Speaker 1: In common cock Dick.
Speaker 2: All Right, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. This is David
Patrick Carey with Church of the Eternal Logos, and I
am joined by Jay Dyer today to finish our Part
two of Deconstructing My Christianity. We did part one over
on his channel. It was about two weeks ago where
we really sort of deconstructed deconstructionism and talked really philosophically
about why it's a problem and how it has its
own paradomatic shortcomings. And today's going to be addressing the
entire phenomenon of deconstructing My Christianity, which I was not
aware until Ac really pointed this out, and Jay has
been aware of it and seeing it online of all
these people deconstructing their faith and bringing up really low tier,
kind of old arguments that they think are dismissing the
messianic status of Christ, the Holy Trinity, and stuff like that.
So we're going to kind of be going through some
of their really their stronger arguments, So we're going to
kind of steal man them at the beginning, and then
we're going to get into and watch a few tiktoks
and some of these major figures online and have a
few laughs. So that's kind of the plan for today. So, Jay,
do you have anything you want to say before we
start getting into the topic and discussing the points by points.
Speaker 3: Well, one of the difficulties in this domain is that
when it comes to something like I said, the doctrine
of the Trinity, or you know, the deed of Christ
and the New or Old Testament, you know, the relationship
of Yahweh to his embodiment, as the scholars speak, like,
the difficulty is that you don't settle these issues by
this verse over here or that verse over here. Right,
there's so many verses throughout the text that it's really
difficult to do justice to the topic if you don't
know or if you don't look at all the texts
that cover, for example, say the presence of the Holy
Spirit in the Old Testament. Right. So I've got a
list of I don't know, maybe I don't know how
many references as it is, maybe thirty, and that doesn't
necessarily mean that it's all of them, but just the
ones that I've got listed here, say thirty references just
to the person and role of the Holy Spirit in
the Old Testament. Right, So We're obviously not gonna have
some time to go through all of those, but as
an example of you know, if you were going to
demonstrate the trinity or the due to Christ or his
relationship to God's people throughout the Old Testament, you would
need to go through all the texts. But what happens
in a lot of the domain I guess what we
call higher critical scholarship is like it gets really narrow
and focused on what does the Hebrews say in Isaiah
seven and does that exclude the possibility of, you know,
the virgin birth because it's only talking about Isaiah and
his situation going on his day when immediately, as you
would see in the Isaiah seven passage, well, that's gonna
how you interpret this is going to be dependent on
whether or not Jesus is the Messiah, right. In other words,
you're not going to see a double sense to that
to where well, there is something going on in Isaiah's
day and a double fulfillment, a foreshadowing up a future
fulfillment in the day of the Messiah when the Missy comes.
So there's really no way to like go to this
or that verse to solve any of these issues. As
all I'm trying to say is that they're holistic, so
you have to really be familiar with the entirety of
the Bible, which most people aren't. And the dangerous part
of like the academic unbelief is that they go to
sections of the text with the presupposition of unbelief. So
for them, this is not an inspired text. It's a
human creation of a bunch of cobble together stories from
various different traditions. This is known as the documentary hypothesis
JEPD these different schools. It was invented by the character
at Julius Belhausen. But one thing I would know before
we get into all this is that Julius Wellhausen had
an admitted agenda according to himself, that he wanted to
destroy all ideas of ritualism and judaic imagery and symbology
from the religion, which he thought could be purified as
this later generation of liberal Lutheran. So there's a liberal
anti quote ceremony position that Julius Wellhausen wanted to do,
wanted to prove and demonstrate. So he's an activist, and
his activism was against the idea that God would ever
institute rituals and ceremonies, and he's again in the tradition
of who had already instituted this revolution, Luther, Luther wants
to scale down. Now, Luther wasn't as extreme as Bellhausen,
but Bellhausen again as an activist. So you have to
understand that all the academia that pretends to be in
purports to be neutral and says that they don't have
an agenda is just not true. And that's what you
and I saw the last time when we did this
deconstruction analysis. We pointed out that wait a minute, they
don't actually seem very neutral. They actually seem anti theistic,
and they seem to have an agenda to deconstruct the text,
supposedly because they're neutral, but no, they actually have a
presupposition that their deconstructionism is neutral, right, even though they're
saying that everybody has an agenda, right constructionists. So again,
the textual higher critics are not neutral, even though they
claim that textual higher criticism is a neutral science. So
they just have the presuppositions of all the Enlightenment people
for the most part of neutrality that nothing is theory
laden that they can just approach it with a pure
objective science to prove or disprove what parts of the
Bible are authentic. We have a totally different presupposition as
believers and as members of the church Orthodox Church, because
we approach the text with the presupposition that it is inspired,
that is coherent, it's cohesive, and there's a totality message
that is not cobbled together pieces of gibberish. So we
have totally different presuppositions. And you're going to notice that
they will read all of these tacts with the assumption
of discontinuity, whereas we read the text with the assumption
of continuity. But how do we know which one's right right?
Textual science cannot tell you that well.
Speaker 2: And to your point about how they quote mind scripture
and try to what they perceive to be is bringing
out objective points which undermine the Christian faith. We highlighted
in the first dream the irony of that because constructionism
itself is a relativistic worldview and is totally centered on
the subjective reader. That it does away with the authoritative
attenth of the person behind any written text, let alone scripture,
but even a book you read Shakespeare or C. S. Lewis.
Deconstructionism is not interested in what the intentions of the
author is. It's interested in how the reader, from the
subjective standpoint can deconstruct that and find meaning from themselves.
And so it's, as we highlighted before, it is about well,
it fails to address historical context, which is, we have
believers when we're reading scripture. We're reading this as a
as a coherent, cohesive system of revelation that is unfolding
throughout space and time according to the people that the
message is being revealed to and how they could understand it.
And so not that many the TikTokers, I mean, maybe
Dan McClellan, he's he's the one that makes sure to
tell you in every single video that he's a scholar
of the Bible. But outside of him, many of these
people really don't even have an academic training, and they
present the term deconstruction as some type of fancy, magical
word that's that somehow undermines any sort of literal interpretation
or traditional in Christianity. So from the onset deconstructionism, it's
so funny because if you're constantly utilizing that, at least
in the philosophical academic sense. It's not interested in objective truth.
It's not interested in actually providing objective facts to come
to a more coherent understanding of truth. It's just about
subjective deconstruction. And as we highlighted deconstructionism, one of the
big academic critiques is that it's not constructive. Deconstructionism is
really just about destroying anything that is analyzing and taking
a part into pieces and then just kind of leaving
it there and walking away.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. I'm looking forward, of course to
the Theophanes discussion, because that's, you know, an area that
I've really focused on a whole lot in the last
four years, particularly because obviously the Muslim debates it didn't
actually start with that. I got deeper and deeper into
the Theophanes topic because in the last i would say
eight years, particularly getting back into Orthodoxy, it really got
me thinking about the continuity between the Old Testaments. So
I would just say that in the last maybe even
ten years, continuity between the Old and Testament old New
Testament has been a real focus of mine, just as
a kind of a side hobby, and I would say
in the last eight years, I've read through the Old
Testament multiple times. So and I do that on purpose
because I really want to know it really well. Originally
because I was debating Arians several years ago and that's
kind of what prompted this, and then that shifted into
the Muslim debates, and so maybe in the future will
shift into more debates with Jews, because it's going to
be more and more relevant, I think, to interacting with
the Jewish ideas of the rabbinic ideas of denying why
you know, Christ fulfills the prophecies. So I'm just pointing
out again that this is an area that has really
been a focus of mine, maybe even for the last decade. So,
and I don't claim to be an expert, but we
did just do, for example, a three hour or more
talk for my members throughout just the Torah. So we
went through every theoph Any or Trinity reference in the Torah.
And that's a I mean there's a there was enough
that it took three hours. Wow. So you know we're
not talking about something that's like I remember when I
was Protestant, or maybe even when I was getting into Atholicism,
I remember thinking, Jesus in the Old Testament. Yeah, there
might be a few of those, right, So there's actually
like tons of references to Yahweh, his angel, messenger and
the Spirit, and so obviously we're not going to go
through all those. But I noticed that some of the
critiques that that Ac mentioned from these these people is like,
what McClellan has, I guess this is an argument or
an article of his something about you know, how do
we account for this messenger of yahween the Old Testament?
And it's like, oh, well, we first really kind of
see this in Exodus. No, you actually first see this
very clearly in Genesis in fact, and this is going
to get into issues that go beyond text, like if
you have the septuagent, for example, in Genesis three, the
septuagent reads in terms of the English translation, then they
heard the voice of the Lord walking. How is the
logos walking if he's not already in some way if
they alphantic manifestation. So and presumably yes, it says they
heard it. But for Adam to be made in the
image of God, we would say as Orthodox. If you
read Poniotis Nellys's book Viification in Christ, the whole first
chapter is about how Adam has made the image of Christ. Right,
So that would mean Adam saw Christ and knew him
directly in the garden. It's and in so many people's
minds when you don't have the christ stoological presuppositions of
Genesis or understand the trend of the Old Testament, you
would read these passages and think, and I thought this
way as a Protestant. You think, oh, Adam is made
in the image of like this unitarian generic unitarian God. No,
it's Christ. And Paul even says that one Corintheus fifteen,
he says that if Jesus is the second Adam, it's
because Adam was made in the image of Jesus.
Speaker 2: Right anyway, So well, let's start getting into some of
these One thing I've forgotten.
Speaker 3: And I think it's I don't know who wrote this
article that Ac sent, but it's the one about Yahwey's
divine images and it's talking about Oh well, let's see
what are the first passages were we begin to see
this Exodus three with the messenger of Yahweh. Well, I
mean in Genesis sixteen, Hagar says I saw God face
to face and she named the place after seeing God
face to face. So I mean they're already seeing God
face to face very early in Gesis.
Speaker 2: Which undermines the general criticism, like of McClellan and others,
is that the Trinity is a Hellenic invention. Exactly, well,
how could it be a hellenic invention? If we're reading
Torah and we're reading Old Testament books and we're clearly
seeing multiplicity of persons of the Godhead. It's not some invention.
Speaker 3: And not only that, as as I'm sure you're aware,
like modern Jewish scholarship is already basically admitting, oh no, actually,
there is multiplicity in Jahweh throughout the Old Testa. Right,
So you've got Boyarn, You've got Benjamin Summer Siegel, You've
got these Jewish scholars who don't believe in Christianity, but
they're admitting that clearly the Old Testament is not this
Unitarian idea. And some are even admits that the strict
Unitarian reading as mandated for Judaism is really late. That's
not until my Mima nineties.
Speaker 2: And then this was the book that you were referencing earlier,
the Deification in Christ. Fantastic book, and jay I reached
out to him he actually recommended this, and uh, really
really great, great.
Speaker 3: So that first chapter points out that like there's already
a Christophane in Genesis when when Adam is made in
the image of image of God, well, who, well, it's
the same guy that's walking around the voice of the
Lord walking in Genesis three eight, right voice voice being
the logos.
Speaker 2: The logos as ac highlighted, is a lot of the argumentation,
and it seems like Muslims are adopting this comes out
of Rabbinic interpretation of the Messiah. And so I've written
down seven points at least that, and there's probably more,
but these are set the main seven that I've kind
of found in preparation for the video that Rabbinic Judaism
addresses as to nullify Christ being the Messiah. And so
the first one has to do with the restoration of
the Divinic kingdom. The Rabbinic criticism claims that Jesus did
not restore the Jewish sovereignty or re establish the Kingdom
of David, as Israel remained under Roman rule and later
faced destruction. Obviously, from the Orthodox perspective, the Eastern Orthodox
Church teaches that Jesus did fulfill the promise of the
restoration of divin and keingnom. It's just it's not temporal.
It's not you know, the state of Israel. It's not
a military political power. It's the Church. It's it transcends
space and time.
Speaker 3: Right, And you'll notice the easy response to this, which
is Psalm One, which is cited many many times in
the New Testament. In fact, Jesus himself he incites it
against the Pharisees to say that how could this be
just about David? Right, So it says the Lord said
to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I
make your enemies your footstool. The Lord shall send the
rod of your strength out of Zion rule in the
midst of your enemies. And then it goes on to say,
you are a priest forever according to the order of Malkizadek.
So the same subject is said to be the Thevidic
ruler there right is also a priest forever, recurding the
order Melkizada. David isn't a priest, So who fulfills this
promise that's being said to this subject? Here it's being
said historically to David. But David is a type, and
this psalm is a type fulfilled in the eternal priest
king who fulfills this by ascending and sitting at the
right hand of the Father right and so Jesus himself
in the Gospels uses Psalm one ten as a proof
to say that this there's no way that this can
be fulfilled in a historic earthly king, because a king
in the tradition of Israel is not a priest. And
yet this is said to be a person who's also
an eternal priest according to the order of Melchizada. Right.
Speaker 2: Well, and I wrote down John eighteen thirty six where
Christ clearly references that his kingdom is not of this world.
And obviously, from a Rabbinic position, they're not going to
read the Gospel of John or give any sort of
an authoritative meaning to that in regards to their hermenudy.
Speaker 3: It's ironic, yeah, because because as you're going to point out,
many of the objections, even from McLellan is and others,
is things like, well, it's said that this is eternal,
the law is eternal. Well, now wait a minute, because
we're arguing that the kingdom is eternal and the spiritual
meaning of the law is fulfilled and eternally kept in
this eternal spiritual kingdom. So we're admitting the eternal principle.
But they're turning around and saying, oh, wait a minute,
it can't be an eternal thing. It has to be
a historical, actual Davidic king like David, right, with an
earthly kingdom. But wait a minute, I thought that you're
arguing that it can't be this eternal spiritual thing. How
else is the I mean, the law can't eternally be
kept on earth? Right, You see what I'm saying Now,
I see what's When they need it to be spiritual
for them, it's spiritual. But when they need it to
be literal and an earthly thing for them, it's literal
and earthly. When our position is the one that is
both historical and eternal and spiritual and consistent. Right.
Speaker 2: The second point that I have in regards to the
Rabbinic criticism of Christ being the Messiah is their claim
that of the rebuilding of the Third Temple. And so
the Rabbinic criticism is Jesus did not rebuild the Temple
in Jerusalem. Instead, the temple was destroyed by the Romans
and sevenycee prophesied by both Christ and Daniel. But Orthodoxy
obviously interprets the prosphy of rebuilding the temple as again
the Church. This is going to be a main theme
here when we look at these ribbinic criticisms and why
it's probably going more difficult for this deconstructing my Christianity
for Protestants to respond to it, because when you look
at the comments and you look at this whole malu
over on social media, it's mostly Protestantism is the thing
that's being deconstructed, and it's protestansm Protestants responding to these people.
And so you know, Orthodoxy teaches that the third Temple
is the Church. Jesus refers to his own body exactly
true temple, and through his death and resurrection he established
a new living temple which is not made with human hands.
The spiritual temple is the Church. And so we can
look at first Peter two four through five. Thus the
physical rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple is seen as unnecessary
at this point Christ has already fulfilled it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the physical temple is a type of the spiritual
reality that he brings through his death, resurrection and the
sitning of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if you read
Peter Sermon in Acts too. He actually explains all this
as well. Right. He explains that David says, concerning Jesus
and not concerning himself, that he would not be left
in hades, but that he would be raised. And he
cites on fifteen eight through eleven. He says, like I
pointed out, citing Psalm one, ten, Lord said to my Lord,
sit in my right hand until I make your enemies
your footstell Peter says, David does not fulfill this, he
did not ascend into the heavens. But Christ does fulfill this.
He also cites Joel and the prophecy that when you
see the Holy Spirit come down upon the Gentiles as
well as the Jews, and that the Holy Spirit is
given also to the Gentiles, that would be a sign
upon all flesh. That's what Joel prophesies for Pentecost. That's
a sign that the Messiah has come and he sent
his spirit.
Speaker 2: By the way.
Speaker 3: That's always spirit in the Old Testament too. By the way,
because Joel is predicting the presence of the life of
the Holy Spirit to be poured out upon all flesh,
that there will be prophecies, visions, and so forth. I
will pour out my spirit on those days, and your
sons and your daughters will prophesy. That's the Old Testament
talking about the person of the Holy Spirit, which is
fulfilled according to Acts two, according to Peter at the
very event of Pentecost and Acts two. So the point
is that those are all supposed to be the signs
that those old some events are being fulfilled. And the
very logic of the text themselves from the Old Testament
tells you that it can't be David, that the promise
is made to that David's sons and David himself would
rise up and reign in heaven. It has to be
one of David's descendants who sits on the throne right.
Speaker 2: So number three, the third point that I wrote down
regards to these rabbinic criticisms is the in gathering of
the exiles. So the rabbinic criticism, and again this is
just being adopted by many of these deconstructing my Christianity people,
is that Jesus or Jesus did not gather the Jewish
exiles back to Israel. Instead, the Jewish diaspora continued and
expanded after his time. However, from again an Orthodox perspective,
the in gathering of the exiles is understood as again
the Orthodox Church, the gathering of all nations in the
New Israel, which is sure.
Speaker 3: That very comment is their statement is answered in Acts fifteen.
So when the Jerusalem Council meets and they're discussing the
first of all, the restoration that you're talking about is
what Acts two is talking about. So in many of
the Old Testament texts are fulfilled in terms of this
rebuilding and bringing back together of God's people to himself.
Pentecost is a fulfillment of that. And then when they
have the Jerusalem Council, in part it says, men and brethren,
listen to me. Simon has declared how God visited the
Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name.
And with this the prophets agree, for it is written
after this, I will return, and I will rebuild the
Tabernacle of David, which fell down. I will rebuild its ruins,
and I will set it up so that the rest
of mankind can seek the Lord, and the gentiles who
are called by my name will trust in me, etc.
So they're interpreting the Tabernacle of David being restored in
that passage of Ezekiel and in Isaiah sixteen, they're all
similar language there the tabernacle, David is the church. And
how do we know that? Because you get this. There's
about I have a list of this too. There's about
I'm going to say, one hundred one hundred at least passages,
maybe maybe eighty seventy eighty specifically predicting that when the
Messiah comes, the Gentiles will begin to convert and believe
in the in the God of Israel. Right, So, hello, like,
when did this happen? Jesus comes, massive gentile nations to convert,
begin to believe in yeahwah. So it's obvious that that's
the fulfillment of it. And I would add too that
there's specific prophecies, because I know the rabbinic thing that
they're well, well, but that can't be. That can't be gentiles.
It has to be you know, in Israel or whatever.
It has to be only for the Jews. No, no, no,
How does Isaiah say there's gentile priests? How does the prophecy?
Speaker 4: What is it?
Speaker 3: Malachi that incense will be offered all over the world
for the name of Yahweh. You know, you can only
offer incense according to the Mosaic law in the temple,
and it can only be done by the priests, Theroonic priests.
How could gentiles offer incense God doesn't accept If you
read the book of Leviticus, for example, native and a
Bai who try to offer incense in the improper way
and God kills them, and I think it's Leviticus ten.
So but wait a minute, how is there going to
be gentile people and gentile priests offering incense to Yahweh?
How is there an altar in Egypt to Yahweh? And
Isaiah nineteen that violates Mosaic law. The only way to
reconcile those passages is like, oh, because Christianity is the
fulfillment of this, right.
Speaker 2: When it gets back to the hermeneutics in the priest
suppositions in which one reads the scripture in the first place.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but even these passages, even if you don't have
the Christian hermeneutic in Mosaic, in Jewish law, you can't
have gentiles offering incense to Y'ahwah.
Speaker 2: Right, But the Jews would claim that's why Jesus hasn't
come yet, because they're rejecting our scriptural basis for how but.
Speaker 3: Even when Theresiah comes, a gentile can't do that. You
have to go to Israel to do that.
Speaker 2: Oh gotcha?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know. In other words, like so Isaiah nineteen,
for example, says that there will be an altar in Egypt.
To Yahweh, you can't after Mosaic law, you can't build
altars anywhere but in Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: Yeah, a great point.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 2: I also wrote down Galatians three twenty eight in regards
to this jew Jews, and gentiles, because Paul clearly makes
the point that in the Second Covenant of Christ that
this distinction has been annihilated and that it has been fulfilled,
and that, according to him, that the prophecy is now ongoing.
Christ continues to draw peace people from every corner of
the world into his kingdom, which is the Church. And
this is a spiritual gathering that transcends geographical boundaries and
uniting all believers in Christ, which gets actually to your
point that you're just making that if the kingdom is
the new Israel, which is the Church, now that spiritual
dimension allows them to be in multiple places, transcending geographical
dimensions and lines. Whereas if you reject that now you're
sort of stuck with actual geographical location.
Speaker 3: So again, let's refute the rabbinic idea about two more passages.
Isaiah's sixty six, it says, in verse twenty one, I
shall take some of them, the gentiles to whom the
message has gone. That's earlier. In verse twenty bring your
brethren from onto the gentiles. I will take some of
them to be my priest and levites. You understand that
in the Jewish position, even when the Messiah comes, there
are no gentile priests. There's no gentile lebuts okay, because
remember the Jewish ideas, Messiah will subjugate the gentiles to us,
They're not going to be priests. And yet Isaiah is predicting,
Wait a minute, how can there be gentile priests? In
Isaiah sixty one, he says very similarly sixty one, verse five,
foreigners shall come and shepherd you. Aliens will be your
plow men and your vine dressers. They will be called
priests of God. Imagine how offensive when Isaiah said this
was to the Jews. You're saying, gentile priests are gonna
be priests in Israel. Get out of here. Cut him
in half. And they did they cut Isaiah in half.
Speaker 2: Right, The next point that I wrote down was the
world peace and universal knowledge of God. So Rabbinic Judaism
has a criticism that the Messianic Age is supposed to
bring you universal peace and recognition of God, which has not,
according to them, occurred after Jesus's lifetime. The Orthodox teaching
is we've youew Christ as the Prince of Peace Isaiah
ninety six, who brings peace not only between nations, but
more importantly between God and humanity. The Church teaches that
Christ's peace begins within the hearts of believers. This is
part of the Second Covenant, reconciling them to God and
to one another through the Holy Spirit. This enter piece
is the foundation of outward peace, which is progressively realized
as more people embraced Christ. So this fullness of the
universal peace is expected to be fulfilled in the second
coming of Christ, when he will establish a new Heaven
and new Earth Revelation twenty one to one, bringing the
total end of sin, conflict, and death. But he's already
defeated death, and he's already defeated sin through the Incarnation,
the Resurrection, and the ascension. So what would be your
line of attack regarding the rabbinic criticism of world peace
and knowledge of God universal knowledge of God.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's different in the Orthodox Study Bible because the
ordering of Jeremiah is different, and it's a little confusing
because I just reread Jeremiah the other day and finished that,
and I noticed that in the Protestant Bible it's Jeremiah
thirty one and thirty three if you read those two chapters,
which is where the famous New Covenant statement is. In
the Orthodox Bibles, thirty eight it says, behold, the days
are coming when I will make a new covenant with
the House of Israel and with the House of Judah,
not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers when I took their hand to bring them out
of the land of Egypt. So notice the new Covenant,
this one that's coming, is going to replace the Mosaic.
So the Mosaic and we would agree as Orthodox that
there is a spiritual interpretation which allows it to still
be eternal. It's just not eternal in its literal historical keeping.
By sacrificing animals and all this kind of stuff. It's
kept all Lah Jesus and Matthew iive saying that not
one john or one tittle passes. It's kept in the
proper way spiritually, which is by the way how ultimately
it was always supposed to be kept all the meaning
all along, according to Paul of, don't sew two garments
on one garment was a spiritual thing about not being
yoked together with evil. It's supposed to teach you. It's
a pedagogical device to teach you not to sew two
different things in a field, meaning don't unite with evil. Right,
it's teaching a virch and vice, unclean animals. They symbolize
demons and vices in the Old Testament, and so they
were supposed to learn this. That's the real meaning of it.
So when the reality comes of the New Covenant, which
again remember it is not according to the Mosaic Covenant,
so there is a clear discrepancy between this coming Messianic Covenant.
And then it says each of them shall teach his neighbor.
They will not teach them and know the Lord, for
they will all know me, from the leaders to the great,
from the least to the greatest.
Speaker 2: Who are the.
Speaker 3: Members of this universal knowledge?
Speaker 2: Here?
Speaker 3: And if you have the proson of buble Germ at
thirty one, ortharx buble Drum at thirty eight. It's the
people that have the Law written on their hearts, which
is the presence of the Holy Spirit in them. It's
the Church. So the universality that you're talking about is
identified even in the Jeremiah passage as those who have
the Holy Spirit in them in the Church.
Speaker 2: Right. The point five that I wrote down is Rabbinic
criticism and regarding the perfect observance of the Torah. They
claim that the messiahs expected to lead all people in
perfect Torah observance. Yet Jesus' teachings are often appeared to
deviate from traditional Jewish law. According to rabbinic tradition. Orthodox
he teaches that Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Torah and the
Law through his life, death, and resurrection. He is seen
as not abolishing the law, but fulfilling its deepest intent
Matthew five seventeen. Jesus interpretation of the Law emphasize its
spirit rather than its letter, focusing on the love of
God and neighbor as the highest commandments. For Orthodox Christians,
the New c And established by Christ is the ultimate
expression of God's Law, written on the hearts of all
believers rather than on stone tablets. The life of the church,
guided by the Holy Spirit, is seen as the true
continuation of Torah observance, fulfilled through fulfilled through Christ.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this helps to understand what Torah is. So Torah
is the word that God spoke, particularly obviously at Mount Sinai.
And if we remember the way that Jesus argues in
John five through nine, it wasn't God the Father. So
who was Moses face to face with? It has to
be some other being. Now, the rabbinic idea is, oh,
it's these angels, it's Metatron. It's all this different angelic,
you know, veil between Moses even and God. But yet
we're told that Moses saw God face to face even
in the Old Testament. So how is that possible. Well,
it's possible because there is this mediator, there is this
second person that is able to be and interacted with.
It's the voice that was walking in the garden. It's
and by the way, he appears again multiple times even
in the historical books of the Kings as the voice
walking and doing things, the logos walking around. So the
whole idea is that the Torah is the word in
a written form, but when Messiah comes, he is the
living Torah. So he is the living Torah. So it's
not that we're displacing Torah for some other thing. It's
that this was meant as his speech in a created
form to point us to the uncreated speech in reality
walking around with us when he's incarnate.
Speaker 2: Right and Number six is the Ebentic criticism of resurrection
of the dead in the End of Sin. They claim
that the resurrection of the dead and the eradication of
sin and death are supposed to be the hallmarks of
the Messianic age, yet the world remains full of sin
and death. Obviously, we as Orthodox Christian teach that jesus
resurrection is the first fruits of the resurrection of all
one Corinthians fifteen twenty. His victory over death is the
beginning of the final resurrection, which we will be fully
realized at the end of time when all the dead
will be raised and judged. The resurrection of Christ's inaugurated
a new reality where death is defeated, though not yet
abolished in its entirety. The Orthodox Church lives in the
tension between the already and the not yet. The both
and that you always speak about. And Christ has already
conquered sin and death, but the complete realization of this
victory awaits in the final consummation in history.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Paul speaks of the down payment of the Holy Spirit,
anticipating the future return. He speaks in Romans eight of
we do not yet see the recapitulation, but right now
the created order groans and eagerly awaits the revealing of
the sons of God at the escaton. Also remember the
phraseology of some one tent itself sit at my right
hand until I make your enemies your fotstool. So there
is this assumption even in the text of an ongoing
historical battle. Right that's that's again, that's an Old Testament text.
If that's prophesying Messiah, which Jews admit is a Messianic prophecy,
there is even within that prophecy the idea that when
he's on high, when he's sitting at the right end
of the Father, there is an ongoing battle. And you
notice even in the Daniel passages, for example, when you
know you have the passes, the famous passion in Daniel seven,
which the Jewish scholars are admitting, you've got the Son
of Man, and you've got the Ancient of Days. So
clearly there's a distinction here going on in these personages,
in these hypostases. And I'm speaking of the Jewish Jewish
scholars that we mentioned earlier, like barn and Schaeffer. Shaeffer
has a whole book on Daniel seven and how this
suggests at least, you know, two powers. Obviously we believe
in a trinity, but the point still stands that it's
at least it's pointing out that it's not a bare unity, right.
But the Daniel seven passage is also I've always interpreted
this as the ascension. Some people, I think erroneously understand
the passage as the Second Coming, because it speaks of
you know, the saints and the Kingdom of Heaven and
all this. But what it seems to say, is my understanding,
is that it says that I watched, and thrones were
put in place, and the Ancient of Days and throne himself,
and then it describes him in this white hair sort
of description, and then it says one came to him
with the clouds of heaven, the Son of Man right,
and approached to him. Then to the Son of Man
was given dominion, kingdom, honor, power, et cetera. That's exactly
parallel to the Book of Revelation describing the ascension. And
when the Sun in the Book of Revelation comes to
the Ancient of days, there he is given authority, power,
and dominion that is in our nature. So Christ, even
though Christ, as the second person that God had, has
always had these things, but he had not had these
things in our nature. So I believe that Daniel seven
is describing what sometimes in theology called the session. So
it's the session of the king, a procession basically to
be awarded the earth in our nature right. And if
you look at the it's a perfect parallel between Revelation.
I think maybe it's four for memory, but it's when
assuming Revelation five, I think four and five, when he's
accorded this authority in our nature right.
Speaker 2: And the last point kind of piggybacks on the sixth
point number seven is the Rabbinic criticism that the Messiah
is expected to bring about an age of moral and
spiritual perfection, which they claim has yet to happen. And
we the Orthodox Church teach that through Christ, the power
of sin has already been broken as we've already mentioned,
and believers are given the grace to overcome sin through repentance,
the sacraments, and life in Christ i e. Again the Church.
So in the interim until christ second coming, christ followers
are called to participate in this work of personal transformation
embodying the Kingdom of God in the present world as
a foretaste of what is to come. They are expecting
some type of perfect earthly paradise where justice and sin
is abolished, and justice, pure universal justice reigns.
Speaker 3: Well again, keep in mind what we just read in
Psalm one ten and what we saw in Daniel seven.
When you go and you read it, it's Revelation five.
When you read the opening of the scroll, which by
the way, is all a heavenly liturgical service, it says
when they opened the scrolls, they said, do not weave
the lion of Judah. The root of David has prevailed,
and he is able to open the scroll and loose
its seals. And I looked him behold in the midst
of the throne of the four living creatures, and the
elders stood the lamb having been slain. So notice he's
still bleeding in heaven. So that means there is still
an application of this sacrifice even in heaven, the seven
eyes and the seven spirits of God, et cetera. And
then it says the elders fell down and worshiped him,
which by the way, proves the deed to Christ. He's
being worshiped in heaven. He wouldn't be worshiped if he
were not divine. But then it says that He received
out of every tribe tongue in nation the right to
rule and has made us to be kings and priests
of God, and we will reign on earth. So the
Church begins the reign according to Revelation five, when he ascended.
So remember, a lot of people make a mistake, a
lot of well meaning evangelicals and even perhaps Orthodox they
read this passage and they think it's the second Coming.
It's not the second Coming, it's the ascension. The ascension
is when He has given this right to rule in
the midst of his enemies in the church. And that's,
by the way, what Psalm two said. Psalm two says
the Messiah would write rule by the rod of his mouth.
The church fathers almost always unanimously interpret that as the
preaching of the gospel. Right, why are the nations raised
and the people plot a vain thing? The kings of
their set themselves against the Lord and against his Messiah, saying,
let us break their bands and cast away the yoke.
But he who sits in the heavens shall laugh. That's
the ascension. He will mock them and speak to them
in his wrath on his holy hill of Zion, the
heavenly Zion. The Lord has decreed you are my son. Today.
I've begotten you ask of me, and I give the
nations to you as your inheritance. That's the ascension. It's
not the second Coming. Right.
Speaker 2: The next line of criticism that we get from these
deconstructing my Christianity types is really you kind of basic
bitch arguements regarding the Odyssey. And so I've I've found
four that was brought up multiple times in a cursory
scroll through TikTok thousands of videos, and one is the
first one is the Great Flood. So they claim that
can you how can you worship a God of unlimited love,
eternal love, who then flooded the world and killed people
and animals and babies and women. So that's reference to
Genesis six through nine, And the other ones are the
bear attack, which is so common about the boys being
attacked by a bear. That's second Kings or fourth Kingdoms,
depending on which Bible you have, and then the Canaanites
being punished by Israel. Look at I saw one person
describe it as like, look at your vengeful God that
he will even use like people who aren't part of
his end group to attack his own people and kill them.
I mean, what a what a horrendous entity. And then
they'll use then they'll flip it, use Deuteronomy twenty and
talking about God commanding the Israelites to abolish the Moloch worshipers,
and then say, oh, can you believe your God tells
the chosen people to kill their enemies. So they use
this both ways to try to justify how God is
evil and immoral, basically based on the same moral standards
that Christianity puts forth.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's several different things going on here. So first
is the issue of problem of evil to the Odyssey itself,
which is of course not necessarily an objection. I understand
why people would perhaps think this is an objection. And
if I were to steel man the opposition, I guess
the Odyssey might be the best that they have to offer.
Not so much in the case of the Conquest of
Canaan or this kind of stuff. I don't actually think
those are very good arguments, but just the existence of
evil itself why God permitted it. But if you think
about it really strictly logically speaking, it doesn't actually pose
a problem for Christianity, because there's not If Christianity is
true in the world of Christianity, God's not under any
obligation to tell us the reasons why He permitted everything.
So while we might not like it, it might not
be easy, it's not really any kind of an actual
logical problem for Christianity. If God has his own reasons
by which he permits evil, in his infinite knowledge right
which he knows how to bring greater goods out of,
that doesn't actually oppose a logical problem for Christianity. We
might not like it, might be a tough pill to swallow,
But when an atheist criticizes Christianity, if we think about
tag that, they don't really have a basis to say
that that's wrong anyway. I mean, on what basis is
it actually wrong to say that, you know, got the evil.
God permitted evil to exist. Okay, but what's your basis
for evil to begin with? You don't have any you know,
coherent argument for that at all. It's if you're an
atheist or something like that. Or and I would venture
to say ninety nine percent of these deconstructionist people deconstructing
their Christianity they wouldn't be able to give any coherent
account of you know, right and wrong either. But if
you read the Book of Job too, right, I mean,
that's kind of what Joe, what God says to Job.
It's like, that's the whole purpose of that book is
dealing with grappling with the problem of evil. And the
answer at the end is essentially that, well, look, if
you don't know all of the infinite relationships between the
created order and how that works, how are you going
to be able to understand something even higher than that,
God's knowledge of things like the existence of evil and
wise permitted. And the answer is simply that you can't
even understand that at this point. So again, we might
not like that, but it's not really like a logical
defeater for Christianity. Now, to be a little more precise
about the let's start with the Conquest of Canaan. I
actually talking about the bears. James Jordan is a really
good book on the Judges. It's a commentary I read
many years ago, and I think he has a really
good explanation of this, which is that if you look
at the words, it doesn't necessarily mean absolutely like young children.
This is more like a gang of like harassing teenagers
or just youths that are harassing somebody who has anointed
authority from God. So this is a tremendous like they're
they're actually mocking somebody who is appointed as one of
God's anointed. So it's an a facing of It's like
a middle finger too God and his authority. So no,
it actually does make sense that if you're gonna, you know,
mock God's prophets, has anointed that is actually worthy of
death in the Old Testament. And we can understand why
because when you tolerate that kind of a thing in
a society, it allows for there to be more rebellion.
Right even in the Middle Ages, for example, one of
the reasons that they had a lot of strict laws
for heretical groups and sects was because it also had
a social effect if you allowed the heretical group to
propagate in Catholic societies, for example in the Latin West,
it actually was a basis for social disorder and revolution.
And this is actually where communism. Communism comes out of
some of these medieval you come if you're these kind
of sectarian groups that are allowed eventually to propagate and
they overthrow the order, so they're dangerous to the social order.
And it was true even back then. You know, God
says to Saul, rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.
And so just as it was wrong for Salt to rebel,
and Saul ends up guilty of you know, worthy of death,
God eventually puts Saul to death by handing him over
to his sins. He commits suicide. Likewise, to deface and
speak to a prophet this way is actually rebelling against
God himself. It's as the sin of witchcraft. And so
there's more like a gang of like hoods, it's not
like a bunch of four year olds. So and James
Jordan has a good argument for that on the basis
of the Hebrew word in his book on Judges. But
now a little bit more information you have to understand too,
and I didn't actually realize this until fairly recently rereading Genesis.
If you go back and read the story of Malkisadak,
Malchisadak is a priest of God right most in Salem.
That's Jeru Salem, so prior to the Canaanites whatever is
going on there, there is an existing priesthood. It's a
he's a gentile in Salem, Jerusalem Canaan's land. It's a
property of the Righteous prior to the Canaanites and the Jebsites.
So when David, Joshua and David are told to conquer
the land, it is a reconquest of God's righteous people's land.
It is not a theft of the land from the Pagans.
And I would say ninety nine percent of the atheist
reddit people who make this argument don't understand that, first
of all, these wicked people took it from the righteous.
And if you read the Genesis narrative, it explains that
because Psalm seventy six two says that Salem is identical
too the Salem of Genesis with Malchisedek. Right, he's a
priest to God in Salem. It's identified as Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: It is Zion.
Speaker 3: Psalm seventy six two says in Judah God is known,
his name is great in Israel in Salem. Also is
his tabernacle his dwelling place in Zion. So and we
also read that blessed the Abraham of God, most High,
possessor of Heaven and Earth. Right, that's just in Genesis fourteen.
So when Abraham blesses Malchisidak, when he tithes to him,
he's submitting to the as Paul argues in Hebrews seven,
the superiority of the Melchizedekian priesthood to the ironic because
the ironic priesthood is in Abraham in his loins right.
So Abraham tithing to Malchisa is an example of deference
to the greater. The lesser ties to the greater. That
means the previous existing gentile priesthood belkista dek is superior
to the ironic Jewish priesthood. That's the argument of the
Book of Hebrews in chapter seven. Now that that would
infuriate Jews, but that's the logic that assuming Paul wrote
it right. Paul's arguing in Hebrews seven, but very few
people know or have realized that it was already the
property the righteous. By the way, this explains why and how.
I remember, I never could figure out how is Jethro
a priest the only way to be a priest if
you think about it in terms of like you know,
Old Testament Moses, like you have to be a descendant
of Aaron, Right, that's the only priesthood. Well, no, actually
there's another priesthood, a priesthood of alchisa De And so
Jethro is a priest to God as well. How because
there's righteous people outside of the Jews who even have
a priesthood and who can call upon God all the
way back to Genesis, for they built an altar called
upon the Lord. They're not Jews.
Speaker 2: So we pretty much ambled the gay.
Speaker 3: Apologize all that to say that when the land is
then taken by these wicked people, namely the Canaanites, the Jebusites,
the Hittites, the Parasites, Hvites, et cetera. Leviticus eighteen, that
entire chapter is a long explanation of how wicked these
people were. And they were not just wicked people who
stole the land of Jerusalem from the Righteous, from Melchizede.
They were so wicked that they were pushing essentially every
degenerous that you could think of the worst possible things.
And then God, as you pointed out, warns the Jews,
you better not accept their practices or else I will
vomit you out of the land. So there's not different standards.
It's the same standard for them and for the Jews.
In fact, the Jews are held to a higher standard
because they have more. You know, too much is given,
much is required. Right. So, if you read Joshua two
eight through eleven, it talks about how these people were
such a continual hampering of God's people that the reason
that God gave them the right to get rid of
that group of people was precisely because of the necessity
to preserve the Jewish people for the production of the Messiah. Right,
and so because they're the group that was chosen by
God to produce the Messiah, God is getting rid of
the people that might pose a threat or might exterminate
that lineage. Remember, exactly what does Pharaoh want to do.
He wants to exterminate the Jews. He wants to exterminate
the first born to make sure that why he doesn't
he might not even know this, but he's satanically inspired,
just like Herod is, to ensure that there will not
be a Messiah born to the Jews. So that's why
they want to exterminate Jews in the Old Testament period,
and that's why God says, okay, well, the people that
try to exterminate you, you're going to exterminate those lineages. Now,
what about the unfairness of the infants and getting rid
of all of their women and their children. The reason
for this is because if you read Genesis, it talks
about in Justis fifteen that the Amorites and the Hittites
and all these different people their iniquity must be filled
up to the measure, and it says it'll before. God
tells Abraham, it will be four hundred years before your
people come and take this land. So, in other words,
God is so patient with the wicked people he gives
them four hundred years to stop being that way, And
other passages, by the way in the Old Testament make
it clear that God has also demonstrated his power and
his presence even to those people. Right that, so after
four hundred years, if those generations were still that wicked,
then it was right to get rid of them, and
God knew that they would not repent, even their children
would not repent, because the previous four hundred years of
their children had not repented, right, right, And so that's
the justification for why God says these people need to
be removed. And you might, we could even argue as
Orthodox because of the doctrine of the descent of Christ
into Hades. It's still not even hopeless for these people,
because it's possible that some of these people hear the
gospel when Jesus preaches the Gospel to the day. So
all of these things, I think help us to understand
that it's not just randomly God saying go kill all
the people in Palestine and take the land.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: That's how like when you would like Muslims or Palestinians,
when they bring up these texts, they don't give any
of this context. They just say, you know, the Jewish
God is evil. He says to kill the children and everything. No,
the wicked Pagans at that time stole this land from
Malchisadac and the righteous who were not Jews.
Speaker 2: They were Dentials, and as you pointed out, the abominations
that they were advancing, I mean child sacrifice, homosexuality, sodom,
me all types of wickedness is what leads to, again
the annihilation of Sodom and Gomora, which I'm sure somebody
has highlighted about on TikTok. I didn't catch one, but
I could see easily based on the quality of deconstruction
and criticism them highlighting the annihilation of Sodomon Gomora being
indicative of the evil sky Daddy of the Old Testament
killing trans and gays.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, the reason if you read Samuel, the reason
that and first Samuel fifteen and then Exodus seventeen and
then deuter On Me twenty five. The reason for this
strict rule here is that remember what the Amalikites did
to you when you were leaving Egypt. You were weary,
you were worn out. Yet when they met you on
your journey, they cut you off and they killed the
women and the children that were lagging behind. They did
this because they had no fear of God. So God
is doing eye for an eye to these people because
of their wicked practices and ultimately.
Speaker 2: Causing the fear of God to be instilled in them
to call them to repentance.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I mean, but I think that the reason
he would be telling the Jews to cut off the
women and the children is that God knows that even
another even this next generation, will not repent. Right, But
even if the possibility of repentance were there for that
generation that's being cut off, there is the possibility that,
you know, especially if it's like women and children or
something like that. You know, Cyril says, the Gospels preached
to the dead and the Old Testament, like all those
dead the Old Testament have the Gospel preached them when
Christ descends in the Hades.
Speaker 2: Right. I think that pretty much summarizes the theodicy debate,
of which we'll probably see a few when we start.
Everybody's asking us to look at take talk. We will
in just a minute. We just have really one more
section to go through here, and that's there. There may
Another major criticism of these deconstructionist types is calling into
question the Holy Trinity and and claiming so arian christologies,
claiming Christ isn't God incarnate, claiming that the Trinity is
a Hellenic invention, which McClellan makes that claim in his
his Big book. I have it pulled up. It's it's
a free pdf online, but I have a few passages,
just highlighting the presence. And you have way more than
I do, so I'll just refer to you in regards
to Old Testament and New Testament references to the Holy Trinity.
This isn't some innovation that occurred when the Scripture was
put together or during the councils or something like this,
as these people claim. It's some type of Hellenic philosophical
infusion with Old Testament judaism. Okay, so a few like
the references. I just grabbed a few references in the
New Testament. First one is being the baptismal formula. You
can look at Matthew twenty eight nineteen clearly a reference
to the Holy Trinity. Matthew three sixteen through seventeen. Jesus'
baptism himself is clearly a representation and expression of the
presence of the Holy Trinity. Tewod Corinthians thirteen fourteen. The
Pauline benediction is a clear reference to the Holy Trinity.
And in John John's replete with it. And I just
grabbed three verses John one one through fourteen. Obviously in
the beginning was the logos. The logos was with God.
The logos is God John fourteen sixteen through seventeen, and
John fifteen sixteen. Those are just a few references within
the New Testament, and you have, as you've said, way
more in the Old Testament. I just grabbed a few
that these people refused to address. Genesis won twenty six
made an our image. I mean, right there at the
very beginning of Genesis we see the presence of the
Holy Trinity in regard to the creation of man. In
Genesis eighteen Abraham's visitors, which obviously we have an icon
expression expressing the presence of the Holy Trinity. Exodus three
two through six, Judges thirteen, Angel of the Lord and
all the Christophanes that are present within there. Genesis one two,
Judges six thirty four, the Spirit of God being present,
Proverbs eight twenty two through thirty one. The personification of
Wisdom is another indication. Psalm thirty three six Trinity present
and creation itself again. And Isaiah six one through eight.
We have Isaiah's vision of the Trinity, and we can
also find to demonstrate that it wasn't some innovation. Three
hundred years after Christ, Saint Ignatius is Antioch justin Martyr
Irenaeus Trutulian, even origin all speak directly about worshiping a trinity,
a trinitarian God, not some general monad or something of
that sort, or just the Father, and having these sort
of minor demi urges of Christ and the Holy Spirit
and so. And then the liturgical practice here in the church,
in the Orthodox Church, it's evidence in the prayers, it's
evidence in the hymns, it's evidence in the baptismal rites
and those pre existed. Even the putting together of scripture
and the canon so part of the oral tradition. I've
yet to see anybody in these deconstructing my Christianity even
address the existence of an oral tradition before the putting
of scripture together.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say, agreed. Genesis one. But then Genesis
four or three, they heard the voice of the Lord,
the God walking in the garden.
Speaker 1: You have.
Speaker 3: The Genesis twelve when Abraham is cold. That's also a
theophany too, because it says that in verse seven, the
Lord God appeared to Abraham and said, to your seat,
I will give this land, and Abraham built an altar.
So you notice right there there's liturgical worship and there's
a theophany of an appearance very early to Abraham. This
is sighted, by the way, if you read the Summer Book,
Benjamin Sommer actually goes through all of these and Genesis
to where it's not just theophanies, but there's actual places
and objects that are already becoming sanctified and holy. For example,
when God appears at the Oak of Memory, when Jacob
rests his head, they anoint the stone. There's a holy
holy tree. This is all throughout the just even the
book of Genesis, so we have to I'm not criticizing you,
but it's like this is when you're really careful in
the reading of the Old Testament, especially Genesis, this stuff
is everywhere. For example, Jenesis fifteen, when Abraham God makes
it coming up with Abraham, it says, the word of
the Lord came to Abraham. Do not be afraid. I
am your reward. Immediately the voice said, I am the
one right. The voice of God said that this one
shall not be your air, but the one who shall
come from your body shall be your air, talking about
of course, Isaac. But the passage then has this mysterious
presence of when the sun went down, there was a flame,
and behold a smoking oven appeared, and lamps and fire
passed through the pieces of the animals that were cut.
And if you read Ezeki you'll one verse thirteen, the
same description is used of the cherubim when the son
of Man is is present in Genesis one. Ezekiel one one,
like a son of Man, the face of the glory
of God is writing the chariot. That's Jesus, that's telling
us that, if I know my old testam't really well.
The same oven and lamps, fire, lamps that pass through
in this, in this theophany, it's the same son of
God that's present in Ezekiel one. The lamps tells you
that if you know what you know what I'm talking about,
that it's not it's not the ancient aliens. Right when
he sees the wheels and he sees the cherub it's
not ancient aliens. It's the It's a theophany, and it's
the same. Yes, it's the same theophany that appears to
Abraham and justis fifteen and passes through the cut animals.
Now again, moving on, I'm not going to do all these,
but there's so many of these. The Hagar text is
so important in Genesis sixteen, because it's not just the
alphonies that are appearing to Abraham. The theophany appears to Hagar.
Because Hagar, after the Angel the Lord appears, she says,
I saw God face to face. Who's the face of Yahweh? Well,
guess what you mentioned that passage in Judges six with Gideon.
Somehmer brings us up because he says, the Hebrew text
actually reads and Yahweh turned his face to Gideon in
the in Judges six twenty two to twenty five. How
does Yahweh have a face? You see what I'm saying. Yeah,
as you said, yeah, the meal with Abraham and this
is eighteen. But you have to keep in mind, like
the last time at read Genesis, I missed a bunch
of theophonies. There's a theophany in Genesis twenty four. The
Angel Lord appear again to Isaac. In the situation with
Isaac and Rebecca, they call the well where this appearance happened,
the well of vision, vision of what of God? It's
the well of vision, the well where you see God.
It's so obvious when you go back and read these passages,
it's like, wait a minute, of course God appears he
appears all the time. Genesis twenty six, the Lord appeared
to him to Isaac and said, right, there's another theophany
in Genesis twenty six twenty three. Then the Lord went
up there to the well of Oath and appeared that
same night. And so he built an altar there at
the well, the well of oath, the well of the Covenant.
So next one Genesis twenty eight, the Well of Oath.
So he came to a certain place, and he took
one of the stones where he lay his head, and behold,
he dreamt and saw the latter right, and he anointed
the oil, and annointed the stone, and poured oil on
the pillar, and called it the gate of Heaven. So
again we have stones and images there, because this is
going to be where he rustles right, Jacob, latter right right, well.
Speaker 2: And to the point, I would just grab in again
like seven seven sections of the Old Testament, a handful
from the New test but just to make the point.
But as you're demonstrating, well, there's only a few more.
Speaker 3: If you're ahead, go ahead, because just Genesis alone is
so packed with these. And by the way we did
for those that are interested, I have an older talk
where I do a lot of Old Testament Trinitarian references,
and I have that more recent talk about just in
the Torah, all the trinitarian references. But this is just Genesis.
As we can move through these pretty quickly. Now they
call the place in Genesis twenty eight where you have
this vision of the ladder and he sees the angels
of God is sinding and descending upon this throne, or
ascuse me upon this it's Jacob's vision of Jacob's latter
in Genesis twenty eight, and he anoints the stone there,
which is a symbol of Christ. Christ is obviously the stone.
But they call that place Bethel House of God. How
could it be the house of God if God didn't
manifest and be there in time and in space right
as you read through Genesis. Clearly that's what's happening. Genesis
thirty one. I am I am the God of Jacob appears,
who appeared to you at Bethel when you anointed the
pillar and made a vow to me. So God again appears,
this time to Jacob when he flees Laban, and he says,
I am the Angel and God. So notice the angel
is calling himself God in Genesis thirty one, Verses twelve
to thirteen, another thing oftening. So again moving through these,
the Angel is called God again in Genesis thirty two,
what do you know about my name? Why do you
ask me my name? Jacob called that place form of God,
for he saw God face to face, and his soul
was saved. The form of God then passed by Genesis
thirty two, form of God, face of God. Genesis thirty five,
another theophany, I am God, I am your God. And
then God ascended up from that place where he talked
to him in a pillar, and Jacob said, up a pillar.
So again Jacob at Bethel, again God appears Genesis thirty five.
We're almost done. But I mean, just Genesis is so
full of dude, that's great.
Speaker 2: I don't even realize how many Genesis had.
Speaker 3: This Holy Spirit is spoken of even Pharaoh. When Jacob
Joseph is in Egypt, Pharaoh says, the spirit of God
is in this man. So even Pharaoh seems to be
aware of the distinction between Yahweh and the spirit that's
Saint Joseph. Yeah, and then we get to again Genesis
forty six. Jacob journeys to Egypt. Now when Jacob took
this journey with all that he had to the will
of oath, and he offered a sacrifice to the goddess
father Isaac. And then God spoke to him in a
vision of the night and said, I am the God
of your father. So again he sees him, sees God again.
And by the way, sometimes it's seeing in a vision
and a dream, and sometimes it's an actual appearance, right,
so both, it's not either or it's both. And then
the key tact that I want to end with is
this is really important in Genesis because this lets us
know that this angel messenger that they keep interacting with
and they keep seeing in all these different locations and
places all throughout Genesis Genesis forty eight. And it says God,
who before my father Abraham and Isaac were well pleasing,
the God who has fed me my entire life, the
Angel who redeemed me from my evils. So the Angel
is called the Redeemer. Remember in Exodus, we're not going
to go through the Exodus passages. But remember in Exodus,
in Exodus twenty three and thirty three, the same appearance,
the same being in the burning bush, and Acto is
twenty three God says, you better obey this angel because
he will not forgive your sins if you don't, or
my name Yahweh is in him. Angels can't redeem, they
can't say it gives.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's a really good one to end on.
Speaker 3: Now that's just Genesis.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that's that was amazing. I wasn't even I
need to reread Genesis because I wasn't even conscious of
all the different Theophanes present. But just within Genesis. But
the last little section I had before we dive into
some of these TikTok deconstructionists is the Messianic prophecies. So,
utilizing this rabbinic line of argument, I just have seven,
and I'm sure you probably have a lot more, just
points in which Christ actually fulfills the Messianic prophecies of
the Old Testament, and so a few of them here.
The first one is the Messiahs birth of a virgin.
We can find this and Isaiah seven fourteen. Another one
Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ Micah five to two,
Isaiah fifty three, The Suffering Servant. Obviously, Christ's resurrection and
his suffering for the sins of humanity clearly fits that structure.
Zachariah ninety nine, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which again
we see with Christ being fulfilled, is president in the
Old Testament. Zachariah eleven twelve through thirteen, the betrayal for
thirty pieces of silver, so clearly referencing Judas's betrayal of
Christ in the incarnate God, that's right there in Zachariah.
Psalm twenty two sixteen, the piercing of the hands and
the feet of the Messiah. Well, the crucifixion of Christ
clearly fulfills that. And then the last one that I
just had just grabbing seven was Psalm sixteen ten. Isaiah
fifty three ten through eleven is the Messiah's resurrection. And
so all these things together signify that Jesus Christ fulfills
the prophecies of the Messiah, the Old Testament. And this
idea that they can take this rabbinic line of thought
and somehow then kind of play games with both the
New and the Old Testament. It just doesn't line up,
because if you're taking the New Testament at face value,
some of these people are now non believers. But clearly
it's demonstrating that Christ fulfills all these prophecies that were
present in the Old Testament.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's so many of these. I mean again, it's difficult.
I've got just one page here of And remember it's
not just specifically prophecies that only relate to the person
of the Messiah and his work, but also all of
the passages of prophecies that, for example, relate to the
Gentile Church. Because once the Gentiles begin to turn to Yahweh,
which again, if you think about it would seem totally
just insane to any Jew in the Old Testament, Right,
if you're Isaiah, think about Daniel, Right, Daniel is being
told that the Gentiles are going to believe in the
God of Israel, of Yahweh. I mean, Daniel's being taken
off into battlon in captivity. Israel's been going to be destroyed, right,
So just imagine how insane it would be to like,
He's thinking, what, how in the world are all these
awful pagan people going to be turning to the God
of Israel. It's just it doesn't make any It just
seems implausible. Right, Isaiah too, because Isaiah, Isaiah is really
important because Isaiah, as many people have said over the years,
it's the Fifth Gospel. There's so many things about Christ
just in the Book of Isaiah, from chapter two all
the way to chapter to the very end, right to
sixty five sixty six. But here, for example, is just
one page, and people can screenshot this they want to.
Just a list of Messianic prophecies up here and then
passages down here that relate to the Gentile Church. So
if you want to screenshot that, if you can zoom in,
I don't know, mney I'll be able to see it.
But here's a whole list people want that, And then
I've got another list in the Bible. In my Bible,
this one might be really hard to see, but because
I'm always adding new ones, because I'm discovering these all
the time. But this is this is references to the
Gentile Church, and by extension, these are also all references
and predictions of the Messiah and the Messianic Age. So
if you drop those down, and if you want to
look all those up, there's tons of them in the Psalms,
tons of them in Isaiah, tons of them in the
you know, the minor prophets. You can go from there
and you'll see, you know, look, this is not like Again,
I think a lot of people that aren't familiar with
the Old Testament they think of this like, oh, they've
you know, Christians, they've got like one or two passages
that they have to really squeeze into being Jesus. No, no, no,
there's there's hundreds, right. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So again this is kind of the What we've just
did is provide basically the contours of this deconstructioning my
Christian you NEI, they're basic what tends to be the
main themes of their arguments, using rabbinic lines of argument
in regards to Christ not fulfilling it or the Orthodox
Church not fulfilling its role as the New Israel, a theodicy,
that big sky Daddy is so mean, and look at
all these injustices in the Old Testament questioning the Holy
Trinity and the divinity of Christ, and then obviously from there,
questioning Christ's status as the Messiah. So we basically were
now an hour and fifteen sixteen in, we've covered basically
the arguments that we're going to see and if there's
anything else you want to say before we kind of
pull up some of this nonsense and have have have
some laughs. I think that's what everybody's waiting for.
Speaker 3: No Ready, you can go on.
Speaker 2: So here is This is one lady that's really prominent
on TikTok. Her name's no Nonsense Spirituality and as you
can see here, I just pulled up her most popular tiktoks.
We're talking about three point five million, one point six million,
two point eight million, one point eight million, six point
seven million. She gets massive views and engagement two point
three million down here on these tiktoks where she believes that.
So she's a spiritual director and nihilism coach specializing in
tools of the void. And Dan McClellan he's the other
one that he will make sure to tell you. He's
a biblical scholar and he's actually a progressive Mormon. We
talked a little bit about him over on Jay's stream,
and you pull up his instagram as as Jay Highlight
last time, every single and this was just posted five
hours ago. He lifts up his super or his action
figures superhero t shirts and he has funkal pops. There's
videos on his YouTube where you can see he has
a whole thing of Funko pops behind him. And he
is a progressive. He is pretty soft on you know,
sexual immorality and stuff like that, and what he doesn't
tell you, and he doesn't show anywhere. But if you
dig deep enough, you'll find he is a Mormon, Christian,
or not even Christian, a Mormon and presents himself as
an expert on christiananity because of his academic scholastic abilities
and deconstructing the Old Testament and the New Testament. So
he presents himself as some type of ultimate Christian scholar
when he himself is some progressive Mormon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's really weird. I mean, and I've been seeing
a lot more Mormon stuff popping up very lately, and
I've been seeing more and more interactions with Mormons. I
had last few open debates, I've had a multiple Mormons
calling in. So, you know, it's just weird to see,
you know, the push via the Tait Sneako sphere Islam
suddenly everywhere. Now, Mormonism is everywhere through TikTok. So I
think TikTok's playing a key role in this.
Speaker 2: No, I definitely agree with that. And over on TikTok,
there's another guy and he has a YouTube channel. It's
not very big, it's not even four thousand subs. It's
called the Deconstruction Zone. And if you go to his TikTok,
he I mean he gets pretty good videos in regards
to the views. I'm not saying they're quality videos, but
I mean thousands of views here two hundred and twenty
five thousand, seven hundred and eight thousand, and so Ac
mentioned that he's kind of a prominent voice in here,
so we may watch a few of his and he
has put together this playlist that I guess is pretty
popular on TikTok in regards to people referencing prophecy fails
and so like this one is Isaiah seven fourteen, a
prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. So we can check that one
out if we want to start with just some of these,
come on.
Speaker 6: Is the property of Isaiah seven fourteen, about the young
woman conceiving and bearing a child, about Jesus or about
the time of a has It says again the Lord
spoke to AHAs asked the Lord your god for a sign,
whether in the.
Speaker 3: Deepest steps or the highest heights.
Speaker 7: But Ah has said, I will not ask, I will
not put the Lord to the test. Then Isaiah said, here,
now you house of David is it not enough to
try the patience of humans. Will you try the patience
of God? Also, therefore, the Lord himself will give you
a sign. The virgin will conceive and give birth to
his son and will call him Emmanuel. Okay, this is
clearly a sign for a has. There is a woman
who is going to conceive. Whether it's he's a virgin
or a young woman, the translation of that particular word
is irrelevant in this particular argument. This has nothing to
do with a future Messiah and everything to do with
a sign specifically given to King ah Has.
Speaker 8: This is not about Jesus.
Speaker 3: Well, this is just fundamental ignorance of the way biblical
typology and symbology works. It's not in either or. The
whole idea is that the sign in the day of
Isaiah would also be a sign of the Messiah. This
is why in the New Testament, for example, you'll read
the passage I think it's in early on in Matthew
where it says out of Egypt, right, my son came
up out of Egypt. Well, there's not actually a pastor
specifically that says that exactly, but it's referring to Israel
as God's son coming up out of Egypt, right, And
it's making a parallel to the Holy Family coming out
of Egypt when they fled the persecution. So it's just
ignorance of the way that biblical symbology works, where it
can be a both and and it doesn't have to
be in either or right.
Speaker 2: I love his lisp too. Right, we talked to.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, but you'll know, Like, for example, in
Matthew two, it says, when he arose, this is Joseph.
When he rose, he took the child and his mother
by nine and the party for Egypt, and he was
there until the death of Herod, that he might be
that might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet
out of Egypt I called my son, right. So that
if you read Hoseiah eleven to one, it's talking about
Israel being brought out of captivity of the Egyptians. So
this is telling us the New Testament apostolic hermeneutic does
not restrict these types of references to what's called the
grammatical historical interpretation. So and not. The irony is that
these people pull from Jews, But Jews don't even restrict
all readings to grammatical historical Do you know what I
mean by grammatical historical, right, that's the immediate sense of
the text and the immediate reference and context and audience.
So who is Isaiah talking to? Who's his immediate audience?
What's the immediate context? But even Jews believe in what's
called pardies, P A, R, D, E. S. That's their
four senses of the text. So it's not even the
jew judaic position to think that there's only the grammatical
historical sense of the text.
Speaker 2: And it seems like here he then is talking about
Matthew two fifteen is not a fulfillment of Jose eleven
to one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's my point, is like, it's not if you
have his assumption of only grammatic exactly.
Speaker 2: That's what I was getting ready to say, is that
you just nailed it, because he's already has a video
right here discussing what you just brought up.
Speaker 3: Now look at this. This is again the irony. Uh,
I'm gonna give you, give you a little a link
you can look at here, all right, So this is
just well known Jewish Jewish exegesus. So if you take
a look at that right there, it'll show you that
these people aren't even really being consistent with the way
Jews exegete their own texts. And that's ironic because both
Jews click the one that's a exe Jesus their method here,
and it's not just cobblists. Other people do this too.
Of Pardais, it's a fourfold sense and it's and it's
a Jewish adaptation of the way that Christianity eventually came
up with a fourfold sense of the text. There's a
literal meaning, there's the allegorical meaning, there's the moral meaning,
there's the eschaological or anagogical meaning. That's our fourth senses
in the Christian tradition. And this is not just a
medieval Latin thing. It also exists, say Maximus talks about
the fourth senses of scripture. So there's nothing foreign to
to Orthodoxed Christianity with these ideas. But you'll just notice that, well,
wait a minute, I thought you were if you're going
to use the rabbinic ex of Jesus, the rabbinic ext
of Jesus is not grammatically historical only, it's not just
that first sense, right, So they're being arbitrary when they
when they utilizing these principles.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, we'll just click one more in this little playlist.
This one's got the twenty four hundred views here and
this is about This is about Luke one thirty two
through thirty three. He says failed Bible prophecy. Jesus never
ruled over the house of Israel or Jacob.
Speaker 8: Bible prophecy fails.
Speaker 3: Episode fourteen.
Speaker 7: This comes straight from the mouth of the angel that
tells Mary she's going to conceive. In Luke chapter one,
it says he shall be great and shall be called
the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall
give on him the throne of his father David, and
he shall reign over the House of Jacob forever, and
his kingdom there shall have no end. Now did Jesus
rule and reign over the house of Jacob forever and
without end?
Speaker 8: No, of course he did not.
Speaker 9: In fact, his own people unlived him, un across and
then mocked him publicly. And of course I know the
response to this is that, well, Jesus kingdom is not
of this world. How convenient is it when he doesn't
fulfill the prophecy that, oh he actually did? It is
just in secret and invisible. Sure, sure it is. Keep
telling yourself that.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean again, that's a question of whose presuppositions
are correct, because the whole New Testament is premised on
the fact that he did reign over the true House
of David, the true kingdom, which is even according to
the Old Testament, the people that have the law on
their hearts Jeremiah thirty one, or I think it's what
thirty eight Orthodox Bible. So even the Old Testament says
that the only true followers of Yahweh in the Messianic
era will be the ones that have it in their heart.
That's what the New Covenant prophecy says, right.
Speaker 2: Well, and in our opening we are already addressed basically
these these types of criticisms and this quote mining and
then and then he can't fulfill the Kingdom of Israel
eternally because he was crucified. I mean, what kind of
retarded argument.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point. I didn't even I didn't
even catch that, right, Like, yeah, ye said, but I
mean that's assuming he wasn't resurrected, right, right, So yeah,
sit at my right hands. Until I sit in my
right hands, I'll make your rystal right.
Speaker 2: So this is a little bit that was just a
quick introduction to this deconstruction Zone. Apparently he's got some
got some videos here that I.
Speaker 3: Mean, let let me give another example where you see
this kind of stuff like So, for example, in Orthodox
Bible Jeremiah thirty seven UH, in its verse eight and nine,
it says, in that day, I will bring the neck
of the chains, and you will no longer work for foreigners.
You shall work for the Lord your God, and I
will raise up for them. David, they're king. Now. If
we were to be silly and absurd the way these
people will operate, that's a prophecy that literally David will
come back and will rule the Jews. No, No, David
stands for the Massaiah. Right, David and his kingdom are
embodied in his seed, who will forever sit on God.
So that's actually the promise to David and the covenant
is your seed shall be an everlasting kingdom. Will you
will never lack one to rule on the throne because
it's an eternal seed that's ruling on the throne in heaven. Right.
Speaker 2: I haven't watched this one, but I am very tempted
to click on it. He says the biblical God failed
anatomy class. I just want to hear what this retard
has to say.
Speaker 10: The God of the Bible could not have pretty human
beings because he does not know how female anatomy works,
and I can prove it from the Bible. In Deuteronomy
twenty two, God says a legal precedent and says, suppose
man marries a woman, but after going into her, dislikes
her and makes up charges against her, slanddering her by saying,
I married this woman, but when I lie with her,
I do not find evidence of her virginity. The father
of the young woman and her mother shall submit the
evidence of the young woman's virginity to the elders at
the city gate. The first line here is really important
because it says after going into her, he dislikes her.
This is implying that he's realizing she's not a virgin
because she didn't lead. And this becomes important as we
continue reading. In verse seventeen, they bring the evidence, it says,
but here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity. Then
they will spread out the cloth before the elders of
the town. And just so we're tracking here, the sheet
is placed underneath the couple when they consummate their marriage
and So if she's a virgin, theoretically she would have
led on the sheet and the parents would have had
proof of her virginity, and they would bring it to
the elders.
Speaker 3: At the city gate.
Speaker 10: Now, if it turns out that they produce the evidence
and she was, in fact in virgin, then he'll pay
the hundred checkholds and then move on with their life.
But if it turns out that she wasn't a virgin,
look at what it says. If, however, this charge is true,
the evidence of the young women's virginity was not found,
then they will bring the young woman out to the
entrance of her father's house and the men of her
town will stone her until she's un alive. Now, you
might be thinking that this is a rather harsh punishment
for someone that des flight about their virginity, and I'm
sure it is, but that's not the real problem here.
Speaker 3: The real problem here is.
Speaker 10: That only forty five percent of women actually believe the
first time they do the deed, which means a little
bit less than half of these women are actually guilty.
Upon tribe, over half of these women actually are innocent,
and they will be stoned. And what that means is
that either God doesn't know how the female anatomy works,
or he's just an absolute monster.
Speaker 2: This is the level. This is the level of deconstruction
and uh, that's going on on TikTok so apparently because
he claims that forty percent of women don't bleed, that
this proves that the God of the Old Testament isn't
actually God because he doesn't know female anatomy.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, isn't there the other passage about there
was also supposed to be like the woman could drink
a potion to see if the child was hers. In
other words, there might be a supernatural element involved in
this too that would help them to identify this. Do
you know the past that I'm talking about were I
know the and she lies about who the father is.
They can drink this drink and if if the child lives,
then it was presumably not an illicit birth. But I mean,
I don't understand why, like there could be there could
be if we believe in the supernatural, there could be
a supernatural element to this, which is identifying you know,
the the legitimate virginity through through the blood or not.
Speaker 2: Right, well, and even we have no idea the effects
of you know, for example, using tampons that insert into
the vagina when modern day women are having sex, and
he's making that case that they don't bleed to reference
something in the Bible. We don't know the context of
how that potentially affects women, just using a sort of scientific,
more materialistic approach on how times are different. But to
your point, we also don't know the spiritual elements and
how these decisions were made. But this is this is
something that has seven and fourteen likes on TikTok and
over eighty thousand views.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I have a really good commentary on Deuteronomy from
I think as Gordon Wynham. He does, and he does
a really good job of going into explanation of a
lot of these passages. He's a famous Old Testament scholar.
I don't have it with me, though I wish I did,
because it would be good to see what he says
on this passage. But it's at the other house. So
off the top of my head, I'm not sure this
one I've not looked at. So this is this is
one I haven't really looked into.
Speaker 2: So here's the I showed Jay this earlier, this actual
TikTok leaving faith she has twenty three thousand followers, and
she had some pretty big TikTok's going on. Well, apparently
she was getting criticism or something because she has now
privatized her TikTok. So I had all these ready to
go for today. It was just live a few days ago,
and now she's privated her account. So maybe she was
getting pushed back and felt some heat. But I wanted
to play a few of these because these are so popular.
This woman's TikTok is quite big, so I want to play.
Let's see she doesn't. Not all of them are specifically
regarding Christianity. Let me see deconstruction. Here we go.
Speaker 4: Christianity ways that I am immortal and better than the
Christian God.
Speaker 11: When someone wrongs me and is sorry, I don't require
additional violence or additional scapegoating in order for me to
say you are forgiven. I've never thrown a temper tantrum
and flooded the earth. I've never killed Egyptian baby boys.
If I were a creator, I would have a better
track record than ninety nine percent of all species on
Earth going extinct. If I were a creator, I would
not have created the parasite that lives solely to climb
into the eyes of children. If I were a benevolent
god and humans had been on the earth for two
hundred and fifty thousand years, living in superstition, in suffering,
dying at the ab of like thirty five, on the
edge of extinction sometimes and living like this for two
hundred and fifty thousand years, I would not have sat
silent during all of that time while humans were guessing
why volcanoes were happening or why the sun came up
in the morning, and then after about two hundred and
forty five thousand years, said you know what, maybe I'll
send some prophets, or maybe I'll send a Jesus or
a Buddha to kind of come help with this.
Speaker 8: But for two.
Speaker 12: Hundred and almost fifty thousand years been silent and just
watched human suffer at the edge of extinction.
Speaker 3: If I were I would not I'm like Geico Caveman. Well,
so the like the Hiltdown Man and all this kind
of stuff. Well, the funny thing is that Hiltdown Man
Nebraska Man are famous frauds. So it makes you get
to know where does she get the idea that there
was like, you know, a quarter of a million years
of of cavemen. By the way, where's all the fossils
for this? You know, basically zillions of cavemen?
Speaker 2: Well, and none of it was an actual argument. It's
just like rhetorical musings and saying, well if I was this, Well,
first of all, the timeline people who actually believe in
scripture don't believe that we've been here for two hundred
and fifty some thousand years or whatever, and this whole thing.
And I have a friend who, let's just say, is
a scientist, experimental physicist and works for very important places
like NASA, and he's an orthodox Christian. He highlights how
all this scientific worldview of the Big Bang and cosmology
it's all built on models on top of models on
top of models, and that experimental physics, which what is
what he does. Yeah, half life is true, radiocarbon dating
is real. But beyond this, these extrapolations that they cave
are total fictions. And his whole point, the reason why
he does his job for the government is really to
undermine theories and do experimental physics to try to bring
them back to some sort of baseline reality. And we
talked about creation and the more according to him, the
more he does experimental physics, and when you look at
the history of great physicists, they're all theists. And he
he says, there's no there's no problem in his worldview
with creationism and his experience, his understanding of experimental physics,
and all the works that he does. Right, So this
whole thing is just rhetoric. It's not even actual arguments,
and it's sad to see how influential this stuff is.
Speaker 3: Well, another thing too, is like sometimes the expectation is
impossible for any worldview. So if the expectation is that
the Christian worldview gives you exhaustive answers to every problem,
there's no worldview that can do that. And the Christian
worldview doesn't propose to give you that. He proposes to
give you a basis for how you can have knowledge,
how you can have justified true belief, etc. Terms of
a paradigm, but there's no promise. So there's no basis
for you know, everything being you know explained exhaustively. No,
and no worldview can do that. So a lot of
times you'll notice atheists will have unrealistic expectations for the
Christian paradigm. But to have no expectations for their paradigm
or others, right and yeah, like jam saying here like, well,
wait a minute, so it's wrong to kill babies. I
bet you're your pro choice.
Speaker 2: Exactly. I already know that she is, which highlights again
the point that it really needs people aren't philosophers, but
deconstructionism itself is a contradicting philosophical disposition, and these people
constantly contradict themselves. But the point is to really the
way that we steal man these people at the opening
of the stream is so much better than their actual
presentations on TikTok. I mean, this stuff is really low tier.
And so just like this one has seventy thousand views. Oh,
this one's deconstructing patriarchy. Oh well, she's an ex Mormon
right here she says Mormonism, ex Mormon, ex Christian.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so you notice a lot of these are people
who are in these weird heretical sects. Can you do
the patriarchy one?
Speaker 2: I'd like, yeah, yeah, this.
Speaker 4: Is still a little bit wrong. But I just got
off with a client who's recovering from religion, and usually
in a client it's not about me at all. It's
not about my feelings, my story, any of that. I'm
totally focused on the other person. But today I wept
with her, And looking back, it may have been appropriate
in the moment, it may not have been. It may
have been a little bit too much of me showing
up in the session. But it's because she's not on
here on TikTok at twenty years old, deconstructing patriarchy with
her best friends. She's sixty with eight kids and realizing
now for the first time that she was sold alive.
She was told that the only value she has would
be in the service that she gives to others, especially
her husband and her children. And what kills me is
that by the time that she knew that she had
value and she had a voice, and she deserves to
have passions and opinions, and she deserves to have autonomy
over her own body, her life was mostly over.
Speaker 3: Is always these positions like that, like you have to
respect my autonomy and my body, and I have value
and I have meaning? No, you don't, not in the
meaningless universe, right And who are you to tell me
I have to respect? Are you a dogmatist? Now you're
tell me I have to respect your body and your
values and your identity. Why.
Speaker 2: Well, and imagine talking to a woman who's sixty years
old with eight children and crying because she just realized
that she has more more worth than serving her husband
and children. Which I mean, what, what exactly is there
that's more beautiful and more important than your family? So
I mean what, I guess what.
Speaker 3: Didn't get her? Eat, prey, love, adventure in India or whatever?
Speaker 2: Right? Yeah, the the romantic passionate sex with the guru.
Speaker 3: I would preached my sheet inside of your.
Speaker 2: Like exactly. Yeah, she wasn't rolling in his bins? Right,
Oh my god? All right, let's uh so we kind
of get a feel for this woman. It's typical progressive babble.
This one's Christian Christianity, Jesus Bible, Christian talk.
Speaker 3: Well, it's interesting that that's that's the other guy's a
Mormon and she's an ex Mormon. Yeah, progressive Mormon.
Speaker 2: She's a Mormon, clearly a progressive too.
Speaker 3: Where's all this more? This Mormon stuff is weird, man,
and it's suddenly everywhere.
Speaker 2: Let's just you know, another thing.
Speaker 3: That's that it's contributing to this Mormon stuff is I
didn't know this because I don't keep up with his domain.
But Jamie was telling me about like two of the
biggest TikTok models, Nara and then I forget the name
of the other one. But are you familiar with these people?
Have you heard of them?
Speaker 12: No?
Speaker 3: Come here, I can't hear you. Ballerina Farms and Nara
are like the two they're like the supermodels of today, right, So,
like if you think about nineties supermodels like Naomi Campbell
and Chris.
Speaker 2: You know, Heidi Klumb or something.
Speaker 3: Clue. Yeah, so like today nowadays, it's the TikTokers Ballerina
Farms and Nara, and they're both Mormon. So I'm serious,
but you're laughing about like this is the way people
are getting into Mormonism? Is this kind of stuff? Well?
I mean, or like the tats are getting people into Islam,
they're being in.
Speaker 2: Well, but in TikTok is a cesspool. I mean, as
you were, you were live before there like insanely and
it was the dumbest I mean, the dumbest people making that.
I mean, it was retarded, it was people. I mean
just one guy was threatening you with basically romantic advances.
I mean, it's retarded. It was the lowest. I mean,
at least when you hold your X spaces. Yeah, there's
some retards in there, but it's it's certainly higher.
Speaker 3: Qualities higher here than they're for sure.
Speaker 2: But I just for shits and giggles, I just want
to click on this one as it's specifically on Christianity.
Speaker 12: Here's how I think a real Christian would respond to
someone like me.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: I am Britt Hartley.
Speaker 12: I'm an atheist, spiritual director and deconstruction coach. I have
a master's degree in theology, and I produce a lot
of content on here about no nonsense spirituality. I got
one comment last week of the hundreds of thousands of
comments that I get from Christians on this app where
I actually had to sit back and say, Wow, here
is someone who answered how I would imagine a real
follower of Jesus would respond to someone like me, Because
most of the time I get comments about enjoy being
raped in hell, which is like it was your God
that set up that system, So that's more of a
dig on you. I get comments about your ignorant.
Speaker 3: And you'll understand that's why you're gettingments.
Speaker 12: And every will bow and every tongue will confess like
they just can't wait for this dictatorship. I get comments
about enjoy being tortured forever, which is not something I
would even wish on my worst enemy, because eternal torment
for finite crimes is immoral. All kinds of condescending and
violent comments. You can three through my comments section to
see the worst of them. But if I were, and again,
how is this my job? But if I were a
real follower of Jesus, the character that he had, this
is how I think he would respond to videos about
religious deconstruction and about criticisms of Christianity. I think someone
would say, I am so sorry that the Christian Church
has hurt you so much. I know that the Christian
community can sometimes act not christ Well, you.
Speaker 3: Know what's interesting about hers that's different than McLellan's is
his is kind of low tier, sort of pseudo intellectual approach.
Hers is all emotion and feelies, right, and that's why
the women are resonating with it, right.
Speaker 2: Well, and both are Mormons. Again, her talking about how
the Christian community, I mean, what Christian community were you in?
You're in a Mormon, cul crazy heterodox thing. Yeah, yeah,
but You're right. Everything that she says is all emotionalism.
She doesn't actually make arguments.
Speaker 12: And that's our fault. Refer to kind of beam in
the eye scriptures there. I am sorry that you lost
everything when you left your religious community. Jesus always mourned
with those that mourn, and I really really wish someone
would have been there for you in your darkest hour
rather than rejecting you and making you go through that alone.
Speaker 4: That sounds really hard.
Speaker 12: I understand that your moral compass has led you out
of this faith community, and I see that as very
brave of you. There are prophits of old who spoke
truth to power and who were exiled into the wilderness
or stone, and we need your voice to help curb
the excesses of the institution, which is what Jesus did.
And I think some of your criticisms are really fair.
I appreciate your content. They help me to understand the
deconstruction community better and how not everyone experiences God's love
in God's churches. They help me know what I can
do as someone in the church to make it better
for people.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm done with this video. This is boring, but
like you said, it's all emotionalism. I mean, this is
low level.
Speaker 3: I think you know, one of the bad parts about
heresy that people misunderstand. It's not just that heresy is
wrong and it gets things wrong, but heresy has the
tendency to produce these types of people, these types of reactions.
It leads to it's an atheism factory, right, is that
it's it's not just that it doesn't have the healing
you know of the nouisance and all that, because there's
other sacraments and all that. But that's true, but it
also has these offspring. It's like it gives birth to
these hydra that creates, It creates monsters.
Speaker 2: It's a Medusa for sure. Uh Ac just said no nonsense.
Spirituality has Funko pops. Doesn't she know they're a tool
of the patriarchy. Yeah, she also has Funko pops in
the background. You can see like right here at the
at the top right. So another commonality.
Speaker 3: Well, McLellan's all about marble crop right.
Speaker 2: Well, and he and and video, Well, we can look
at the YouTube. In the wider angle of his video
is not the vertical camera. You can see funkl pops
in the back as well. I mean it as you
as you mentioned in the first part that we did
on this topic.
Speaker 3: It's the item.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the iconography plays itself out over and over and over,
which is astounding. Anyways, let's move on from this chick
he kind of just focused on. The last one is
Dan McClellan. Now he has a YouTube channel and he's
got seventy one thousand subscribers. We can watch one of
these videos if any one of the topics kind of
peauk your interest, or we can check out his instagram
where he's got two hundred thousand files.
Speaker 3: Instagram is all Marvel cinematic.
Speaker 2: I mean, look at it. Spider spider Punk, do Justice
Love Mercy?
Speaker 3: Looks like how old of this guy? It's like this
guy's like thirteen or is he thirteen? Or is a
grown man?
Speaker 2: Uh? He looks like he's definitely in the latter forties.
Speaker 3: Do you see, by the way, a woman with him
and these pictures because never Yeah, the way he talked
was a little uh.
Speaker 2: Well, I wouldn't be surprised if this guy is swinging
for the other team. Put it. Put it one way,
he's an X man. Yeah, Well, this one he just
posted today. Let's check it out, I have no longer man.
Speaker 3: He's an x man.
Speaker 8: There are a contradiction in the Bible regarding how much
King David paid for the threshing floor where he built
an altar too ad on nine. Hey, everybody, I'm Dan McClellan.
I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion. Let's take
a look at a video.
Speaker 13: In Second Samuel twenty four to twenty four, David pays
a man fifty shekels of silver for his threshing floor
and the oxen. But then in First Chronicles twenty one
to twenty five, it says that David paid this same
man six hundred sheckles of gold for the place. So
according to Samuel, David paid only fifty shackles of silver,
but Chronicles said he paid six hundred shekels of gold,
two very different sums of money.
Speaker 8: Readers have recognized this discrepancy between these two accounts for
thousands of years, and there have been a few different
ways that they have sought to try to harmonize them. So,
for instance, in the septuagen the ancient Greek translation of
the Hebrew Bible, they alter the text a little bit.
In Sewod Samuel twenty four to twenty four, because there
it says David bought the threshing floor and the oxen
for fifty shekels of silver, And if you go look
in the Septuagent, it adds something so that says David
bought the threshing floor for a price and the oxen
for fifty shekels of silver, to make it sound like
the text does not actually identify the price that was
paid for the threshing floor. In the medieval period, we
have pseudo Rashi who says that the fifty shekels of
silver is actually the cost for each of the twelve
tribes of Israel, and fifty times twelve is six hundred
and so you just have to ignore the difference between
the value of silver and gold and you have the
exact same prices.
Speaker 3: I we know creator climing that there is a discrepancy,
maybe the Sebtuo agent translation is right right, because we
don't know, we don't have access to back when the
Jews were translated what the Jews are translating the subtu
agent from. And if you read the Woodward book reviewing
the Bible, he actually argues that the Masoretic tax was
altered because of Christianity, and that the Jews not wanting
any text to be utilized by Christians, so they would
change really strong Christian used passages to favor a Rabbinic reading.
So I mean, this just assumes that what masoretic, the
Mazarati text is the one that's correct. So I mean,
and by the way, a lot of that's like the
history of Protestantism is just defaulting to the Jewish masoretic text.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I want to click on one of these that also
has quite a few views here and see what he says.
This one's got one hundred and nine thousand on Instagram.
Speaker 8: The prohibition on same sex, and of course that we
find in Leviticus eighteen and Leviticus twenty is not transferable
to contemporary Christian societies and anything.
Speaker 2: I knew it, I knew it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I'm sorry to think that he has an
activist agenda because of his proclivities.
Speaker 2: Exactly that we.
Speaker 8: Find in Leviticus eighteen and Leviticus twenty is not transferable
to contemporary Christian societies and anything remotely approximated in authoritative way. Hey, everybody,
I'm Dan McClellan. I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion.
We can consider a bunch of different features of this prohibition. One,
what precisely is being prohibited. It is prohibiting a man
from taking the insertive role in an active male same
sex intercourse. You try to transfer that, you're not getting
the whole package. You're just getting a prohibition on a
man taking the insertive role in an act of male
same sex intercourse. This is not when people are going to.
Speaker 3: Tell way of like read like. Well, it only says this,
So if it's not an insertive role, then it's not
gay sex. It's not prohibited, you know what I mean?
Speaker 2: Exactly the oral festivities he has with his friends, that's not.
Speaker 3: That doesn't count because it doesn't sex doesn't say that.
But this is in the part one with you.
Speaker 2: That's exactly what we said they were going to do it.
Speaker 8: Twenty thirteen condemns both parties to death. So obviously both
parties are equally culpable. Well, no, that's actually not accurate,
and that brings up the rationalization for the actual prohibition. See, anciently,
sex was not an activity that's not a partner mutually
engaged in.
Speaker 3: It was a Bible scholar. He doesn't know a word.
Speaker 8: Anciently sex. You haven't had that day.
Speaker 3: Let me see if I mean I could be wrong.
Speaker 2: I've never heard of it. It doesn't sound like.
Speaker 3: Actually I am wrong. Apparently anciently is a word.
Speaker 2: I've never heard that, anciently sex. It sounds like it's
never heard of phrase that way.
Speaker 3: I guess. I guess I just don't know. I don't
know object to know this domain very well, so I'll
defer to him on ancient.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, this was posted about three days ago and
it's got over one hundred thousand views, so it struck
a chord with a lot of people. We're this might
be my favorite video of yours yet, And that's saying something, yes, honey, irrelevant.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 8: What Leviticus twenty is doing is expanding on the penalties
for the different illicit sexual acts that are prohibited in
Leviticus eighteen. And in every instance both parties are condemned
to the same penalty, not because both parties are equally culpable.
Speaker 5: They aren't.
Speaker 8: The animal is put to death in the case of bestiality,
but their agency and consent was obviously irrelevant. Leviticus is
not commanding the animals to behave in a certain way.
It's because this illicit sexual act was considered to generate
a kind of metaphysical contamination that polluted the land and
that could result in the land vomiting the people out.
And this contamination was perceived to be produced because these
sexual acts violated socially conventionalized boundaries and categories and hierarchies.
And when it comes to male same sex intercourse, men
are at the top of the socially conventionalized highhierarchy of domination,
and so to sexually subordinate and penetrate a man is
to violate that hierarchy and to violate his sexual agency,
turning him into a passive sexual object. And they understood
that contamination to be purged only through the application of
the same penalty to both involved parties, again, irrespective of
the agency or the consent. Now that brings us to
the motivation. What's actually underlying these outdated and scientifically inaccurate rationalizations.
The motivation is the intuitive impulse to seek out sanctity
and purity. This is what cognitive sciences called sexual disgust sensitivity,
and there are a bunch of studies on how this
contributes to opposition to LGBTQ plus identities.
Speaker 3: And this is now we get to the issue, right.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean he's got a point. I am disgusted.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but that's because you've been trained by these hierarchies
to feel that true.
Speaker 2: That's true. I've been I've been oppressed and reprogrammed through these.
Speaker 3: If you need to be re educated, so you need
to go to re educate a gay re education camp.
But by the way, it's not accidental that, I mean,
Mormonism is ultimately a sex call.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So again, notice where's he coming out of what's the
part of Mormonism?
Speaker 2: Right? And what's what's hilarious is that he hasn't dropped
his Mormon identity, at least on his YouTube channel. His
intro video at the very end of it, he states
that I am a Mormon. So very interesting. That's very interesting.
Speaker 8: Through education, through interactions with lgbt Q plus people, because
you learn that there's nothing wrong with them. There, you
learned that they are perfectly human and that there is
no contamination being generated by their sexual identity. So what
the actual demination?
Speaker 3: Right? So maybe the land is vomiting people out because
of the demonic contamination, right, so he's making it something
genetic or physical. No, no, what if it's actually spiritual?
Speaker 2: Well, I think you feels personally attacked here too.
Speaker 8: Off is not transferable. The rationalization is obviously not transferable.
The motivation, while it is still active today, it's not authoritative.
You can't say that this needs to be prohibited because
it gives me the ick. That's not an actual argument.
The scope is not transferable because Leviticus eighteen and Leviticus
twenty are addressing members of the House of Israel occupying
the land of Israel. If you are not a member
of the House of Israel, if you are not occupying
the land of Israel, this has nothing to do with you.
So it is not transferable to contemporary Christians.
Speaker 3: Well, accept that. In Romans one and then Bull letters
to Timothy, the scope is universalized to include all cultures
doing this as unnatural right.
Speaker 2: And I want to That's what I was getting ready
to say. Is I wonder if he makes any reference
to Romans one and just kind of localizes this argument
in Leviticus to try to be just.
Speaker 3: Read by the way Leviticus eighteen he says that the
scope is only for those people, but God says that
he despises all of the practices of the Pagans pagan
peoples that do these things. Right, So, no, it's not
just for the Israelites. The very passage Leviticus eighteen says
for the people who do these things or an abomination,
talking about the existing Pagans who had taken the land.
Speaker 8: Right in Leviticus eighteen, the punishment is that you will
be cut off. This could mean a lot of different things,
but it's not transferable in an authoritative way to today.
In Leviticus twenty, it's the death penalty, also non transferable
to Christian societies today. And if you're among those groups
who are trying to advocate for execute of members of
the LGBTQ plus community, you need to grow the hell up.
So none of these prohibitions taking the insertive role in
an active message.
Speaker 3: That's not an argument. Grow up? How does that tell
me that? So that's uh, how does that tell me
that my position is wrong? Telling me to grow up?
I mean again, like he didn't actually address the like
unnatural aspect of it, right, because that's the argumentation that
Let's say, I'm looking for the text where for all
these things were done by the people who lived here
before you, and they defiled this land. It will vomit
you out these things every listen. This is Leviticus eighteen.
Everyone who does these things is detestables. Is detestable. So
the argument is not that it's only relative to this land,
but outside of this land, I don't care if you, like,
you know, commit pedo actions. And you know again and
like it says multiple times over that and this is
another reason, you know, we forgot to mention the flood,
like this had become universal. That's why there was the flood,
because that whole stock of people except for Noah and
his family, had become completely wicked.
Speaker 2: Well, and is dis ingenuous on his part to just
try to make this argument based on Leviticus eighteen twenty
and then say, well, you know, if you're if you're
advocating for the death penalty, then that is not applicable
to modern day Christian societies, And then and then limiting
the context of this verse and not including Romans, not
including the New Testament, not including Christ's description of what
marriage is, he himself is limiting the context to try
to suit his presuppositions and the point that he's trying
to make.
Speaker 8: Are transferable to contemporary Christian society. So why do so
many Christians today continue to appeal so blithely to these
utterly irrelevant passages from Leviticus. It's because homophobia continues to
be a central identity marker for a lot of conservative Christians,
and they are all.
Speaker 3: So progressivism is true. Why is it wrong to be hypocritical?
Why is it wrong to have those kinds of attitudes?
On what basis is that wrong? He did to provide
an argument.
Speaker 8: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: If no progressive can tell you why something is wrong.
Speaker 8: A vested of its contexts, that they have to ignore
the actual prohibition, that the rationalization is irrelevant, that the
motivation is not authoritative, that the scope is irrelevant, that
the punishment is not authoritative. Because all they're looking for
is a proof text that they can leverage in the
structuring of power and values and boundaries in the service
of their right wing authoritarian identity politics. It's all about
identity politics. It's all about power, and unfortunately it is
increasingly about money, which means the liberty, the humanity, the
very lives of LGBTQ plus men, women, and children are
being hurled on to the all a right wing, authoritarian,
conservative Christian identity politics just so people can have more
power and money, and that has simply got to stop.
And the fifth for this video has been Micah six
' eight the prohibition.
Speaker 2: Yikes, yikes. Yeah, So I don't know if I if
there's anything in particular you want to watch. I mean,
he has a YouTube channel. Are there any videos here
that you'd like to hear?
Speaker 3: I can't really see the titles? What are some of
the titles of them?
Speaker 2: This one's five things most Christians don't know about Jesus.
Why is Matthew seventeen twenty one a minute from most
modern Bibles about the King James version? We already got his.
I already watched the cant of personal about Jesus.
Speaker 3: That sounds like right.
Speaker 5: Five things most Christians don't know about Jesus.
Speaker 8: All right, let's see it.
Speaker 4: One.
Speaker 5: Jesus wasn't hung on a cross. The Bible uses the
Greek word style rows. It was translated as cross, but
it can also mean a steak.
Speaker 3: He's just craving from those witnesses there.
Speaker 8: So the Greek word stavros can refer to just a steak,
but it can also refer to a cross, whether it's
in an X shape, where it's in a capital T
shape or maybe a lower case T shape. The notion
that Romans normally didn't use those other crosses isn't really
supported by the data. We don't have clear indications what
style was preferred over another style, and.
Speaker 3: A lot of what under A lot of what underlies
the assumptions of people like him is that there is
only textual evidence and that we could not ever listen
to oral tradition or the Church's tradition. Right, So that's that,
and he's coming. You remember, Mormonism is still basically a
schism of the Protestant domain. Right, It's not technically Protestant
because it's a cult, but it's ethos from which it emerges,
which when Joseph Smith created his cold was out of
all the Protestant churches that he had visited. So still,
I'm serious, it's still a Protestant cold. And so therefore
they're going to assume that, you know, there's no church
tradition that's relevant. We only have these textual evidences. But again,
does he deconstruct the Book of Mormon?
Speaker 2: By the way, I have not seen one on that
I have not seen that. But you make the point
that we mentioned in the opening is that they have
no recognition of oral tradition or the history of the Church,
or how the oral tradition of the Old Testament is
continued in the New Testament.
Speaker 8: So of crucifixion, don't come and tell about a century
after the death of Christ and then almost one hundred
years after that. But both of those depictions show at
T shaped cross. Take a look. This is the earliest
known artistic depiction of a crucifixion that shows the T
shaped cross. This was discovered in some excavations in a
city called pute Oli outside of Naples, and it is
dated by scholars to around the reign of Trajan or Hadrian,
so somewhere between around one ten and maybe one thirty
or one forty CE. And then we have the famous
Aleximenos graffito, which was discovered scratched into the walls of
some barracks in Rome, dating to around the year two hundred,
maybe a little after, shows Alexamenos on the left says
Alexemanos worships his God, and that's supposed to be Jesus
being crucified with arms outstretched over a T shaped cross
with the head of an ass, so they were capable
of some pretty sick burns back then.
Speaker 5: Two Jesus wasn't born in a stable. According to Luke,
the baby was placed in a major But scholars say
it's a mistranslation of guest room. Jesus was probably born
in his relative's house, so.
Speaker 8: It is not the word manger that is a mistranslation.
That's translated correctly. It is the phrase there was no
room at the inn that is a mistranslation. That is
where the word most likely refers to the sleeping quarters
or a guest room. So whoever made this video was
not paying close attention.
Speaker 5: Three Jesus was not white. We're familiar with the image
of Jesus as a white man, but it comes from
later European depictions. Jesus was Middle Eastern and Jewish.
Speaker 8: So while that video is showing imagery from medieval and
later European depictions of Jesus, we already have in the
Byzantine Empire in the fourth, fifth and sixth century CE,
Jesus being represented with lighter skin and brown hair. So
it was only a few centuries after Jesus that the
depictions shifted in the direction of a more European looking Jesus.
Jesus wasn't born to say that, again.
Speaker 3: How does he know they shifted.
Speaker 2: Right, They're just making an assumption based on what they perceived.
Middle Eastern Jewish identity would.
Speaker 3: Have looked at Orthodox iconography as a fairly consistent presentation
of what Christ.
Speaker 2: Looks like, and that matches with the shroud of Turin.
Speaker 5: Born on December twenty fifth, none of the gospels mentioned
his birth date five that is accurate.
Speaker 8: Jesus is actually non accurate.
Speaker 3: We know from the Book of Luke, based on the
time at which Zachariah was ministering in the temple. There's
a great classic article on this from Good Shepherd Orthodox Church.
Everybody should be familiar with this because you'll hear every
year it goes around. We all know, right, the Protestant
thing of Christmas is pagan, right, But Luke one eight
through eleven it says when Zachariah was on duty and
was serving as a priest before God, he was chosen
by a lot, according to the custom of the priesthood,
to go into the temple Lord to burn the incense,
and when the time for the burning of incense came.
All the assembled worshipers were praying outside. Then an angel
lord appeared to him to stand on the right of
the altar of incense. It's the day of yan Kapoor
is the day in which this instance was offered. Based
on this observation, Christians were able to calculate the birth
of John the Baptist as September twenty third plus two
hundred and seventy days, which equals June twenty fourth. They've
then observed that the annunciation of Christ's birth was six
months after John the Baptist conception. That would put six
months later at March twenty fifth. Through this reasoning, Ireinaus
established March twenty fifth as the date of the annunciation,
and thus the annunciation would be what nine months later
at December twenty fifth, Right, So this is the patristic
reasoning as to where that date would come would come
from for December twenty five. So while pushing the pagan
conspiracy there that December twenty five is a pagan date,
they never talk about the conception of John the Baptist
as part of the reasoning for this date.
Speaker 2: Right, It always goes back to Mithra worship and stuff like.
Speaker 5: That says Jesus had a number of siblings. However, in
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrines, Jesus is an only child.
Speaker 8: So this is accurate, and many scholars believe that this
idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is an elaboration
on a tradition from the Proto Gospel of James, which
describes Mary as a virgin who marries Joseph, who is
a much older man who already has children from another marriage.
So that is where Jesus's siblings come from.
Speaker 2: Okay, so that's his five things about Jesus that you
don't know. But I think people have kind of got
a feel for what it is that he does and
how he approaches this and how he has his own
his own mission and agenda behind his deconstructions. Yeah, so anyways, guys,
smash that like a few super chats. We're gonna address
those real quick and then hop out of here. Thank
you again, Jay for being here for part two. Your
knowledge of scripture and theology is profound, and appreciate your
insights on the topic.
Speaker 3: Sure, yeah, I don't know everything. One of those was
not something I wasn't familiar with the blood on the
cloth of the virgin. That one was one I wasn't
familiar with. But hey, I don't know everything, so.
Speaker 2: It's all good. AC throws into generous fifty dollars. Does
everyone make clips of this so we have TikTok emma, Well,
thank you very much, AC to appreciate it. DC would
work through in three dollars, Thank you very much. DC.
And our sister slow Boy Whiteboard throws in twenty dollars.
As my kids went to a rap concert last night.
They're both adults now, so whatevs. His name is Joey.
Never heard of him, but they came back with merch
that had orthodox crosses. I looked him up Tonight Music's trash.
It's a shame.
Speaker 3: Weird. Well appreciate, like uh, you know Kanye and like,
you know what I mean, because they started talking about
icons and ice Cube was talking about icons, and then
Jordan Peterson's wearing a jacket. So I wonder if people
are like picking up on this as like a just weird,
you know, aesthetic trend.
Speaker 2: I could see. I could definitely see that, and I've
seen it also in sort of the more hardcore metal
music too. That really okay, that utilization of the Orthodox
aesthetic is a little popular, right, Okay, Ted Nublett throws
in five dollars, Thank you very much, He says, numbers
five eleven and for the abroad potion okay, so I
think that was referenced to what.
Speaker 3: I was talking about.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then sincere hypocrit throws in.
Speaker 3: That would be for a child who's printed parentages is
question that wouldn't be for a virgin.
Speaker 2: Sincere hypocrite throws in five al says, I'm noticing a
pattern of prioritizing the mind materialism, improving scripture through evidentialism,
leading to apostasy. Yeah, exactly. And a lot of their deconstructions,
as we've showed, are themselves limiting the context and scope
of whatever it is the topic they're talking about, and
then bringing sort of contemporary scientific empirical analysis on it
to try to disprove a sort of spiritual interpretation of
scripture and how that fits literally within the narrative. And
then we already saw AC's no nonsense spirituality comment has
funko pops? Yes she does. Again, Thank you so much
ACS for sponsoring this stream for me and Jay and
five dollars came in over on the stream labs from
Nadid Hadad. He said, God bless you, Dph and j
feel like this is going to be a good stream
and chat all of the nubs like, thank you very much, Nadeed,
And twenty dollars came in on dono chat. Ellie says,
keep on doing your great work, greeting from Germany. Ellie, well,
thank you very much, Ellie, And Pope Biscuit throws in
a superchat says, my last brain cell is struggling to
stay alive after McClellan, but thank you both for covering this.
I always learned something from you guys. Well, thank you
very much, Pope Biscuit, do appreciate that. And oh we
just got a couple more generous super chats on YouTube.
Jess Gerald throws in fifty dollars says, thanks for helping
me find the courage to step into a church again. Well,
glory to God for that, jefs Gerald. I'm sure Jay
or I or anybody who's helped are humbled to have
helped in any way. And crash Man throws in five
dollars and says the best of streams on the Internet.
Love both of you and die or well, thank you
very much, crash Man. Appreciate it and that's going to
do it for us tonight, guys. Do appreciate it. You guys.
I'm sure everybody here is already following Dire If you don't,
he's hyperlinked in the title goes to his YouTube channel
and you can follow him there. Jay, is there anything
you want to shill or tell people before we hop
off here?
Speaker 3: Well, we do have the icon Conference coming up at
our church here in Florida. So if people head over
to my website, you'll see the live events link there
and the post is up. You can get tickets to
the Icon Conference and November eight it's a one day conference.
It's me, my priest, Father Digan, and Ayas another priest
of Father Theodore I will all be giving one hour
talks on iconography, the symbolism, and the meaning the theology.
So it's going to be a great one day conference
November eighth. And then coming up in a couple of
weeks is the Brohemian Grove event, which is more of
a comedy conspiracy two day event, also here in Florida.
You can get tickets to that as well at the website.
So those two things are coming up. That's all I
can think of.
Speaker 2: You and Jamie have any damage, do you guys just
in Florida.
Speaker 3: No, it's Saint Augustine was fine. It didn't hit here.
Speaker 2: That's good. That's good. Oh and then Ac just threw
in another twenty bucks. He says, thanks guys, excellent stream. Well,
thank you so much, a C. Thanks for concoring and
supporting our work. We do appreciate it, brother, thank you
very much. So all right, guys, that's going to do it.
I uh I will see you guys potentially tomorrow or Saturday,
and as always, until then, God bless all right, thanks
Manassa