Speaker 1: Jay Dire Jaysons, Jay Dires Day Smells, Jade Ires Days Analysis,
Speaker 1: Jade Ires Days Nells, J Dier's Days Analysis. US It's
Speaker 1: Jay Dier, Jason Alison, J Diers Day Smells, Jade Diers
Speaker 1: Today's Analysis, Jay Dires Days Analysis, Jay Diers Days Analysis.
Speaker 2: All Right, welcome, welcome, welcome. You're listening to Jay Dyer.
Speaker 2: Let's make sure we have good audio. Can everybody hear me?
Speaker 2: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Can you hear me? M hmm?
Speaker 2: Are we having all right? Yep? Good, I can be her.
Speaker 2: There we go. Yes, we're going to talk to true
Speaker 2: dil Tom. For one hundred times, I've had endless requests,
Speaker 2: So yeah, we'll talk to him. And I messaged him
Speaker 2: today and he said, yeah, we'll do it. We'll do
Speaker 2: a talk.
Speaker 4: Oh, oh, philosophy. Oh these questions anyway, So I thought,
Speaker 4: in the wake of.
Speaker 2: The many recent discussions and debates, it would be pertinent
Speaker 2: to have a stream that dealt with objections and questions
Speaker 2: because naturally debates they just lead to a whole lot
Speaker 2: of questioning, which is a good thing. That's a good thing.
Speaker 2: So the topics today we're going to specifically stick trying
Speaker 2: to stick to you know, philosophy, metaphysics, the branches of
Speaker 2: philosophy and defending them. But we're not just going to
Speaker 2: stay I mean, if you want to ask theological questions,
Speaker 2: that's fine, because anytime I talk about philosophy, everybody comes
Speaker 2: in they want to talk about theology. Anytime I talk
Speaker 2: about theology, everybody comes in they want to talk about
Speaker 2: conspiracy and some other topics. So you know, I understand
Speaker 2: they're not disconnected, but please let's stay on the topic roughly,
Speaker 2: and let's talk first about this issue of cucks into
Speaker 2: the shadows. What are you talking about, Matt, by the way, Yeah,
Speaker 2: if somebody wants to come on and debate, Matt, do
Speaker 2: you want to come on in debate since you're calling
Speaker 2: me a cuck, I tried to give the debate platform
Speaker 2: openly today we had open debate day at Jays Analysis. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't really care what ask Yourself did in terms
Speaker 2: of his video Ask Yourself as a childish guy. He
Speaker 2: needs to grow up a lot of bit a lot
Speaker 2: before we have any more interactions. I'm not interested in
Speaker 2: any more interactions with that guy. That's low IQ Spurg
Speaker 2: level stuff. So I'm not gonna waste my time debating
Speaker 2: twenty year olds. Although if this mac character wants to
Speaker 2: come on, he's if he calls me a couck, he
Speaker 2: can come on debate if he wants to. Nobody ever
Speaker 2: wants to come on debate. Oh he said, I'm a cook,
Speaker 2: cuts himself into the shadows. No, I just waited for
Speaker 2: him to hang himself, and when he did, I left
Speaker 2: the debate, and you can read everybody in the comments
Speaker 2: at Primal Edge Health. They got the point. Everybody in
Speaker 2: the comments center my copy of the debate at my
Speaker 2: channel got the point, and everybody saw how silly what
Speaker 2: he was saying was. So he and his cult can
Speaker 2: do whatever they want, but I'm done with him. Stefan
Speaker 2: MALINEU will never debate because, as we point that out
Speaker 2: many times, a big name person has nothing to gain
Speaker 2: from debating lesser known people. They have everything to lose.
Speaker 2: Should they lose the debate, it would look really bad
Speaker 2: for them. So why would they There's no incentive for
Speaker 2: a Molineux or a Peterson or anybody of that stature,
Speaker 2: of that caliber in terms of popularity to debate somebody
Speaker 2: with you know, ten or one hundred times smaller audience.
Speaker 2: So no, they're never going to debate. Now, maybe if
Speaker 2: I got a million followers one day, which probably won't
Speaker 2: ever happen, but if that ever did happen, maybe then
Speaker 2: they might debate. But I doubt it because it's a
Speaker 2: it's a much safer territory to stay in, you know,
Speaker 2: acceptable modernist discourse. And you'll notice that none of the
Speaker 2: people allowed into the big scale discussion ever step outside
Speaker 2: of the classical liberal framework. Nobody outside of the classical
Speaker 2: liberal dialectic is even allowed into the debate or the discussion.
Speaker 2: So I mean even the alt right, who many of
Speaker 2: whom are basically still within the liberal framework, they're not
Speaker 2: even allowed into the into the discussion. I mean JF
Speaker 2: is still within the liberal framework in terms of his worldview,
Speaker 2: aside from some sort of you know, race view in IQVUW.
Speaker 2: Same with stuff on stuff on Molineu. They're still liberals, uh,
Speaker 2: and they're not really allowed into the mainstream discourse. Molineux
Speaker 2: maybe to a degree because of the size of his audience,
Speaker 2: but he's only he's only allowed to do that because
Speaker 2: he's still champions the market god, and we're going to
Speaker 2: see that when you when you abandon philosophy with other
Speaker 2: things step into to take the place of the god
Speaker 2: of the system. We're also going to see that people
Speaker 2: have a system, whether they want it or not, whether
Speaker 2: they believe in systems or not. They have a system.
Speaker 2: They have a worldview, they have a philosophy, they have
Speaker 2: a paradigm. When I speak of the liberal paradigm, I
Speaker 2: don't just mean empiricism. We decided a debate yesterday with
Speaker 2: an atheistic materialist on this very question. When I speak
Speaker 2: of liberalism, I'm talking about the classical liberal paradigm, and yes,
Speaker 2: empiricism is part of that tradition. The Enlightenment gives birth
Speaker 2: to the classical liberal paradigm. Renaissance humanism gives birth to it,
Speaker 2: Nominalism gives birth to it, the Protestant Reformation gives birth
Speaker 2: to it. Then comes right this Enlightenment so called, which
Speaker 2: is not a turn towards science strictly speaking. People that
Speaker 2: have actually delved deeply into the history of the Enlightenment
Speaker 2: know that it comes out of hermeticism. They know that
Speaker 2: it comes out of hermetic, neoplatonic, esoteric, Rosicrucian secret societies
Speaker 2: and orders. You can read Dame Francis Yates book Rosicrucian Enlightenment,
Speaker 2: which proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Now
Speaker 2: I know that I've known that since undergrad because I
Speaker 2: was studying all the secret societies at the same time
Speaker 2: as I was taking on my Enlightenment classes. It's not
Speaker 2: hard to figure that out. But who has read Dame
Speaker 2: Francis Yates book Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Not many people, even though
Speaker 2: it's a very famous book. Anyway, So when I talk
Speaker 2: about the liberal tradition, I don't mean modern American liberalism.
Speaker 2: I don't just mean empiricism. I mean the entire tradition
Speaker 2: of the Enlightenment, because it is a move towards liberalism. Now,
Speaker 2: some of those people would not necessarily be called quote liberal,
Speaker 2: because maybe, like Hobbes, they believed in a giant Leviathan
Speaker 2: monolithic state. Right, Hegel is a statist, so uh, you
Speaker 2: know Hegel's philosophy of the right. That's not liberal. However,
Speaker 2: all of these figures after the Enlightenment come out of
Speaker 2: revolutionary traditions, except for you know, here and there, every
Speaker 2: now and then, there's a there's a gem in the
Speaker 2: midst of the the Maelstrom. Here the confusion that critiques it, right,
Speaker 2: you get you get writings about monarchy, you get writings
Speaker 2: against liberalism, you know, in the West, even after the revolutions.
Speaker 2: So again our stance here is not that science is bad,
Speaker 2: all right. We believe that science has its place. And
Speaker 2: in fact, you know, as Happa argues right and his
Speaker 2: points about democracy, the God that failed, we're always told
Speaker 2: this mantra of this, which is actually a revolutionary propaganda slogan,
Speaker 2: that the Middle Ages was the Dark Ages, monarchy represents
Speaker 2: dark Ages, and only because we have republican democracies do
Speaker 2: we have advancement and progress. And in fact Hoppa makes
Speaker 2: I think, very good consistent arguments that we could actually
Speaker 2: probably have been far more advanced had we not adopted
Speaker 2: the entire revolutionary ethos in the West. And of course,
Speaker 2: as you know, we've covered in countless articles, countless talks,
Speaker 2: and even in my book, the fact that the entire
Speaker 2: world has been infected with revolutionary thought. All of the
Speaker 2: revolutions are the same, as Aldus Huxley says, they all
Speaker 2: have the same point, they're all directed by the same people,
Speaker 2: and they're all taking man towards technocracy. That's why the
Speaker 2: entire world is under the spell of democracy. That's why
Speaker 2: Hoppa is correct to call it a god that has failed.
Speaker 2: But it actually didn't fail, because if you accept Huxley's thesis,
Speaker 2: it actually achieved its very purpose. The revolutions were there
Speaker 2: to bulldoze all of the previous paradigms and to set
Speaker 2: up the moneyed oligarchy that we have now today that
Speaker 2: runs the world. If you don't understand this, then you
Speaker 2: don't know what you're talking about, and don't try to
Speaker 2: debate me. Go listen to my Tragy and Hope talks.
Speaker 2: Because we know that the twentieth century represents the rise
Speaker 2: of the Fiat banking power to rule the world. Now
Speaker 2: we're living in the mopping up stages, and the goal
Speaker 2: was always to bring into technocracy anyway, So when I
Speaker 2: talk about liberalism, that's what I'm talking about. I'm talking
Speaker 2: about rejecting the ideology of the last several hundred years
Speaker 2: of the West. I'm not talking about rejecting science, not
Speaker 2: talking about rejecting scientific discoveries. Because as we've talked about
Speaker 2: many times, paradigms can be wrong. People can have erroneous,
Speaker 2: faulty paradigms or belief systems and make correct discoveries that
Speaker 2: can make correct advancements. And even atheists who don't agree
Speaker 2: with me have to admit this because they all know
Speaker 2: that there are theists who make advances in science and technology.
Speaker 2: Of course they do right, but they think those theists
Speaker 2: are wrong and have the wrong paradigm. Yet they are
Speaker 2: still able to make advances. Yeah, and that's because people
Speaker 2: aren't always as consistent as they should be. Right, People
Speaker 2: are better than their belief systems and paradigms most of
Speaker 2: the time, Thank god, Right, because if everybody was completely consistent,
Speaker 2: we would have chaos in terms of the atheistic materialistic
Speaker 2: world views I'm saying. Anyway, so we want to talk
Speaker 2: about the fact that, again, this is something that has
Speaker 2: been missed. I've noticed some patterns in the last few
Speaker 2: discussions and debates and talks that people are missing and
Speaker 2: they're missing issues that relate to what they think are semantics,
Speaker 2: what they think are are games, or like talking around
Speaker 2: a problem or trying to like doe, what did he do?
Speaker 2: What did that one guy say? The kids said, you're
Speaker 2: being shady, right when you talk about the fact that
Speaker 2: logic presupposes that you should follow through you know, the
Speaker 2: to the conclusion through a syllogism, to the conclusion that
Speaker 2: you should right, that there's some binding imperative force behind logic.
Speaker 2: That's being shady. You're being shady. No, I mean, this
Speaker 2: is just retarded. Okay, so, oh god, here we go.
Speaker 2: Science in terms of the scientific principle is a new development.
Speaker 2: It is a creature of the Enlightenment. Previously, there were
Speaker 2: ways to seek truth, but they weren't science. This is
Speaker 2: just retarded and in fact, the ancient Greeks practice science,
Speaker 2: many of the Christian theologians of the Middle Aged practice science.
Speaker 2: So you really have no idea what you're talking about, Vodka.
Speaker 2: You are just repeating, essentially the propaganda of the Enlightenment, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, look at how many inventions and discoveries come
Speaker 2: out of the Middle Ages with something that you're not taught,
Speaker 2: of course, in the modern university. So I actually think
Speaker 2: I'm go'n just delete this guy, because we're not here
Speaker 2: to have like basic bitch level debates here. The scientific
Speaker 2: method is not new to the Enlightenment period. The scientific
Speaker 2: method as a means by which this is the only
Speaker 2: way to have reliable knowledge is new to the to
Speaker 2: the period of the Enlightenment, that's true, but countless people
Speaker 2: back to the ancient world utilized the principles of the
Speaker 2: scientific method. Aristotle, you can go back to the ancient Greeks.
Speaker 2: Aristotle was a scientist. Aristotle practiced the scientific method right now.
Speaker 2: So again, my grad work in part was in terms
Speaker 2: of science, a philosophy of science. So the questions that
Speaker 2: philosophy of science asks are different than the questions that
Speaker 2: normative science involves itself with. And the problem is that
Speaker 2: most people who study science and hard sciences don't know philosophies,
Speaker 2: that they don't know what's being said or what's being asked.
Speaker 2: When people as bring these kinds of questions to bear,
Speaker 2: they think that it's semantics, they think that it's word games,
Speaker 2: and it's not asking basic questions about metaphysics, about ethics
Speaker 2: and about epistemology. Is just classic philosophy. And because scientism
Speaker 2: especially has a problem and has actually presuppositions and an
Speaker 2: agenda behind the rejecting of these branches of philosophy and
Speaker 2: ultimately philosophy itself. As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, philosophy is
Speaker 2: essentially worthless. It's no longer needed anymore now that we
Speaker 2: have science. I mean, this is so laughable and so
Speaker 2: absurd that and by the way, he was actually law.
Speaker 2: He was actually made fun of Mike not a few
Speaker 2: philosophers when he made that statement. It's really just speaks
Speaker 2: from ignorance, I mean extreme ignorance. Because you can the
Speaker 2: idea that you can master, say, some branch of hard sciences,
Speaker 2: and that therefore this gives you some pre eminent insight
Speaker 2: into all of reality is itself a fraudulent, stupid assumption. Right, So,
Speaker 2: for example, a lot of biologists will assume, right, JF
Speaker 2: does this. He assumes that because he studied biology at
Speaker 2: a gradual level, that therefore this is some sort of
Speaker 2: all encompassing paradigm answer to everything. Right, we can approach
Speaker 2: grand mythological narratives from the questions of the life sciences
Speaker 2: and biology. But of course that just assumes that biology
Speaker 2: is the lens by which everything should be read. And
Speaker 2: what philosophy does is that it asks the questions about presuppositions.
Speaker 2: It asks questions about is that really the case? Can
Speaker 2: we know that? Can we demonstrate that? Now every atheist,
Speaker 2: rational scientific materialists, blah blah blah, reduction. They claim to
Speaker 2: be to be logical, they claim to be rational, they
Speaker 2: claim to be the guardians of reason and science over
Speaker 2: against superstition. However, when we begin to start asking questions
Speaker 2: about what logic is, how logic functions in the world,
Speaker 2: we are immediately met with nothing but derision and the
Speaker 2: accusation that those are essentially stupid questions, the relics of
Speaker 2: an old age. But of course they're not, and that's
Speaker 2: because modern scientism has no answer to these questions. And
Speaker 2: that's why we're here today to defend traditional philosophy metaphysics.
Speaker 2: So again, so let's talk about Okay, so we got
Speaker 2: to the questions are coming in quicker than I can,
Speaker 2: then I can respond if I if I no, this
Speaker 2: is same simply not true. I mean, you obviously haven't
Speaker 2: read Aristotle vodka. If you've read Aristol, you know that
Speaker 2: he proceeds from an empirical scientific method. That's why he's
Speaker 2: the father of taxonomy. He's the father of all of
Speaker 2: these branches of science that involve empirical investigation. So, in fact,
Speaker 2: all of the Enlightenment thinkers who talked about returning to
Speaker 2: the scientific method were part of the classicist tradition. They
Speaker 2: were part of the Renaissance tradition that wants it to
Speaker 2: go back to the Greeks and specifically the empirical approach
Speaker 2: to science that Aristotle embodied. So you haven't read Aristotle,
Speaker 2: oh now, so he's the one guy who did that
Speaker 2: at a time when everyone disagreed with him. No, that's
Speaker 2: simply not true. In fact, many of the Church fathers
Speaker 2: were influenced by Aristotle, So you don't know what you're
Speaker 2: talking about. Aristotl had an entire school, right Lysium that
Speaker 2: he taught. So the idea that this is only Aristotle,
Speaker 2: I think it's about time to delete this dude. I've
Speaker 2: had enough of his retardation. So you're out here, So
Speaker 2: we're not gonna deal with that. He thinks Aristol was
Speaker 2: the one guy, And here's Aerostol has a tremendous influence
Speaker 2: on the history of the Church. Again, how many times
Speaker 2: have we recommended Saint John Damascus's Fount of Knowledge, which
Speaker 2: has a lot of good things to say about Aristotle.
Speaker 2: That does not mean they were Aristilians. Again, mistake. All right,
Speaker 2: So let's before we get into the stuff is coming in.
Speaker 2: So quick. I can't keep up with these questions. But
Speaker 2: let's get in first to the question of the theological
Speaker 2: question that was asked earlier about Saint John christystem, which
Speaker 2: was that how is it that Jesus says to the
Speaker 2: Serophenician woman in Marks that it's not proper to give
Speaker 2: to the dogs what is for the children. So now
Speaker 2: there's two errors that people make that I've seen over
Speaker 2: the years in my The Gentile Woman that Believes, and
Speaker 2: this is Mark seven twenty four through thirty. Now, the
Speaker 2: two errors that people make on this is that, on
Speaker 2: the one hand, there's the Christian so called Zionist heresy,
Speaker 2: which usually is tied of course to dispensationalism. And they
Speaker 2: think that there's like these plans that went into effect
Speaker 2: and changed when man failed, right, so like there was
Speaker 2: a dispensation to Noah, and then when man failed, God
Speaker 2: instituted a new plan. And what that does is essentially
Speaker 2: divides up and destroys the continuity of the scriptures, destroys
Speaker 2: the fact that there's one church from Able all the
Speaker 2: way to the New Testament. We are all members of
Speaker 2: the same at church. Right, Abraham is a saint in
Speaker 2: our church. Moses is a saint in our church. Okay,
Speaker 2: this is crucial to understanding the continuity of the Old
Speaker 2: and New Testament. They are members of the body of Christ.
Speaker 2: They're pictured in the Apocalypse as worshiping alongside the saints
Speaker 2: of the New Testament. So they were not saved in
Speaker 2: a different way. They were not saved by keeping the
Speaker 2: law or any of the nonsense that many of these
Speaker 2: stupid evangelical secx believe. They were saved by their faith
Speaker 2: in Christ. Paul reiterates this point many times in the
Speaker 2: New Testament Romans Foor, Galatians three. So they didn't have
Speaker 2: a different pathway to God. There's never been a different
Speaker 2: pathway to God. It's always through faith in either the
Speaker 2: coming Messiah looking forward to him, or faith in the
Speaker 2: Messiah who has come us. Now in the Church era,
Speaker 2: they're not saved in a different way. There was no
Speaker 2: way to keep the law. But even in the period
Speaker 2: that we're talking about, when God established the nation of Israel,
Speaker 2: there were still converts. We read about converts in the Exodus.
Speaker 2: There were people who in Egypt who had converted to
Speaker 2: the worship of the True God. When Ezra went out
Speaker 2: and established the synagogue system, we read about the converts.
Speaker 2: There were converts to the worship of the True God
Speaker 2: of Israel, mentioned even in the Book of Acts. And
Speaker 2: there was the dispersion, that is, the Jews that were
Speaker 2: outside of Israel, that had been set up in other
Speaker 2: cities where they again they had synagogues, and there were
Speaker 2: many converts in those cities. So the Judaism of this
Speaker 2: period accepted converts. In fact, Abraham was a convert, the
Speaker 2: founder of so called Judaism, well in the sense of
Speaker 2: the nation of Israel, right, Abraham was himself a convert
Speaker 2: out of paganism. Now a lot of people get confused
Speaker 2: with this, and then they think that so what happens
Speaker 2: is that in the New Testament Jesus came, and because
Speaker 2: these verses said that he came first to his own
Speaker 2: to the Jews, then there must have been some sort
Speaker 2: of new dispensation that was invented. This is what the
Speaker 2: Christian Zionist heretics say. There was a new dispensation that
Speaker 2: came about after the Jews rejected Christ, and then it
Speaker 2: went to the Gentiles. This is so stupid that it's
Speaker 2: almost unfathomable that anyone believes it. For one, how many
Speaker 2: times the New Testament, the latter chapters of Romans right.
Speaker 2: Many times in the Gospels there are quotations from the
Speaker 2: Psalms and the major and minor prophets that I've covered
Speaker 2: in my talks about the Gentiles converting. So if the
Speaker 2: prophet's prophesied the Gentiles converting, that was always the plan.
Speaker 2: It wasn't an accident, it wasn't planned. B according to
Speaker 2: these idiot evangelicals. No, the Gentile Church was always the plan,
Speaker 2: because it's the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham that
Speaker 2: in his seed all of the nations would be into
Speaker 2: the worship of the True God. His seed is Jesus.
Speaker 2: Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the covenants of
Speaker 2: the past, every one of the covenants again from Adam
Speaker 2: to Noah to Moses, or to Abraham to Moses to David,
Speaker 2: they all are foreshadowing Jesus, the awaiting prophet, priest and
Speaker 2: king to come, who fulfills all these predictions and in
Speaker 2: his death ground resurrection, which is an amazing mystery that
Speaker 2: God worked. In terms of his providence, God it foreknew
Speaker 2: that the Jews would reject him. In fact, it was
Speaker 2: predicted that the Jews would reject him all throughout their prophets.
Speaker 2: They rejected him, and so the salvation that they thought
Speaker 2: they were destroying went to the nations. And this is
Speaker 2: how the promises are fulfilled. It's a no brainer, really,
Speaker 2: I mean this is again, nobody ever taught any of
Speaker 2: this dispensational Judaized nonsense in the history of the Church.
Speaker 2: That's why it's promoted by the royals, the Rothchilds and Oxford,
Speaker 2: who printed the Schofield Study Bible that popularized it prior
Speaker 2: to the established right, prior to the Balfour Declaration. By
Speaker 2: the way, no accident there now. So on the one hand,
Speaker 2: we have the Judaized error, which believes that there's some
Speaker 2: and some guy was messaging me yesterday saying that I
Speaker 2: don't accept Orthodoxy because you don't keep all the Jewish
Speaker 2: feasts and fasts, and I was like, I'm like, well,
Speaker 2: have you read Galatians in Hebrews? And he's like, yes,
Speaker 2: I have, But Paul's wrong, And so I go to
Speaker 2: the guy's profile and his profile is all a bunch
Speaker 2: of Masonic stuff. So yeah, exactly, that's why we ended
Speaker 2: up blocking that guy. But yeah, so on the one hand,
Speaker 2: there is the error of trying to think that salvation
Speaker 2: can be had through the keeping of the ceremonies of
Speaker 2: the law. And again, this was the chief battle of
Speaker 2: the first century Church. This is the chief battle of
Speaker 2: the Book of Acts. Is this question. They have to
Speaker 2: have a council in Acts fifteen to settle this question.
Speaker 2: What does the council in Acts fifteen say. Well, basically,
Speaker 2: it looks back to the noah Hyde laws, to the
Speaker 2: laws of Noah. It says, essentially, in reaffirming the covenant
Speaker 2: with Noah, that the Church, under the direction of the
Speaker 2: Holy Spirit, the apostles, in the direction of Christ and
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit, make a decision, that make a determination
Speaker 2: in a synod, in a snudal decree, that it is
Speaker 2: not necessary for gentiles to keep the ceremonial laws of
Speaker 2: Moses and to receive circumcision, because again, there are plenty
Speaker 2: of righteous men prior to the giving of the ceremonial law,
Speaker 2: and therefore ceremonial law cannot be necessary to be saved.
Speaker 2: All right, This is Paul's argument. Paul says Abraham was
Speaker 2: accounted righteous prior to ceremonial laws being given, prior to
Speaker 2: the establishment of national Israel prior to the giving of circumcision.
Speaker 2: Circumcision it was a sign and seal for in it's
Speaker 2: into the national Covenant of Israel of that time, and
Speaker 2: it was proper and good at that time. But it
Speaker 2: was a type that looked forward, looked forward to fulfillment
Speaker 2: in baptism, which is something easily that can easily accessible,
Speaker 2: water that can be given to everybody, not just young males. Now,
Speaker 2: part of the reason that there was circumcision too was
Speaker 2: because of the transmission of ancestral sin. Right, ancestral sin
Speaker 2: comes from all the children of Adam, because of Adam's fall,
Speaker 2: So there was also that aspect to it as well.
Speaker 2: Circumcision was supposed to signify at tearing away of the
Speaker 2: old Man, as Paul says, as Jeremiah says. Even in
Speaker 2: the Old Testament, Jeremiah says that circumcisions signified repentance and
Speaker 2: rending of the heart. Circumcise your hearts, Jeremiah says, that
Speaker 2: was the whole point of it, looking forward to baptism.
Speaker 2: So now that the Messiah has come, now that Christ's
Speaker 2: instituted as Church, the New Testament essentially settles all of
Speaker 2: these disputes. Again, you don't even have to go to
Speaker 2: church father's you have to go outside of the New
Speaker 2: Testament to see all of these disputes settled. So let's
Speaker 2: go to the let's look at the other opposite error,
Speaker 2: which is kind of being popularized by some blogs sort
Speaker 2: of selectively takes certain church fathers out of context, and
Speaker 2: it says, oh, Judaism basically stopped existing at some undefined
Speaker 2: point and there were no Jews. Jews do not exist
Speaker 2: in the New Testament. This is an invention. This is
Speaker 2: nonsense too, all right. And so this kind of a
Speaker 2: perspective goes to the opposite extreme and doesn't understand and
Speaker 2: it borders basically on a kind of Martianism. Doesn't understand
Speaker 2: the importance of the place of the Old Testament, of
Speaker 2: the conus to the Old Testament, of the law, and
Speaker 2: even the ceremonies in preparation for the coming of Christ.
Speaker 2: And so Jesus when he talks to the woman at
Speaker 2: the well and John four is very clear, and what
Speaker 2: he says to her is base. This is this is interesting,
Speaker 2: it's it's a it's a great exemplary test case because
Speaker 2: what happens is the woman at the well and she's
Speaker 2: a Samaritan.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: Now, Samaritans were schismatics. That goes that go back to
Speaker 2: the time of the split of the Northern and Southern
Speaker 2: Kingdom of Israel and Judah Rea Boem and Jereboam right,
Speaker 2: and we have basically Jeroboam's setting up his own state
Speaker 2: controlled pagan sex cult religion. This is the origin of Samaritanism.
Speaker 2: So the Samaritans had this kind of schismatic idea that
Speaker 2: they had come up with, that that the temple is
Speaker 2: not where you worship God. You know what does she say?
Speaker 2: It says, oh, it's Jacob's well. You know, we worship
Speaker 2: at Jacob's well or something. Now, what does Jesus say?
Speaker 2: Does Jesus say nothing in the Old Testament matters. I
Speaker 2: came to destroy all that. No, no, no, no, he
Speaker 2: doesn't say that. Does he say there were no Jews,
Speaker 2: Jews didn't exist. That is an invention of Talmwood Epharises. No, no, no,
Speaker 2: he doesn't say that. He says woman, He says, you
Speaker 2: know not what you worship. He says you are a Samaritan.
Speaker 2: So Jesus doesn't wipe away all the religious distinctions. He
Speaker 2: essentially affirms you are a heretic. All right, you are
Speaker 2: a schismatic. You do think that you're worshiping the true God,
Speaker 2: but you do only you do not know what you worship. Okay,
Speaker 2: so she was in error, she was in schism. Jesus then,
Speaker 2: of course, demonstrates that he has omniscience by talking about
Speaker 2: her many husbands or lovers because she's not married. And
Speaker 2: the woman is then of course convicted. She says, oh,
Speaker 2: I perceive that you're a prophet, and she right. She
Speaker 2: had tried to steer the conversation into religious controversy, and
Speaker 2: Jesus brings it back to the question of moral problem.
Speaker 2: He's like, no, your issue is moral. It's not an
Speaker 2: issue of abstract theological questions. You have a moral issue.
Speaker 2: So then Jesus goes on to say that truly, I
Speaker 2: say to you that the time is coming, and now
Speaker 2: is when the worshipers of God will worship God in
Speaker 2: spirit and in truth, not just on not just in
Speaker 2: the temple, but in all places. So, in other words,
Speaker 2: the worship of God is not going to be restricted
Speaker 2: to the Temple, which it previously had been, which was
Speaker 2: by God's design on purpose. It is then to extend
Speaker 2: into all of the nations in the Church. But the
Speaker 2: key point to remember here is that Jesus is stressing
Speaker 2: that salvation is of the Jews. There was no salvation
Speaker 2: in any other place. You could not find the true
Speaker 2: worship of God in some other nation. Now, before the
Speaker 2: establishment of the Nation of Israel, it's possible plausible that
Speaker 2: there were in some way priests like Melchizedic or people
Speaker 2: like Job right who were righteous men outside of the
Speaker 2: Nation of Israel, who had in some way maintained the
Speaker 2: true tradition from able right. So this is mo most
Speaker 2: likely how and why Job or jeth Row or Melchizedek,
Speaker 2: who are not levitical priests, still had knowledge of and
Speaker 2: understanding of Him, belief of in the One True God right,
Speaker 2: and presumably also belief in a coming Messiah. In fact,
Speaker 2: Job predicts Christ. There are multiple Messianic prophecies in the
Speaker 2: Book of Job, and Job was not written by Jew.
Speaker 2: It's written by gentile. So Job himself, by the way,
Speaker 2: that shows us that there were true gentile believers even
Speaker 2: in the Old Testament. So now let's look at this
Speaker 2: passage then, when Jesus says to the Seraphenician woman that
Speaker 2: gentiles are dogs, He is not making this up out
Speaker 2: of nowhere. He is reaffirming what is in the Old Testament.
Speaker 2: Right now, a lot of people who take this opposite view,
Speaker 2: they think that it's somehow wrong to talk about the
Speaker 2: fact that the Old Testament, particularly the Psalms, right in
Speaker 2: many places. It's not just a Talmudic invention that the
Speaker 2: Law and the prophets and the Psalms speak of the
Speaker 2: nations in this way. They do because they were that way,
Speaker 2: they were dogs, because they acted that way. Right, they
Speaker 2: were into some seriously degenerate stuff. And yes, it eventually
Speaker 2: infected Israel too, and it Israel fell into the worship
Speaker 2: of serious degenerate stuff. So it's not like I mean,
Speaker 2: this is the point is that both of these things
Speaker 2: are true. It's not either or right. There were periods
Speaker 2: when Israel was faithful to God in some instances, and
Speaker 2: when that was the case, God would subdue their enemies.
Speaker 2: And David can write Psalms talking about in the nations
Speaker 2: being heathens, being degenerate and deserving of divine justice. Right,
Speaker 2: how many times does David say this in the Psalm?
Speaker 2: How many times the prophets say that multiple times? Yet
Speaker 2: at the same time It's also true that the same
Speaker 2: accusations are turned back on Israel itself. When Israel starts
Speaker 2: to act like the nations, the prophets say, you are
Speaker 2: a whore. Israel is Sodom, Israel is Gomorrah. Okay, So
Speaker 2: these things can all be true at the same time.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: So Jesus is being consistent when he affirms the fact
Speaker 2: that it was true that the nations were doglike and heathen.
Speaker 2: The gift of the covenant was not given to all nations.
Speaker 2: It was given only to the nation of Israel. I'm
Speaker 2: speaking after Abraham, of course, right. So that is the norm,
Speaker 2: and that is true, and that is correct. Paul does
Speaker 2: not say that Moses was not a legitimate covenant from God.
Speaker 2: Is Jesus who made the covenant with Moses. This is crucial,
Speaker 2: and every Orthodox person makes this very apologetic argument. So
Speaker 2: they even the people who don't understand this already agree
Speaker 2: with me. When they look at the burning bush and
Speaker 2: they say, that's Jesus speaking in the burning bush. Jesus says,
Speaker 2: I am that I am multiple signs in John seven,
Speaker 2: Jesus says, I am that I am. I am right.
Speaker 2: So it's Jesus in the Burning Bush, and it's Jesus
Speaker 2: making the covenant with Moses. Again, it's not that difficult
Speaker 2: when you understand basic continuity between the Old and New Testament. Now,
Speaker 2: when we understand that, we see then that it is
Speaker 2: in fact true. Just think of Israel as the Church
Speaker 2: of the Old Covenant, and so just as in the
Speaker 2: New Covenant, the Church can pray and precatory prayers and
Speaker 2: pray against her enemies, which she does and has for
Speaker 2: two thousand years. So likewise, did they do the same
Speaker 2: thing in the Church of Israel in the Old Testament?
Speaker 2: It was no different. Now there are differences in the
Speaker 2: sense of uh modus operandi, Like you know, we don't
Speaker 2: principally try to go to war against Canaanites, although at
Speaker 2: times the Church, well I should say Orthodox nations and
Speaker 2: kings have gone to war. Everybody knows this basic church history, right. So,
Speaker 2: even though there's there's a shift in emphasis between the
Speaker 2: Old Testament period focusing on a more external battle related
Speaker 2: scenario of the conquest of Cana et cetera, that was
Speaker 2: a type, Paul says. The conquest of cana was a
Speaker 2: type of the Church conquering the world. Paul makes this
Speaker 2: this analogy very clear in the New Testament. So the
Speaker 2: typology of Cana's land is a is the is the
Speaker 2: spiritual is fulfilled in the spiritual approach of the Church
Speaker 2: going out and conquering the nations to the preaching of
Speaker 2: the Gospel, essentially pulling down the demons that the nations worship.
Speaker 2: That's the true battle, the true conquest of Canaan, that
Speaker 2: is happening now in our very day, in the last
Speaker 2: two thousand years. Does that mean that in the Old
Speaker 2: Testament there were no demons? No, of course not. Demons
Speaker 2: are mentioned multiple times in the Old Testament. Does that
Speaker 2: mean the Old Testament wasn't spiritual?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Right, Think about how many times prophets see into the
Speaker 2: spiritual realm and they see chariots fighting with the armies
Speaker 2: of Israel. They see into Isaiah sees into heaven and
Speaker 2: he sees, you know, in Isaiah six he sees he
Speaker 2: sees God. In fact, and by the way, John says
Speaker 2: in his Gospel that when Isaiah looked into heaven, he
Speaker 2: saw Christ by the way. So anyway, when we understand that,
Speaker 2: we understand that Jesus's mission it was appropriate. Paula firms
Speaker 2: us too, by the way that in Realm, as he
Speaker 2: says that to the Jews were given the Covenant, they
Speaker 2: were given the Law, they were given the promises fought,
Speaker 2: they were given the fathers, et cetera, et cetera. So
Speaker 2: naturally Jesus had to come to the Jews first, who
Speaker 2: were his people, and salvation was offered first to the
Speaker 2: jew Right. This is why pulse is to the jew
Speaker 2: first and then to the gentile. This is why in
Speaker 2: the Book of Acts the apostles go and preach the
Speaker 2: Gospel first to the Jews. Salvation is offered first to
Speaker 2: the Jews. And what happens, well, many many accept it,
Speaker 2: many also reject it. Right, and so we think of
Speaker 2: the section and Acts where Paul says, since you reject it,
Speaker 2: we now go to the Gentiles. And if you read
Speaker 2: through the Book of Actual see that you know it's
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit essentially directing this process. Okay, So, for example,
Speaker 2: at one point, the Spirit forbids the church to spread
Speaker 2: the Gospel into an area of Asia. We don't know why,
Speaker 2: we're not told why the Spirit forbade the Gospel going
Speaker 2: into that region, We don't know. Apparently it would be
Speaker 2: some other time right, that's the counsels of God. We
Speaker 2: don't fully understand all the counsels of God, but what
Speaker 2: we do have in Revelation is a lot of information about,
Speaker 2: you know, the kinds of things that I'm saying. We
Speaker 2: do have information about how to make sense of these texts.
Speaker 2: Jesus not being inconsistent when he says that this woman
Speaker 2: is a gentile, and she is, and that was important
Speaker 2: for in the history of redemption. That was important for
Speaker 2: that phase in history. Now that the Church has been established, right,
Speaker 2: and by the way, Jesus grants the woman's wish, So
Speaker 2: even though she was a gentile, even though she did
Speaker 2: have this affiliation with pagan culture, Jesus still grants her
Speaker 2: her supplication. And in fact, multiple times in the Gospels
Speaker 2: Jesus preaches to gentiles, he preaches to schismatics, right, And
Speaker 2: this is the story of the Good Samaritan, right. And
Speaker 2: that's because, as many of the church fathers point out,
Speaker 2: the Gospel examples of like the Roman Centurion and so
Speaker 2: forth believing in Christ. These are prefigurations of the fact
Speaker 2: that the gentiles will enlarge accept the message of the Gospel,
Speaker 2: and many, many of the Jews will not and as
Speaker 2: a nation, the Jewish nation falls under God's judgment precisely
Speaker 2: because they reject their Messiah. So, long story short, both
Speaker 2: of those positions are incorrect. There's the extreme of thinking
Speaker 2: that I don't know where they get this, this idea
Speaker 2: that the word jew was not in the Bible. It
Speaker 2: was invented by Talmudic persons, like hundreds of years after
Speaker 2: the coming of Christ. It's very retarded. If you read
Speaker 2: Zechariah eight, there's a prediction that thus says the Lord Almighty,
Speaker 2: in those days, ten men from all the nations around
Speaker 2: excuse me, ten men from all the tongues of the
Speaker 2: nations will stop you and ask you, and grab a
Speaker 2: hold of you, and they will say to a Jewish man,
Speaker 2: we will go with you, for we have heard God
Speaker 2: is with you. Well, this is Pentecost. This is what
Speaker 2: happens on Pentegost. This is what happens when Jesus sends
Speaker 2: the Jewish apostles out into the world. Right many, many,
Speaker 2: many nations cling on to these apostles and they say,
Speaker 2: we have heard God is with you. Tell us about
Speaker 2: your God. This is a prediction of Pentecost and the
Speaker 2: apostles and the New Testament, and they were all Jews. Okay.
Speaker 2: And by the way, Zachariah Ate is using the word Jew.
Speaker 2: So jew is not a post New Testament Talmudic invention.
Speaker 2: It's completely retarded. All Right, we went, I've already gone
Speaker 2: fifty minutes on just that one question. So hopefully that
Speaker 2: is illustrative people can benefit from that. But beyond that,
Speaker 2: I'm not really seeing what action Jackson or whatever that
Speaker 2: dude's name was, I don't really see the problem and
Speaker 2: what he asked. I think he was tripped up by
Speaker 2: the fact that Jesus affirmed that gentiles were dogs. Well,
Speaker 2: this is in the Psalms, right, this is in the prophets,
Speaker 2: and it's not because they weren't humans, because they acted
Speaker 2: like dogs. And so, by the way, this is important.
Speaker 2: For example, this is something a lot of people misunderstand.
Speaker 2: I had a debate one time on the street with
Speaker 2: a Hasidic Jew who started a conversation with me. Interestingly,
Speaker 2: he started talking about the Old Testament. I think he
Speaker 2: thought I was Jewish. I don't know, but he was like,
Speaker 2: are you a Jew? And I was like, well in
Speaker 2: the true sense, yeah, He's like what. So we got
Speaker 2: in this debate and he said, he said, his view
Speaker 2: was that the law didn't apply to Tiles, it was
Speaker 2: only for Israel. And I was like, well, okay, the
Speaker 2: law giving him Mount Sinai was for Israel. But God
Speaker 2: still held nations accountable for their sins. In other words,
Speaker 2: for example, if you read Joshua, the reason that God
Speaker 2: sends Joshua into Canaan's land for the conquest is because
Speaker 2: of the wickedness of those nations. That means they're held
Speaker 2: accountable for their wickedness. How many times in the prophets
Speaker 2: do the prophets talk about the nations being wicked violating
Speaker 2: God's law? Well, what law were they violating? If they
Speaker 2: weren't under God's law, they were under the law moral law,
Speaker 2: what laws were they violating? When Nebec Andeser, you know,
Speaker 2: was arrogant and prideful and blasphemed the God of the Jews,
Speaker 2: the true God, Well he gets struck with madness and
Speaker 2: acts like a damn fool out in the wood for
Speaker 2: seven years like an animal. So he offended some kind
Speaker 2: of moral law. Right, So, and it wasn't by the way,
Speaker 2: it's not just no hide laws. Okay. So the noea
Speaker 2: covenant was a covenant and it wasn't an effect. And again,
Speaker 2: if you understand Acts fifteen, they are referring back to
Speaker 2: the Noa Noah Hyde laws in Acts fifteen. That's what
Speaker 2: the first Council of the Church in Acts fifteen in
Speaker 2: Jerusalem looked back to to determine the normative statues for
Speaker 2: receiving gentiles into the predominantly Jewish Church of that time. Right,
Speaker 2: Jewish converts to Christianity, the entire early Church is Jewish. Okay,
Speaker 2: the whole thing. It's founded by Jews, predominantly Jews. Right,
Speaker 2: the first ten chapters of Acts and this if you
Speaker 2: read Acts ten, right when we get to the story
Speaker 2: of Cornelius, this is why Peter is so confused. Peter
Speaker 2: has such a hard time with this question because of
Speaker 2: his grounding in, you know, the Jewish law and prophets.
Speaker 2: So he's very confused. And in fact, Peter's so confused
Speaker 2: that it actually requires visions directly from God. Right, he
Speaker 2: sees the vision of the sheet with the unclean animals.
Speaker 2: And again in the Old Testament, unclean animals represented the
Speaker 2: unclean nations, the gentiles and demons. If you doubt the
Speaker 2: favorites that represent demons read at Isaiah thirty four, where
Speaker 2: Lilith is mentioned and other demons are pictured in Isaiah
Speaker 2: thirty four under the imagery of unclean birds, storks, owls,
Speaker 2: et cetera. It even mentions satyrs there by the way,
Speaker 2: goat demons. So that was even present in the Old Testament. Anyway,
Speaker 2: where were we we were talking about Cornelius. So the
Speaker 2: sheet comes down right in Peter's vision and it's got
Speaker 2: unclean animals in it, and God says eat. Peter says, no,
Speaker 2: By the way, that's not a vegan command, is it.
Speaker 2: The biblical God is not vegan. By the way, Peter says, no,
Speaker 2: I can't eat those, those are unclean. So this vision
Speaker 2: happens three times, and God says, what I've called clean,
Speaker 2: don't call unclean. So that's what it took for Peter
Speaker 2: to finally be convinced. And even after that, Peter was
Speaker 2: still had doubts because Paul had to get in Peter's
Speaker 2: face over it. Remember this is mentioned in the beginning
Speaker 2: of Galatians. Paul and Peter have a big falling out
Speaker 2: over it because Peter still keeps falling back into the
Speaker 2: temptations of thinking that Gentiles are not fully inheritors of
Speaker 2: the promises with Jews, but they are. However, for the
Speaker 2: period of the Old Covenant, it was true that there
Speaker 2: was supposed to be a separation. For example, the Temple
Speaker 2: itself worship itself during the Old Covenant period did not
Speaker 2: allow gentiles into the Temple. You could come to as
Speaker 2: a worshiper of the true out of Israel to the
Speaker 2: outer portico that was allowed for converts. All right, this
Speaker 2: is gentiles who had converted to the God of Israel.
Speaker 2: But you couldn't go into the temple. Now who set
Speaker 2: that up? God did? Okay, So this wasn't something that
Speaker 2: Moses made up. It wasn't something that the evil God
Speaker 2: of the Old Testament made up. It was put into
Speaker 2: place for a time period until, as Hebrews said, the
Speaker 2: time of Reformation came. What's the time of Reformation? The
Speaker 2: New Covenant, the New Covenant is not something that just
Speaker 2: happens when Jesus dies. The New Covenant is established from
Speaker 2: the entire period of the first century, from the incarnation
Speaker 2: birth of Christ all the way up to the destruction
Speaker 2: of the Temple in seventy eighty. That is the establishment
Speaker 2: of the New Covenant. That whole period and all of
Speaker 2: the events of that period are crucial to fulfilling all
Speaker 2: of these Old Testament prophecies and ushering in the last days.
Speaker 2: This is also important because consistently in the Old Testament,
Speaker 2: for example, the prophecy of Joel says that the last
Speaker 2: days are instituted when Pentecost happens. Right, Joel's not talking
Speaker 2: about the end of the world. It might have a
Speaker 2: reference to the end of the world, but Joel says
Speaker 2: that the last days begin when the spirit is poured
Speaker 2: out on all flesh. Peter says, Joel was talking about Pentecost.
Speaker 2: Pentecost happened in Acts two. Okay, can you read? Can
Speaker 2: you make the connection between the fact that Peter in
Speaker 2: Acts two is quoting Joel. Joel is not talking about
Speaker 2: some garbage on TBN what John Hagy says. Joel's talking
Speaker 2: about Pentecost, which happens in Acts two. By the way,
Speaker 2: that refutes basically the entirety of dispensationalism. So the spirit
Speaker 2: being poured out on all flesh equally also shows that
Speaker 2: there's no longer the distinction in the ritual ceremonial sense
Speaker 2: that was necessarily important for the Old Testament period. Now, okay,
Speaker 2: it's no longer important. Now there's no longer June or
Speaker 2: Greek slave, nor free male nor female. By the way,
Speaker 2: Paul's not a transgender advocate. Paul's not saying that that
Speaker 2: means there's no such thing as Jews and Greeks anymore. No,
Speaker 2: of course, they still exist, and it's only the idiot
Speaker 2: retards that quote that verse to try to prove stupid
Speaker 2: egalitarian presuppositions. That verse has nothing to do with that.
Speaker 2: Paul elsewhere says slaves submit to your masters, women submit
Speaker 2: to your husbands. Right, Jews and Greeks are still Jews
Speaker 2: and Greeks. They don't erase all their heritage. This is
Speaker 2: all the liberal presupposition, the modernist presupposition that tries to
Speaker 2: wrest Christianity from its historical contexts and lie and take
Speaker 2: verses out of context. Paul is saying that salvation comes
Speaker 2: to all people of any status in life. Paul is
Speaker 2: not saying that Christianity is a revolutionary force to overthrow
Speaker 2: structures and governments and to set up some trainy egalitarian
Speaker 2: global homo world system as these idiots try to make it.
Speaker 2: Nobody could honestly read the rest of the New Testament
Speaker 2: and actually think that. So it's only lying, deceiving people
Speaker 2: who take those verses out to try to prove that
Speaker 2: they don't know what they're talking about. So anyway, Paul,
Speaker 2: even in Romans ninth or eleven, seems to also uphold
Speaker 2: the fact that Jews will continue to even be Jews
Speaker 2: until the time of their conversion, right. And I do
Speaker 2: think many of the fathers, by the way, I just
Speaker 2: found a whole bunch more verses where the Fathers actually
Speaker 2: back this up. Cereal of Alexandria, by the way, it
Speaker 2: appears to have been very convinced that many of these
Speaker 2: texts predict a future conversion of the Jews. The Orthodox
Speaker 2: Study Bible in fact mentions this in many places. I
Speaker 2: think that that's true. I think Romans eleven just very
Speaker 2: clearly is making again, as I pointed out many times,
Speaker 2: the claim that eventually Jews will convert. I don't know
Speaker 2: when that is. We don't know when that is, but
Speaker 2: I think that that's the obvious meaning of what Paul's saying. Now,
Speaker 2: do I think that necessarily has anything to do with
Speaker 2: the founding of the state of Israel. No, I do not.
Speaker 2: I don't see where that necessarily fits into any of this.
Speaker 2: I'm going by what's in revelation. I'm not interested in reading,
Speaker 2: you know, headlines into scripture. That's what how lindsay and John, Hey,
Speaker 2: you know all those retards do. We don't do that.
Speaker 2: We don't read news headlines into the Bible. We don't
Speaker 2: look at the fact that, you know, the anti Christ is,
Speaker 2: you know, mentioned in a bunch of movies and then
Speaker 2: try to read that into the Bible and say we're
Speaker 2: in the last days the I mean people, somebody with
Speaker 2: somebody was making that comment on one of my videos.
Speaker 2: They were like, you have a mental illness because you
Speaker 2: think that these Hollywood movies are saying that the Antichrist
Speaker 2: is coming. No, if you've listened to what I said,
Speaker 2: you know that I actually make fun of that. I
Speaker 2: make fun of the the argument like the Croleians had,
Speaker 2: that that you could invoke the Antichrist by doing a
Speaker 2: bunch of rituals, and that John's Book of Revelation is
Speaker 2: a gnostic ritual text. I talk about how stupid that is.
Speaker 2: And the only reason Crowley thought that was because he was,
Speaker 2: guess what, raised in a retarded dispensationalist sect. The Plymouth
Speaker 2: Brethren is where dispensationalism comes from. Did you know that? Yep,
Speaker 2: John Nelson Darby all right, Plymouth Brethren. Oh, they also
Speaker 2: happened to produce Aleister Crowley. So the only only reason
Speaker 2: Crowley and his stupidity and ignorance, thought that he could
Speaker 2: turn the Book of Revelation into a magical text for
Speaker 2: invoking the Antichrist and bringing it into fruition and having
Speaker 2: sex with the horror Babylon and all this nonsense. John's
Speaker 2: not talking about Crowley, dude. So I constantly talk about
Speaker 2: how stupid this is. Uh So the guy who assumed
Speaker 2: that I was like reading movies and headlines into the
Speaker 2: Bible had no idea what I was talking about. So anyway,
Speaker 2: let's keep in mind too that in Mark seven, before
Speaker 2: I end on this topic, Jesus says that Jesus rebukes
Speaker 2: the scribes and the Pharisees. So it's in the context
Speaker 2: of this. The story of calling the woman a dog
Speaker 2: is in the context of of rebuking the scribes and
Speaker 2: the Pharisees. Now that's important because it shows us that
Speaker 2: Jesus there's not a there's not like a catchphrase by
Speaker 2: which we can, you know, lift these verses out of context. Right,
Speaker 2: Like a lot of times, like a Baptist will try
Speaker 2: to say something like, you will leave the traditions of
Speaker 2: men in your Orthodox church. You follow the traditions of men.
Speaker 2: Jesus said to the Pharisees, don't follow the traditions of men. Well,
Speaker 2: he also in other places does say follow the traditions.
Speaker 2: So right, this is a different question. Right, The question
Speaker 2: of whether there's an oral tradition is a different question
Speaker 2: from whether or not there's the traditions of men. Now,
Speaker 2: the scribes and the Pharisees had invented and put into
Speaker 2: place a bunch of traditions of men, which, if you
Speaker 2: listen to the Jeremiah lectures, Jeremiah talked about. Jeremiah said
Speaker 2: in his day that the scribes and Pharisees had done
Speaker 2: this and it was a problem, and that they were
Speaker 2: circumventing the law itself. Jesus reaffirms Jeremiah, and in fact,
Speaker 2: there are whole chapters in Jeremiah that mirror the ministry
Speaker 2: of Jesus. We've pointed that out in the Jeremiah talk,
Speaker 2: which shows continuity, by the way, but The reason I
Speaker 2: bring that up is because Jesus can, at the on
Speaker 2: the one hand, talk about the hypocrisy of the scribes
Speaker 2: and Pharisees and the fact that they had invented traditions
Speaker 2: of men, and at the same time in Matthew twenty
Speaker 2: three he says, the scribes and the Pharisees sit in
Speaker 2: the seat of Moses. Therefore do as they say, but
Speaker 2: not as they do because they're hypocrites. But they were
Speaker 2: the established religious authority. Notice he does not mention the
Speaker 2: Sadducees why, because they were the liberals. They were not
Speaker 2: the established authority. There was a hierarchical established authority and
Speaker 2: it was the scribal Pharisaic system that Ezra set up.
Speaker 2: Ezra set up the synagogue system. Moses talked about the
Speaker 2: need for a synagogue system. Ezra then set it up
Speaker 2: later on. There's no such thing in the Old Testament
Speaker 2: as a seat of Moses, right, There's no moses dolic
Speaker 2: succession mentioned. However, Jesus says that this is true. They
Speaker 2: do sit in the seat of Moses. They are the
Speaker 2: legitimate authoritative expounders, expositors and judges of the law. Yes,
Speaker 2: they're hypocrites. However, they still retain a position of authority.
Speaker 2: Jesus says that they are much more liable to condemnation
Speaker 2: than the rest of the people that role of authority,
Speaker 2: and we see this in the Old Testament as well. Right,
Speaker 2: God judges David or the rulers, or the kings or
Speaker 2: the heads of things far more severely than he judges
Speaker 2: the normal the normies. I mean, he judged at him
Speaker 2: pretty severely, because Adam was the head of the human race.
Speaker 2: How severely does God judge David pretty severely?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: When David? What happens to the offspring that David has
Speaker 2: with Bathsheba? Yeah, exactly. So, in the same way, we
Speaker 2: have to understand that there is at the same time
Speaker 2: traditions of men as there is legitimate oral tradition. Right,
Speaker 2: both of those things are true. Jesus can rebuke the
Speaker 2: Pharisees and call them hypocrites while at the same time
Speaker 2: recognizing that they have a legitimate authority. So it's that simple. Really,
Speaker 2: I'll read a couple of super chaps before we move
Speaker 2: back to philosophy, because I kind of went for an
Speaker 2: hour on that one theology question, and really, really what
Speaker 2: we were coming to talk about was the philosophy. That's okay,
Speaker 2: you know, we want to go with whatever anybody's interested in.
Speaker 2: That's what we'll talk about. I did say we could
Speaker 2: talk theology today. So we're taking challenges and questions today.
Speaker 2: The first question Evan Schultz, thank you for that. You've
Speaker 2: been killing it.
Speaker 1: Jay.
Speaker 2: I found a challenging discussion. I found it challenge discussing
Speaker 2: Orthodoxy with women as they find it sexist. Any tips, well,
Speaker 2: I mean, modern women are of course bathed in the
Speaker 2: idea that patriarchy or religions that have only male authorities
Speaker 2: and priests are sexist. There's not much you can do
Speaker 2: about it, because you know, Jesus set it up. So
Speaker 2: their problem ultimately is with Jesus. Too bad. I mean,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't worry if people I mean, in other words,
Speaker 2: you can't water down these facts to like, you know,
Speaker 2: appease some some feminists. I wouldn't worry about it, just
Speaker 2: move on. My tip would be to move on to
Speaker 2: somebody else. By the way, this is why you have
Speaker 2: to watch out for feminists, is because people like Angela
Speaker 2: Dahl Carlson, who hopes and praise for women's ordination to
Speaker 2: the priesthood. These people want to change the church, right
Speaker 2: this mirriam Usuf woman, all right, she's blogging about all
Speaker 2: this of this microaggressions and social justice warriors. These people
Speaker 2: want to change the church. Sorry, but you don't have
Speaker 2: the right to do that. And you're working from a
Speaker 2: spirit of wickedness. What does what does scriptures say that
Speaker 2: the spirit of rebellion is like the spirit of rebellion
Speaker 2: is like witchcraft. The sin of rebellion is as the
Speaker 2: sin of witchcraft. So get out of here, witches. Any
Speaker 2: significance to old baptism being for men only, that is
Speaker 2: not true. I don't know what you mean old baptism.
Speaker 2: You mean circumcision. If you mean circumcision, then yes, as
Speaker 2: I pointed out, circumcisions signified ancestral sin. On the one hand,
Speaker 2: the sense of the transition, the transmission of ancestral sin
Speaker 2: through all the descendants of Adam, and that transmission has
Speaker 2: had through the male member. It's the semen that creates
Speaker 2: a new human being. That doesn't mean that women didn't
Speaker 2: have ancestral sin. All human beings did. But the transmission
Speaker 2: occurs through the sexual copulation act from one generation to
Speaker 2: the next, and By the way, that doesn't mean that
Speaker 2: ancestral sin is a thing, a substance that somehow meant
Speaker 2: that humans were tainted. Corruption and sin are not things
Speaker 2: that are They're not things. As the fathers say, evil
Speaker 2: is only located in the turn of the will away
Speaker 2: from the good. However, all of Adam's descendants have these
Speaker 2: same propensities because they have his fallen nature. When we
Speaker 2: talk about fallen or corupted nature, we don't mean that
Speaker 2: the nature itself is inherently evil. This is the error
Speaker 2: of Manicheans, of Calvinists, Lutherans, and Protestants. Many times they
Speaker 2: conceive of original sin as somehow being something connected to
Speaker 2: man's nature itself, which is to then give sin substance
Speaker 2: or being or ontological existence, which is the Manichean heresy.
Speaker 2: Sin does not have ontological being or existence. It's not
Speaker 2: a thing. It's a move of the will away from
Speaker 2: the good. So baptism, so the significance of circumcision was
Speaker 2: only to be a type of baptism. And what it
Speaker 2: was supposed to teach, as we said, according to Jeremiah,
Speaker 2: was to throw off the foreskin of your hearts. In
Speaker 2: other words, you have hard hearts you need to cut
Speaker 2: away the outer hard heartedness that you have, right, and
Speaker 2: the reason that you have this is because you are
Speaker 2: a son of Adam. That's wine, dan Mann. What do
Speaker 2: you think are the problems with praxeology? Go listen to
Speaker 2: the debates with Robert Taylor. We had multiple debates one
Speaker 2: to three debates with Robert Taylor on theism and capitalism,
Speaker 2: and the problems are all outlined there. It's a retarded
Speaker 2: system based in Marxism and anarchism, based on the idea
Speaker 2: of calculating human actions as if you're some sort of computer.
Speaker 2: It's a completely autistic, retarded thing. Yeah, and all three
Speaker 2: of the debates with Robert Taylor, pre eminent proponent of praxeology,
Speaker 2: shows how retarded it is. Paul Albert, thank you fifty dollars.
Speaker 2: Thank you for all you do. Jake up the good work. Well,
Speaker 2: thank you, Paul. Thank you for supporting my work.
Speaker 3: And I will.
Speaker 2: Continue to put this stuff out as long as we
Speaker 2: have support and the freedom to talk about these things.
Speaker 2: Robert Taylor not the same Robert Taylor. By the way,
Speaker 2: what's a good elevator pitch for orthodoxy for Protestants and Catholics?
Speaker 2: My wife and I get a lot of what is orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't try to do quick elevator pitches. I was
Speaker 2: just just send people the documentary on the Icon, which
Speaker 2: is a popular YouTube documentary. I think it's it's like
Speaker 2: three hours. But if the person's not willing to invest
Speaker 2: three hours in the documentary, then they're not that interested anyway.
Speaker 2: And so anybody who is willing to invest three three
Speaker 2: hours in the Icon documentary, I would say is worth
Speaker 2: talking to. So that Icon documentary is really good. Jim
Speaker 2: Strange five dollars, best apologetics on YouTube, Thank you, Jay, Well,
Speaker 2: thank you Jim. There's not a lot of apologetics going
Speaker 2: on on YouTube, really, I mean, that's that good, So
Speaker 2: thank you. In other words, I don't think it's necessarily
Speaker 2: that I'm that good, but there's not a lot of
Speaker 2: apologetics out there anyway. That's any good, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: all these Protestant presubpositionalists, they're terrible, good grief. They give
Speaker 2: transcendental arguments a bad name, by the way. So so
Speaker 2: thank you there, Jim Strange. Randy Churchill twenty dollars, Thank you, Randy.
Speaker 2: Appreciate that. White Top two dollars, thank you, White top.
Speaker 2: All right, excellent, to really appreciate you guys. All right,
Speaker 2: we do want to get to some philosophy here. I
Speaker 2: don't want to mind or everyone in the theological minutia,
Speaker 2: although it was important. Again, people are confused over two extremes.
Speaker 2: On the one hand of judaizing heresy of the Evangelicals,
Speaker 2: and then they go to the other extreme of some
Speaker 2: sort of weird gnostic thing where Marcianism type thing where
Speaker 2: like the idea of jew with some later invention, and
Speaker 2: I don't know, people don't know what they're talking about.
Speaker 2: That's because they don't know the Bible. That's the problem
Speaker 2: here is that people are not actually familiar with what's
Speaker 2: in scripture. So they read these blogs and these websites
Speaker 2: and these they come up with these weird views. And
Speaker 2: trust me, I know, I've spent twenty years wandering through
Speaker 2: all of these different views, you know. I mean I
Speaker 2: went from being a Baptist that grew up Baptists into
Speaker 2: reading the Church Father's Church history, right, Calvinism, and then Catholicism.
Speaker 2: And this is before I even knew about Orthodoxy. Right,
Speaker 2: So Orthodoxy is kind of a hidden thing in America.
Speaker 2: You really have to seek it out. Uh, and Orthodoxy
Speaker 2: doesn't have It's not like all there's no more problems, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, any church, any place you go, there's gonna
Speaker 2: be problems. But I find the Orthodoxy, historically speaking, traditional
Speaker 2: Orthodox theology really has the answers to to all of
Speaker 2: these these difficulties, you know. So okay, we're gonna get
Speaker 2: to the philosophy now, defense of traditional philosophy and metaphysics.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna recommend a bunch of good books and essays
Speaker 2: here because I think we probably will have a lot
Speaker 2: of inquirers or challengers or people curious in regard to atheism,
Speaker 2: in regard to evolution, in regard to scientism, in regard
Speaker 2: to to anti metaphysical, deontologist, deconstructionist type views. So we
Speaker 2: want to get to all that. Okay, So he did,
Speaker 2: and he did mean circumcision as old baptism. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: that's a good way to put it. Uh. You could
Speaker 2: look at Israel is old church. Circumcision is old baptism. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a good way to put it. So we're gonna
Speaker 2: play the song real quick, just because I need to
Speaker 2: pour more coffee. And after an entire pot of coffee,
Speaker 2: I gotta have some I gotta have some some pee
Speaker 2: pee time. I gotta go whizz, gotta drain the lizard.
Speaker 3: As the kids say, it's Jay di.
Speaker 1: Er, Jason Allison, jay Iyer's day smells it, Jay Dier's
Speaker 1: to Day's analysis, Jay diers Day's analysis.
Speaker 2: Alright, so let's remind ourselves that the two branches, the
Speaker 2: three branches of philosophy are ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology. This
Speaker 2: is traditionally, historically how it's been divided up. Divisions in
Speaker 2: topics does not mean that they are necessarily divided in reality.
Speaker 2: This is a problem that the vegans were falling into,
Speaker 2: which is really kind of a basic philosophical error, the
Speaker 2: idea that because you can speak of something distinct, that
Speaker 2: they are in fact distinct in reality. I don't believe that.
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think that if you've read
Speaker 2: my essay on the fact that epistemology, for example, presupposes
Speaker 2: ethics and metaphysics, and vice versa, ethics presupposes metaphysics and epistemology,
Speaker 2: then you know that the school of thought that I
Speaker 2: come from, the worldview that I promote sees all those
Speaker 2: things as integrally connected. Now, how do we know that?
Speaker 2: How do we show that? Well, I wrote a whole
Speaker 2: essay on it which everybody can go read. Then want
Speaker 2: to see the fuller treatment of it. But quite simply,
Speaker 2: it should be obvious that these things are connected. For example,
Speaker 2: if I make a claim to know that, for example,
Speaker 2: I know that it is wrong to kill someone, Okay,
Speaker 2: that is, or if I believe that it's wrong to
Speaker 2: kill someone, or I think that it is ethically it's
Speaker 2: a violation of ethics to kill someone. That assumes that
Speaker 2: I have some knowledge right that it's wrong to do that.
Speaker 2: When we talk about killing someone, we're talking about actions
Speaker 2: that take place in the external world. That immediately involves metaphysics. So,
Speaker 2: in other words, generally speaking, unless I believe that everything
Speaker 2: in my mind is a projection of some phantasm, or
Speaker 2: if everything is a syllipsistic sort of surrealist world in
Speaker 2: my mind, then I assume that the people are are
Speaker 2: other entities, right, they're beings other than me. Unless I
Speaker 2: believe in Maya or I believe in surrealism, those are
Speaker 2: other people who have dignity and rights. Correct, And so,
Speaker 2: in other words, immediately you begin to see when you
Speaker 2: ask just a few questions about the assumptions that go
Speaker 2: into talking about any ethical question or dilemma, you start
Speaker 2: to realize that they don't operate apart from other branches
Speaker 2: of philosophy or other questions of philosophy. When I say
Speaker 2: I believe it's wrong to kill, that assumes that I'm
Speaker 2: a subject, that I'm a person, That I'm a being
Speaker 2: who can choose, who wills this or that, who can
Speaker 2: commit actions in a world, in an external world that
Speaker 2: affects other beings. Again, unless I adopt some view that
Speaker 2: you know, all of reality is just a simulation of
Speaker 2: my mind, or something right, some bizarre for our Eastern view,
Speaker 2: or something thing. You know, we tend to operate on
Speaker 2: the basis of the assumptions of Western or Christian metaphysics
Speaker 2: and philosophy. Even having divorced our worldviews from the theology
Speaker 2: a long time ago, we still act like beings out
Speaker 2: there in the world are separate beings that have some
Speaker 2: sort of choice or dignity. Even though we might construct
Speaker 2: physical metaphysical systems or anti metaphysical systems where those beings
Speaker 2: have no rights, we still in practice continue to operate
Speaker 2: like they are right. I mean, nobody consistently lives out
Speaker 2: a completely will to power, you know, predatory social Darwinian worldview,
Speaker 2: unless you're like, you know, the top globalists or something.
Speaker 2: Most people don't consistently day to day live that way.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: They act as if it's wrong for people to steal
Speaker 2: their money, to cheat them. Right, it's not wrong, you know,
Speaker 2: unless there's some force or truth behind ethical or metaphysical norms,
Speaker 2: unless there's some kind of absolutist wrong and right, unless
Speaker 2: there's some sort of objectivity in regard to knowledge claims,
Speaker 2: truth claims, etcetera, etcetera. Right. So, when we understand that
Speaker 2: presubsitionalism is not a shady word game, but in fact
Speaker 2: a host of real philosophical questions that can be asked
Speaker 2: and should be asked, we start to see how many
Speaker 2: things we assume. And this is kind of a basic
Speaker 2: point in philosophy. So the point I'm getting out with
Speaker 2: that is that when we look at the modern world,
Speaker 2: when we look at the anti philosophical stance of much
Speaker 2: of the modern world, why so many of the purveyors
Speaker 2: of scientism actually just come out and say philosophy is worthless.
Speaker 2: It's precisely because of this issue. It's precisely because when
Speaker 2: we start to nail them on points, they have to
Speaker 2: resort to the denial of philosophy. But no, wait a minute,
Speaker 2: Logic is part of philosophy. It's absolutely part of philosophy.
Speaker 2: Nobody can deny this right, And so the denial of
Speaker 2: philosophy just sort of out of hand, like we see
Speaker 2: with somebody like Neil deGrasse Tyson, is so absurd that
Speaker 2: it denies the very things that he claims to have
Speaker 2: full control of, like the scientific crowd, the scientistic crowd,
Speaker 2: they alone are the purveyors of reason and logic, and
Speaker 2: yet they turn around and we'll talk about philosophy being worthless. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, but nobody can deny logic is a function
Speaker 2: of philosophy. So it really amounts to endless, countless absurdities
Speaker 2: when we start to ask very basic questions. And part
Speaker 2: of this is due to the fact that people don't
Speaker 2: know philosophy. They have not studied it. They have not
Speaker 2: read Plato, they have not read They've not read any
Speaker 2: of these major figures. They've not read Hume. They don't
Speaker 2: know the major debates, major discourses, they don't know the
Speaker 2: course of ideas, in Western thought, how ideas lead to
Speaker 2: other ideas, And yes they do if you don't know that.
Speaker 2: They don't know any of this stuff, but they're more
Speaker 2: than willing to get in your face, lose their shit,
Speaker 2: and become unhinged with a little bit of philosophy. Right,
Speaker 2: there's nothing more dangerous than a twenty two year old
Speaker 2: who's had a little bit of philosophy let loose on YouTube.
Speaker 2: This is like the worst thing in the world. And yes,
Speaker 2: we can all sympathize with this somewhat. I mean, I'm
Speaker 2: sure that at age twenty two when I was taking
Speaker 2: my philosophy classes, I was completely insufferable, I'm sure, but
Speaker 2: maybe not as bad as some of these guys, because
Speaker 2: I was already a pretty committed, grounded presuppositionalist and proponent
Speaker 2: of transcendental augmentation at age twenty two. I think I
Speaker 2: first came into contact with us about age twenty or
Speaker 2: twenty one. Was my first exposure to that school of thought.
Speaker 2: I read Van Til's Apologetic in Toto. I bought it
Speaker 2: right away, and I read all eight hundred pages right
Speaker 2: away at about age twenty or twenty one, and that
Speaker 2: was my introduction to transcendent augmentation and thought. And I
Speaker 2: was impressed. I was really taken with the force of
Speaker 2: the argumentation, the force of the logic, the power of
Speaker 2: the arguments. The basically, as Bonson once said, nuclear strength apologetics.
Speaker 2: You know, I think that's true. And that's because we
Speaker 2: have to always we have to always make these qualifications
Speaker 2: because people get get confused. It's not because those Kant
Speaker 2: was the greatest thinker. Okay. So people who don't know
Speaker 2: these this realm or this stuff, they hear this, these
Speaker 2: terms and they mean, oh, you're talking about cont Okay,
Speaker 2: So Jay is a kantient. No no, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: I don't know. Now, transcendent arguments have a long, much
Speaker 2: longer heritage and pedigree than em manual Kant. As we
Speaker 2: pointed out, we see transcendent arguments in Ariostole in the
Speaker 2: Metaphysics against the Sophist. As we pointed out, in terms
Speaker 2: of Orthodoxy, we see Saint John Damascus and his Fount
Speaker 2: of Knowledge use a transcendent argument at the very beginning,
Speaker 2: echoing Ariostol. So transcendent arguments have had an interesting history.
Speaker 2: They popped up here and there. We see inklings of
Speaker 2: it in certain apologetic approaches. I mean, the ontological argument
Speaker 2: is not a good argument, but it's a little more
Speaker 2: down the road of an a priori transcendental argument for
Speaker 2: God than the so called classical arguments. So there's been
Speaker 2: some interesting inklings of it here and there. But and
Speaker 2: we might even look at the Descartes ontological argument. It's interesting,
Speaker 2: but it still is flawed. It's still not a full
Speaker 2: fledged transnit argument. Okay. So, but the reason we're talking
Speaker 2: about this is just a stress that that, in my mind,
Speaker 2: philosophy has always been about asking questions. That's at least
Speaker 2: one big part of it, right, And the irony about
Speaker 2: modern scientism, which is so sort of shocking to me,
Speaker 2: like an ultimate level double think here, is that science
Speaker 2: is grounded on the idea of asking questions, and yet
Speaker 2: they turn around and they will dogmatically tell you the
Speaker 2: questions that you cannot ask. Okay, So what they essentially
Speaker 2: mean is you can only ask questions within the paradigm
Speaker 2: or presuppositions of what I find and acceptable questions to be.
Speaker 2: If you ask a question about the status of logic,
Speaker 2: if you ask a question about the nature of concepts,
Speaker 2: if you ask a question about how is it that
Speaker 2: claims can be true over time. These kinds of philosophical questions,
Speaker 2: those are illegal questions, Those are retard questions. Those are
Speaker 2: the questions that are not allowed in so called science.
Speaker 2: Why is that, Well, because science investigates the natural world,
Speaker 2: we're told, Well, that just assumes that the questions that
Speaker 2: I'm asking have nothing to do with the natural world,
Speaker 2: and I think that they do. In other words, they
Speaker 2: do not want any investigation of the scientific method itself
Speaker 2: in terms of how it functions via logic, and yes,
Speaker 2: the scientific method follows logical patterns and principles, whether they
Speaker 2: know it or not. They do not want questions revolving
Speaker 2: around the ethicality of science. Generally speaking, they do not
Speaker 2: want questions involving the metaphysics of science and scientific methodology
Speaker 2: and all of this you will learn when you take
Speaker 2: a philosophy of science class. You will be introduced to
Speaker 2: a host of questions that are assumed in the philosophic
Speaker 2: method of science or in the natural sciences. Right now.
Speaker 2: They also are never aware nine a nine point nine
Speaker 2: percent of the time. They're not aware of powerful influences
Speaker 2: in the history of science and the natural sciences scientific method.
Speaker 2: Royal Society. Right, I could count on my hand the
Speaker 2: number of times I've talked to academics or people from
Speaker 2: that world. I know of three off the top of
Speaker 2: my head who are very familiar with the power that,
Speaker 2: for example, the Royal Society has had in influencing the
Speaker 2: methodology of science throughout the world of academia. And this
Speaker 2: is why, for example, we had the Lancet, or the
Speaker 2: famous magazine Medical Journal of Oxford. A couple of years ago,
Speaker 2: the editor of the Lancet put out a startling admission
Speaker 2: in the journal. It's still public, by the way, that
Speaker 2: half of the world's scientific peer review papers are fraudulent. Yes,
Speaker 2: you heard me right, Half of the world's scientific papers
Speaker 2: peer reviewed are fraudulent. Well that's pretty devastating to the
Speaker 2: assumptions of scientistm isn't it. And yes, they will go
Speaker 2: ape shit when you mentioned this. But now, wait a minute.
Speaker 2: This comes from the top of the scientific establishment, doesn't it.
Speaker 2: Let's see if I can pull it up. Half of
Speaker 2: scientific papers are frauds. Yeah, I think I've got it
Speaker 2: right here. Now. The Lancet is, of course, the world's
Speaker 2: premiere science journal. And guess what you're gonna notice something
Speaker 2: here in this little beautiful admission here, you're gonna see
Speaker 2: something to do with the Royal Society, aren't you. You're
Speaker 2: gonna see something to do with what's called Chatham House Rules.
Speaker 2: What Chatham House Rules? What would that have to do
Speaker 2: with science? Well, it has nothing to do with science,
Speaker 2: because science is a purely neutral framework, isn't it. And
Speaker 2: I will I'm gonna go ahead right now and put
Speaker 2: the link to this because this is very important and
Speaker 2: not many people know about this. Now I talked about
Speaker 2: it endlessly. Notice there's your Chatham House Rules picture there.
Speaker 2: You don't know what Chatham House is. You don't know
Speaker 2: what you're talking about. You don't even need to be
Speaker 2: trying to debate me. It's very difficult to get this paper,
Speaker 2: this journal here like to fit on this screen. The
Speaker 2: case against science is straightforward. Much of the scientific literature,
Speaker 2: perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Now, by the way,
Speaker 2: there's countless studies and people have done countless test cases
Speaker 2: where they get gibberish published in peer review, where they
Speaker 2: have papers written by AI that are that are nonsense
Speaker 2: and get published in peer review. This there have been
Speaker 2: multiple examples of this. Let me add this while I'm
Speaker 2: doing so here in the in the show description, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna have this just right now at the very top.
Speaker 2: This is from the Lancet uh And again I can't
Speaker 2: fit the whole thing on the screen because it's like
Speaker 2: a journal thing. And this is by the editor of
Speaker 2: the Lanses. So again one of the top medical journals,
Speaker 2: most prestigious in the world, and the very beginning of
Speaker 2: it says a lot of what is published is incorrect.
Speaker 2: I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because
Speaker 2: we are asked to observe Chatham House rules. What is
Speaker 2: this doing in a scientific journal?
Speaker 1: What?
Speaker 2: I thought we had academic freedom to ask any questions
Speaker 2: that we wanted. I thought I thought science told us
Speaker 2: how the world works. And yet here at this top
Speaker 2: prestigious academic medical scientific journal from Oxford, he's not allowed
Speaker 2: to say what's going on because of Chatham House rules. Well,
Speaker 2: guess what, Jason Alysis knows what's going on because we've
Speaker 2: been telling you about it for years. I've been telling
Speaker 2: you about the Rural Society and it's scientific scammery and
Speaker 2: how they have promoted Darwinism for the last several centuries
Speaker 2: by design, because they have a definite agenda and worldview,
Speaker 2: which is to dehumanize you and to kill you. They
Speaker 2: are all committed. That's Chathamhow's rules, right, don't tell the
Speaker 2: truth to the slaves that are destined to be killed.
Speaker 2: And again, who else has done tragian hope telling you this?
Speaker 2: Who else has done? The same people that run the
Speaker 2: system in tragian hope, the Anglo American establishment, right, it's
Speaker 2: the people at the top of the royal society. They're
Speaker 2: the same people. It's the same groups, the role in
Speaker 2: supernational affairs, the CFR right, the Rockefellers, they're roth Child's.
Speaker 2: It's the same people. They write journals, their top journals
Speaker 2: tell you science is fraudulent, and what do you do?
Speaker 2: You believe it because you believe in the fallacy of authority.
Speaker 2: So much for logic. Now, I'm not saying this means
Speaker 2: that all science is false, of course, not that would
Speaker 2: be retarded saying this means that scientists don't make discoveries.
Speaker 2: I'm saying it's very naive to assume that you know
Speaker 2: how science works. By the way, I'm published in peer review.
Speaker 2: I have a peer review published paper, so I know
Speaker 2: how this work process works. It's not a scientific paper.
Speaker 2: It's in an economic journal, but it is nevertheless peer review.
Speaker 2: So the people who naively act like the way that
Speaker 2: this happens is just everybody being neutral, and then they
Speaker 2: just you just whoever's got the best arguments and whoever's
Speaker 2: got the best data and research. They just put their
Speaker 2: time in and they've put their paper in, and if
Speaker 2: if you've got the goods, you're gonna get published. Is
Speaker 2: utterly retarded. What could be more naive than this? Have
Speaker 2: you ever actually been in academia? Have you been in
Speaker 2: the grid world?
Speaker 3: I have?
Speaker 2: It doesn't work like that. You know how it really works.
Speaker 2: It's run by clicks of extreme leftists, extreme ideologues, extreme feminists,
Speaker 2: extreme weirdos, creepers, quite literally all over academia, just freakin degenerates.
Speaker 2: They are in clicks, they're in secret societies, they're in
Speaker 2: their own little networks. Many of them are bought and
Speaker 2: paid for by big foundations and even the CIA. They
Speaker 2: know that it's a racket. Again, the whole university system
Speaker 2: is a giant tax and debt racket. So why do
Speaker 2: you think they're all going to be telling you the truth?
Speaker 2: They're not. They're liars and The way academia works is
Speaker 2: that people aren't interested in truth. They are interested in
Speaker 2: making a name for themselves in academia to get funding.
Speaker 2: That's number one. And the way that you do that
Speaker 2: is that you have to come up with interesting, weird theories.
Speaker 2: You have to come up with Shakespeare was actually a tranny.
Speaker 2: Let me give you the most technical analysis, trying to
Speaker 2: prove something completely retarded, and because it fits in with
Speaker 2: the overall agenda, you get shot up the ladder. That's
Speaker 2: how academia works. Right, when you publish your paper proving
Speaker 2: Shakespeare was a training, that's academia, dum dumbs. It's not
Speaker 2: this noble pursuit of truth and virtue. Far from it,
Speaker 2: read kun right. Structures of scientific revolution. Scientific revolutions don't
Speaker 2: come because everybody's nobly seeking the truth. Scientific revolutions come
Speaker 2: because somebody puts out something true and the entire establishment
Speaker 2: attacks it because they don't want to be wrong.
Speaker 3: That's why.
Speaker 2: Now, if you have not heard all the old shows
Speaker 2: that I did with Hoaxtbusters, you can go back and
Speaker 2: listen to all those because we covered this ad nauseum.
Speaker 2: I'm not going through rehash two years worth of podcast
Speaker 2: discussing scientism when you can go listen to all those
Speaker 2: where we endlessly cover the many, many, many examples of
Speaker 2: scientific peer review being fraudulent, scientific peer review being busted
Speaker 2: as fraudulent on a mass scale. Did you hear me
Speaker 2: a mass scale of scientific research being fraudulent? And I
Speaker 2: can tell you from personal example that my mom was
Speaker 2: an editor for science journals for the biggest publisher in
Speaker 2: America at one time. I know how this works. And
Speaker 2: all these dumb dums that try to talk about it,
Speaker 2: they don't even know that scientific publishing is private. Do
Speaker 2: you think that billionaire companies might have a say in
Speaker 2: what gets published in scientific journals? Of course they do.
Speaker 2: It would be naive and stupid to think that they don't.
Speaker 2: But how many of these naive scientism promoters have ever
Speaker 2: even talked about this. They don't know who read l
Speaker 2: Cvier is. They don't know that read el Sevier publishes
Speaker 2: the biggest science journals in America and that they're a
Speaker 2: private billion dollar company. They don't know what Harcourt brace
Speaker 2: Yovanovich was in the eighties. They don't know about Harcourt Publishing.
Speaker 2: They don't know about the fact that Harcourt owned Sea World. Now,
Speaker 2: as you say, why does that matter, Well, because that
Speaker 2: shows you that the entities that are publishing the biggest
Speaker 2: science journals in the world are private entities that buy
Speaker 2: theme parks, so they're for profit. They're not noble pursuers
Speaker 2: of truth. Dummy, right, So again naivety, idiocy, People don't
Speaker 2: know what they're talking about, and people don't make connections
Speaker 2: across disciplines. This is another problem with education. Right. So
Speaker 2: one of the reasons that we the philosophy has been
Speaker 2: discarded is that guess what philosophy teaches you to make connections.
Speaker 2: Philosophy teaches you to think about the relationship between one
Speaker 2: thing and another thing and their connections. And the entirety
Speaker 2: of modern education is built on tearing down actions, excuse me,
Speaker 2: tearing down these relationships. So, for example, we all know,
Speaker 2: hopefully we're familiar with the idea of the Prussian education
Speaker 2: model and the idea of extreme compartmentalization. It was not
Speaker 2: accidental that that's the educational model that the West accepted
Speaker 2: and adopted because the goal was to create socialized individuals,
Speaker 2: not educated individuals. And all you have to do is
Speaker 2: read John Dewey, Horace Mann and all the founders of
Speaker 2: American education, public education, they talk about that. They talk
Speaker 2: about creating the socialized idiot individual, not the thinker, not
Speaker 2: the philosopher, not the person who makes connections, the person
Speaker 2: who only sticks to some minutia, some stupid detail, worthless thing.
Speaker 2: Publishing your paper about the length of Shakespeare's strap on
Speaker 2: that he wore as a trainee, that's all you're supposed
Speaker 2: to know about in your academic I'm not joking by that.
Speaker 2: You think that that's literally what the academic study. They
Speaker 2: will study their lives into proving Shakespeare was a trainee
Speaker 2: and how long the dong was?
Speaker 3: It?
Speaker 2: Is that retarded. I am not exaggerating. I am not exaggerating.
Speaker 2: I am not exaggerating. I'm telling you it's that retarded.
Speaker 2: I was there. That's what academia is. Okay, Now you
Speaker 2: said when I wait a minute, Jay, this sounds like
Speaker 2: you're saying you're an obscurantist. Science doesn't exist. No, no, no,
Speaker 2: Real science doesn't happen in those areas. Real science happens
Speaker 2: in engineering, Real science happens in computer science. Real science
Speaker 2: happens in disciplines that actually have to apply the theory
Speaker 2: to the real world. It doesn't happen in biology class
Speaker 2: or astronomy class. Okay, those are propaganda classes. But people
Speaker 2: that do engineering, they do real hard science absolutely all
Speaker 2: the time. And that's who develops things. That's why Lockheed Martin,
Speaker 2: Raytheon and Boeing don't call up Richard Dawkins. They don't
Speaker 2: call up JF to figure out how to advance their technology. No,
Speaker 2: they call it people from engineering. Okay, I'm not saying
Speaker 2: that Jeff's not smart guy. I'm not dissing Jeff. I'm
Speaker 2: just making the point that biology, life sciences, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Cent unless you're working in like biometrics and stuff like that,
Speaker 2: you're not advancing the cause of so called applied science
Speaker 2: generally speaking, generally speaking, Okay, and again I'm not saying
Speaker 2: this is true for every single biologist. I'm just saying
Speaker 2: that this is the way the system works in terms
Speaker 2: of academia. Of sure, plenty of biologists, plant of palaeontologists.
Speaker 2: They go when they study things and they make discoveries.
Speaker 2: And again we already talked about this in the beginning.
Speaker 2: You can make discoveries and be correct about things within
Speaker 2: your niche and still have the wrong paradigm. Your whole
Speaker 2: worldview can be wrong and you still make discoveries. The
Speaker 2: fact that you make correct discoveries does not prove that
Speaker 2: your whole world view of paradigm is correct. And that's true.
Speaker 2: I think would say that's self evident. It's obviously true
Speaker 2: because even the atheists again will admit that there are
Speaker 2: plenty of theists in mathematics, plenty of theists and engineering
Speaker 2: who make discoveries and advances, and they believe that those
Speaker 2: people are wrong in their paradigms of theism, and yet
Speaker 2: they still make advances. Likewise, atheists can make advances, Atheists
Speaker 2: can make discoveries. Sure, absolutely, that does not prove their paradigm.
Speaker 2: Now we got a couple of super chats here before
Speaker 2: I continue going on, Alex Parker or Alex Parror, you
Speaker 2: make me want to be a better man. Well good, hopefully,
Speaker 2: that's uh, that's what we're here to promote. Not in
Speaker 2: the Masonic sense, right, Freemasonry says they make good men better.
Speaker 2: That's not what we're here to do. We want to
Speaker 2: make men into gods. Okay, so theosis is what we're
Speaker 2: talking about here, not some gay free Masonic thing. But
Speaker 2: thank you Alex Justin Stan ten dollars, thank you for
Speaker 2: going through the explanation of salvations of the Jews. Obviously
Speaker 2: it isn't from the Jews themselves, but what was given
Speaker 2: to them from God. Now, of course, I mean, I
Speaker 2: don't think anybody was trying to say that there's some
Speaker 2: sort of mystical power to Judaism itself or to the
Speaker 2: biology or DNA. And this is sort of the mysticism
Speaker 2: of later Talmudism that says that, and the prophets of
Speaker 2: course rebuked that that idea many times over. David seeing
Speaker 2: five dollars Fantils Apologetic you mentioned can you link it?
Speaker 2: It's called Vantil's Apologetic by Greg Bnson. Not the most
Speaker 2: successful book though. This is a difficult text. You know,
Speaker 2: it's not going to be easy reading unless you have
Speaker 2: a pretty a fairly unless you're fairly fluent in philosophy,
Speaker 2: you're not going to be able to read the book.
Speaker 2: And I'm not trying to be mean, but I mean
Speaker 2: it's a very long, very technical book. There's other easier
Speaker 2: books that could be could be accessible. Boonnson has a
Speaker 2: what's his Let me find his other book real quick here.
Speaker 2: That's more accessible. Actually, the guy who Jason doctor Lyle,
Speaker 2: who I do think is pretty good. Actually, he has
Speaker 2: a really good introduction to this. So if you want
Speaker 2: an easy introduction, you know, unless you have like a
Speaker 2: master's degree in philosophy, you're not gonna be able to
Speaker 2: read Mental's Apologetic. I'm gonna put it right here real quick,
Speaker 2: underneath the PDF of the Lancets. So there's one Bonson book.
Speaker 2: I will add Vntil's Apologetic here, but you're not going
Speaker 2: to be able to read it unless you are advanced
Speaker 2: in philosophy. You're going to find it very difficult. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying you can't do it. If you want to
Speaker 2: do it, go for it. Let's see what's that. What's
Speaker 2: that Jason Lyle book?
Speaker 1: Is it?
Speaker 2: I think it's ultimate proof for creation is that it.
Speaker 2: He's got an introduction to to trance no arguments, that's
Speaker 2: pretty good. I think it's this one. So i'll put
Speaker 2: it down below. Okay, so all those books, by the way,
Speaker 2: have been added there to the to the link in
Speaker 2: the description. And yeah they're Protestants, so they get some
Speaker 2: things wrong. But for an orthodox approach to presubsitionalism, I'm
Speaker 2: going to add this book as well by Father Shuping
Speaker 2: which is called Iran Aus and Orthodox apologetic methodology where
Speaker 2: we can correct the errors of Calvinists via this book.
Speaker 2: Damn it, here we go.