, you want to
Speaker 1: talk about whoa what was the Bible originally written as?
Speaker 1: Was it Hebrew? Was it Greek? Was it Latin? Was
Speaker 1: it English? Who gives? I mean, was it Spanish? A
Speaker 1: fucking knows. We'll never know. Nobody has probation.
Speaker 3: Okay, yes, but we also know that it was referenced
Speaker 3: from the people of the day and age that were
Speaker 3: looking at the original, the original if you.
Speaker 1: Can believe those people, and we.
Speaker 3: Can because it's all been verified. How do you verify
Speaker 3: something that's not around. Okay, we're gonna have to do
Speaker 3: a deep dive on that one if you want, dude,
Speaker 3: because that's very convoluted and I get it, But the
Speaker 3: words themselves, and then when it did these grolls are found,
Speaker 3: it's like, wait a minute, it is a perfect representation
Speaker 3: of the King James by but it predated all of this.
Speaker 3: It's like, wait a minute, So the real words did
Speaker 3: get preserved. Yeah, the books maybe not, but like the
Speaker 3: message was preserved.
Speaker 1: When did the Dead Sea scroll date back to? When
Speaker 1: was that book originally written from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Speaker 3: Well, it's a it's a copper scroll. I'm trying to
Speaker 3: remember now because they did carbon dating on it. And again,
Speaker 3: carbon dating's very yeah, I know, up to conjecture. But
Speaker 3: if I'm not mistaken, because the Dead Sea Scrolls, they
Speaker 3: they knew their whereabouts the entire time, I think they
Speaker 3: might have had a decent shot at carbon dating it.
Speaker 4: Well, yeah, I don't.
Speaker 1: It says carbon dating says between the third century BC
Speaker 1: and the first century AD.
Speaker 3: So we're around the time when Jesus was alive. So
Speaker 3: these these things survived that long somehow. And then we
Speaker 3: look at it compared to the King James Bible converted
Speaker 3: to Greek, and it's a perfect one to one translation.
Speaker 1: Dead Sea Scrolls were written in what language?
Speaker 3: I want to say, Aramaic or Hebrew. Maybe it could
Speaker 3: have been Greek. I could believe it if it was Greek,
Speaker 3: But for some reason, off the top of my head,
Speaker 3: I want to say they were written in Hebrew, which
Speaker 3: is the oldest spoken language on Earth.
Speaker 4: And he's saying Sanskrit predates that, and it's like bro
Speaker 4: calm down with that one.
Speaker 1: The Dead Sea Scrolls were written in multiple languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin,
Speaker 1: and Arabic.
Speaker 4: Okay, great, so I was on some of that anyway.
Speaker 1: Some scrolls are written in Aramaic, the language spoken by
Speaker 1: many Jews between the sixth century BC and the Siege
Speaker 1: of Jerusalem in seventy eighty.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was the language that was mostly spoken. Hebrew.
Speaker 3: The language itself was more of the like proper language
Speaker 3: that would be spoken of or spoken in synagogues or
Speaker 3: when you're praying and stuff like that. It's more it's
Speaker 3: like the difference between like the King's English and American English.
Speaker 1: Jesus is not in the Dead Sea scrolls?
Speaker 4: Is it mostly Old Testament?
Speaker 1: It says, is Jesus mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls? Uh? No,
Speaker 1: Jesus is not in the scrolls, nor is the uniqueness
Speaker 1: of Christianity in doubt. But the scrolls do tell us
Speaker 1: a great deal that we had not previously known about
Speaker 1: the situation of Judaism at the dawn of Christianity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, I mean, now it makes sense. Jesus wasn't
Speaker 3: mentioned in the Torah. So it's you know, they said
Speaker 3: the Savior would come, but they didn't like name him.
Speaker 1: So it's mainly Old Testament.
Speaker 3: Then, yeah, And you were just saying like none of
Speaker 3: that survived? Are you saying the New Testament? None that survived?
Speaker 3: I'm trying to think the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't. They
Speaker 3: wouldn't have New Testament in them because most of that
Speaker 3: was written by Paul after Jesus died and his disciples
Speaker 3: after his death.
Speaker 4: Right, So it makes sense, But isn't that interesting?
Speaker 1: Didn't we just read that the Dead Sea Scrolls were
Speaker 1: dating back to what was it, three.
Speaker 4: Four hundred BC before Jesus?
Speaker 1: So how could have it wouldn't have had the New Testament?
Speaker 4: Then that's what I'm saying, It wouldn't have mentioned Jesus.
Speaker 4: That makes sense, right?
Speaker 1: And also, I mean, are we to believe that the
Speaker 1: Dead Sea Scrolls were the first version of that book
Speaker 1: that was written that was put together.
Speaker 4: I don't think so.
Speaker 3: I mean that'd be like saying, well, where's the Jews
Speaker 3: original Torah? Where's their original big fat scroll? They have
Speaker 3: them in all the Senagogue, where's the original? Probably was
Speaker 3: burned by the Romans or the Phoenicians or the Egyptians
Speaker 3: or the Babylonians or the Persians.
Speaker 4: It could be a number of people who did this.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I mean, we're talking about the most hated group of
Speaker 3: people historically ever, and the Christians are kind of the
Speaker 3: second cousins to them.
Speaker 1: There are several ancient Torah scrolls and fragments that have
Speaker 1: been discovered, but the original Tora is not known to
Speaker 1: have survived.
Speaker 3: There you go, at least, where's the original Vedics, where's
Speaker 3: the original Vedic texts? Where's the original Buddhist texts? And
Speaker 3: it's like, well, Buddha came. It's a bad comparison. Buddha
Speaker 3: was a Hindi, so that's a bad one. That was
Speaker 3: a spinoff.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. What point saying is that, Like, you know,
Speaker 1: it's like the Jews and the Christians and everybody is
Speaker 1: is so like, well here it was documented and see
Speaker 1: this is the actual proof and all this, and it's
Speaker 1: like all this proof you say you have, but you
Speaker 1: don't have the og fucking book that was put together.
Speaker 1: Like that would make me question my entire belief that
Speaker 1: there's not a original, you know what I'm saying, Like,
Speaker 1: because what if the original was nothing like what you're
Speaker 1: reading today.
Speaker 3: Well, this is where we have faith, especially when you
Speaker 3: look at the writing of people from three hundred and
Speaker 3: four hundred AD that were like two or three generations
Speaker 3: removed from.
Speaker 4: The disciples themselves, you know what I mean.
Speaker 3: Like, it's not like this was a written text handed
Speaker 3: down for like three thousand years and like they're trying
Speaker 3: to decipher it. No, these dudes were talking with the
Speaker 3: people that walked with Jesus and they were writing down
Speaker 3: what they said. This guy took those writings and then
Speaker 3: passed it down to that next guy. That guy wrote
Speaker 3: about it. That's not like that far of a source. Hell,
Speaker 3: even the Book of a Thessalonians they mentioned some that
Speaker 3: we now believe was like three years after the death
Speaker 3: of Jesus. I mean, how much more of a first
Speaker 3: person account do we really need other than the dudes
Speaker 3: that you know walked with him.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: The oldest surviving text of the Christian Bible is the
Speaker 1: Codex Sinatiicus, which dates back to the fourth century CE,
Speaker 1: the Old test No, I'm not talking about what specific version.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about like the oldest one in life.
Speaker 3: That's the oldest one that we currently have. As far
Speaker 3: as the New Testament's concerned because it was written in Greek.
Speaker 4: Reason why it was written in.
Speaker 3: Greek is because because of Alexander the Great and his
Speaker 3: massive conquest, Greek was the understood spoken language across People
Speaker 3: in Egypt spoke Greek, People in Pursias spoke Greek, people
Speaker 3: in India spoke Greek. People in Greece spoke Greek because that's
Speaker 3: where he conquered. Why did Latin become the next language over,
Speaker 3: because that's where Rome conquered.
Speaker 1: Well, this was a shorter episode. We wanted to go
Speaker 1: a little bit longer with your boy Robert Mordom. He
Speaker 1: was somebody who we were trying to get on here
Speaker 1: for a while. We were trying to find somebody who
Speaker 1: was an actual devil worshiper. And I gotta say, I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe you didn't agree with his understandings or philosophies, but
Speaker 1: you know, he came with it, and that's all we
Speaker 1: wanted from him in the first place. He was he
Speaker 1: was really cool, and you know, in having us on here,
Speaker 1: I think that he kept us cool. Anytime somebody disagreed
Speaker 1: with him, he didn't get but hurt or anything like that.
Speaker 1: That's that's good. That's that's good for him, and a debate,
Speaker 1: not saying this was a debate, but you know there
Speaker 1: were people disagreeing and bouncing off ideas back and forth,
Speaker 1: and that was cool of him.
Speaker 3: But that's also what he does, you know what I
Speaker 3: mean for the content that he puts out. He has
Speaker 3: a lot of people, like he said, jump in, some
Speaker 3: of them agree what he says, some of them come
Speaker 3: at him, and he's here for all of it.
Speaker 4: And so yeah, man, that was fun.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, and I'm bummed that we couldn't get longer out
Speaker 3: of it, But we will be having him back on
Speaker 3: good cult members, I promise you. I cannot wait to
Speaker 3: talk more about the gnostic texts. I cannot wait to
Speaker 3: talk about original translations. I can't wait to talk about
Speaker 3: other pagan entities that he also is like drawing in
Speaker 3: and bringing into to compile what he sees and what
Speaker 3: he believes.
Speaker 4: I thought this was fascinating, bro.
Speaker 1: Yeah dude, Yeah he was. He was pretty cool. I
Speaker 1: feel like, you know, could could could really just be
Speaker 1: like one of the homies. I like him. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna wrap it up right there, and uh, look,
Speaker 1: if you want to be able to come join us
Speaker 1: on Patreon. That is the best way to be able
Speaker 1: to support the ship and to have completely commercial free time.
Speaker 1: And if you want to be able to join us
Speaker 1: every Tuesday night at nine pm Central for the Cult
Speaker 1: Live shows is that is also at patreon dot com
Speaker 1: slash Cult of Conspiracy Podcasts. You just got to sign
Speaker 1: up for the third Eye all the Way Open tier
Speaker 1: and uh yeah, how about some Knife fans Jacob.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, if you haven't already good Cult members, please do
Speaker 3: this for us, especially as we're bringing in these types
Speaker 3: of guests and we are talking about these controversial topics
Speaker 3: and maybe you want to let us know what your
Speaker 3: thoughts are on this, then please let us know. And
Speaker 3: at this time hit the five stars, sit the shares,
Speaker 3: the like, subscribes to comments, leave a post, leave review,
Speaker 3: shares with the friends and family, shares everywhere. Here's the deal.
Speaker 3: The more activity the algorithm sees across all of our
Speaker 3: listening platforms, the more we get promoted to more potential
Speaker 3: listeners who could that become potential Cult members.
Speaker 4: Like the rest of you, fine ladies and.
Speaker 3: Gentlemen, and why you're ready to go check out Metamisteries,
Speaker 3: Jonathan's other show and give it the five star reviews,
Speaker 3: the positivity, the comments, the shares, the likes, and the subscribes.
Speaker 3: Go check out OK Tonight YouTube channel and give me
Speaker 3: all the follows and the subscribes over there. And we
Speaker 3: thank you for everybody's already gone and done so.
Speaker 1: And with that being said, this was another beautiful episode
Speaker 1: of the Cult of Conspiracy. And my name is Jonathan,
Speaker 1: I'm Jacob and there's one very important, extremely vital piece
Speaker 1: of information we need you to learn just as soon
Speaker 1: as humanly possible.
Speaker 2: No bed off that are seen s