Speaker 1: I have a lad I made it out of place.
When it's trying Maddy's and Dreda, I shall pay more.
I made that out of place. And when it's trying Reddy,
it's Beata, I shall play. It has a lovely body,
it's with legs so short and things.
Speaker 2: When when it is so tired.
Speaker 1: It drops in, then I want a hard more d
d trainer and I made her out of place. And
when it's trying ready it's Andrada, I shall pay.
Speaker 3: Dreno is always pleasing.
Speaker 1: He loves to dance and spin a happy game of
drail complain out it's begin tradle A made it out
of claim, and when it's trying ready, I shall play
a mad on out of claim. And when it's trying
ready than dread.
Speaker 3: Hello, Hello, Hello, Welcome to made by Jim Bob. Today,
as promised, is a stream about dispensationalism. We're going to
go through the history of it, what it is, what
it's not, it's effects on policy, it's effects on modern theology,
and so on and so on and so on. We
have the privilege of having posh Redneck jump on as
well as mister J. Dyer low volume. For me, I'm
low volume. Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, Okay,
hold on, here we go. How's that?
Speaker 4: Is that better?
Speaker 2: Okay? Stop?
Speaker 1: Hold on?
Speaker 3: Is that good?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 4: Ah?
Speaker 3: That should be good? My volume?
Speaker 2: Is this good?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 2: O good?
Speaker 3: That's good? All right? So yeah, we'll have Jay dire on.
He's coming off a debate to on two. I thought
that was a pretty good debate.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: My position is, I think the best debate in regards
to Islam and Christianity is in fact whether or not
they're compatible in the culture wars, because that's how Islam
is tying into uh modern politics and culture. Is that
the you know, the sneak os are selling, oh we
got to unite that John Zurkas are selling let's unite,
let's unite. We got to fight the demons, and we're like,
we don't even have the same demonology, brah. So hopefully
that comes down the line. So yeah, so uh, posh,
I don't know if you're in the chat or setting
up your computer or skinning a weasel. Jay will be
a little late, and that's fine because we're going to
introduce these concepts, start with some of their roots, their origins.
Question whether or not there are previous origins that these
are tying off of. I don't know, we'll see so, uh, posh.
He's probably restarting his computer. His computer probably looks like
an old lawnmower where you have to pull the string.
So we'll check out about that. But you know, we
can how can how can Islam save us from degeneration?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: Yeah, well it can't, can't. Yeah jump on now, posh.
So uh yeah, we'll get into it. I think it's
I think dispensationalism is from my view, it's one of
the most overlooked problems in the world. That's a big
that's a big statement. I think it's one of the
most overlooked paradigms. And it's so influential, and everyone's confused.
So many people are confused. It affects people who quote
call themselves Christians, it affects non Christians view of certain policies,
certain geopolitics. It's so influential, and yet it's sort of
like this floating I don't even know, it's like a
floating infection. Boomers especially, yeah, Boomers especially, absolutely, the boomers
love it. I mean I even have like a clip
this is the Boomer response. I mean this is what
it This is basically what it looks like.
Speaker 2: Clear.
Speaker 4: Let me make it clear.
Speaker 5: Israel is our ally, will always be our ally, the
guilty of gide and support forever even though they, even
though I will always and Palestinians.
Speaker 3: And will it upon you. I bet you didn't think
you're gonna get one of those today, but you did
know you were gonna get one of these. Hello, Hello,
welcome to the show. Long time, No see cheers, cheers
your cigarette.
Speaker 2: There we were already talking with a biz.
Speaker 3: I need to start already.
Speaker 2: I'll be talking coffee first. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Now I have to make an intro for j because, like,
if he keeps coming back to the stream, I'm gonna
have to make my own intro. Do you have any
ideas if I make an intro for j.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm, how could you give it some immediately? I
think like banjos and stuff. Yeah, I have one of
those giant x x X jugs ye yeah yeah, or.
Speaker 3: Just a montage of him sighing and saying like all right,
i'mological yeah, yeah, there's you're goofy, just hanging up on
people a mute bro.
Speaker 2: So yeah we can.
Speaker 3: We're gonna get started without Jay, he'll be here shortly.
But before we get into it, is there anything you
want to say generally about the topic alone, anything you
want to say generally speaking.
Speaker 2: About it about dispensationalism. Yeah, so it is basically a
nexus of everything wrong with Protestantism, including as we go
through its history early on, the differences between But I
heard from a little birdie that poserhaps look your duels.
Speaker 4: Per.
Speaker 3: I told the discord how to provoke you. Unfortunately, so
now they know, Okay, go on, dispensationalism is.
Speaker 2: Socialism? Is that's my best pearl impression. That's pretty good.
Speaker 3: Actually, the best pearl impression you have is just talk normally,
just without the British accent.
Speaker 2: That stuff on more than you as was established previously.
But if I get like ten beers in, then maybe
you know, yeah, we can have cognitive deterioration to that point. Okay,
But as I was saying, like, when we get to
more specifics, more with specifics like Darby versus Newton about
pre trib rapture, you know, and the critique of pre
tribulation rapture is no one has ever thought this before.
And Macintosh, one of the disciples of Derby. You know,
it says, well, it doesn't matter that even if never
in history, you know, too or more were gathered than
Jesus's name, That is what the word says, you know.
So it's always this standalone interpretive schema that you can
butcher into whatever the bloody hell you'd like, and not
to mention all the emotional hype or the apocalypticism or
the irrationalism, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the question I was going to ask you or.
Speaker 2: That means Republic of Serbia, are sure? Oh?
Speaker 3: I gotcha?
Speaker 4: Good?
Speaker 3: Represent what's up, Nana?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: I was going to ask is it just out of
the blue one of these you know, these these views
that just get constructed and that it borrows some crappy
biblical hermeneutics, or is it something that's downstream from some
bigger problems, like a heresy or something. Is there something
more foundational underneath it? Or do you think it spawns
sort of creatively, like someone you know, changing the blocks around.
Speaker 2: Well, the great thing that Jay is well will be
here is that he gets the documents.
Speaker 3: You know, He's got the documents.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how to even research that properly
with these types of questions. He does, so we'll have
to ask him how much. You know, we can see
some type of direct influence. But when you asked me,
was this like the work the nasally and doubt, I
told you, Yeah, I told you. Racialism in this sense
was very prevalent in the eighteenth and the nineteenth century
and in the beginning of the twentieth. You know, the
whole eugenics program in the United States for people who
are like Wiganats in America who want to create the
category of white people need to understand that for the
American founding fathers, the Nordics were swarthy, so the chad
Norwegian Vikings might as well have been Sudanese, so you know,
but it was racial thinking throughout, which is completely foreign
to the ancient world. Genetics had only started to prop
up as a proper science and not recognizing basic patterns.
You know, oh, this person looks like their father, their mother,
this one like their grandfather, et cetera. You know, just
basic pattern recognition. There was no ability to even discern
properly how it works on a mechanical level. Obviously, you know,
you don't get DNA until the nineteen fifties, so I'm
not even talking about that, but that's part of part
of the paradigm that's going to influence this reading of
Israel as a separate thing from the Church, and Israel
as a genetic entity, not as a spiritual religious entity.
You know, we hear like ethno religious group. There are
ethno religious group in the modern sense, even you know,
back then, there's something. You know, Zoroasteralism has certain strains
that go that way, the Zds thing that way, the
Drews in who are technically some type of Arabic, but
you know, they also have this component of you can't
convert into it, you need to be born into it.
And even with Judaism, with all types of different sects,
those who say you can't convert, those who say you
can convert, and when you do, somehow ontologically or changed
into a Jew. And obviously those who are so liberal
that nothing you know matters. But even then those liberals
are actually more in line with the biblical understanding of things.
But that's what I'm The reason I'm saying all of
this is that you don't always need to have a
surreptitious element.
Speaker 3: The posh One thing I want to ask you about that.
Is that that noticing the genetic aspect and trying to
isolate that as some sort of meaningful category biblically that
makes sense. Wouldn't that make sense that they would then
extend that to a location to connect to that genetic identity.
But that's not to say that the location is real,
doesn't matter biblically, right, that just it's a tying together
that that is unnecessary. That's that's incorrect. Is that is
that fair to say?
Speaker 2: Well, the thing is, even with the genetic the imputation
of modern genetic understanding, your nose grows all of a sudden.
You're good with money.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to keep the stream up after so people
learn about dispensationalism.
Speaker 2: Better to have a breakdown before Jay gets Yeah, you know.
Speaker 3: That's true. So he walks into it's already a disaster.
It's not his fault.
Speaker 2: He thinks we're snubbing him. Meanwhile, we've been nuked off
of everything. You have to write him like a handwritten letter.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay. So so there is there's the location distinction
and then the church distinction, but the genetic extinction.
Speaker 2: Uh, like.
Speaker 3: The genetic distinc ancient plays more to the geographic distinction,
emerging them as opposed to the biblical it like favors
one over the other.
Speaker 2: Yes, the problem being that Israel, even if you take
it like read back into it genetics, you have the
promised Land, but it was never really very well concentrated
there except for a very short period of time. And
even then, you know, very quickly, I mean, let's start
from King Saul right as the established kingdom. You know,
we have the judges, obviously, most of them horrible for
good reason, you know, for those who want to say, oh,
it's a treason to want a king. We ah not
much better before it, but you know, very quickly, get
King David, the problems he has, and then the redemption arc. Obviously.
Then we get King Solomon, who builds temples to demons
for his many wives, you know, as a means of
appeasement and diplomatic you know, gestures, let's say, towards surrounding kingdoms.
He builds the temple, dedicates it poorly, et cetera. I
shouldn't get into details, I'll get lost, but you know,
repents later on. That's why he's a saint in the church,
you know, that's where we get Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, you know,
those great pieces of work are part of the redemption.
But then we get very quickly the splitting of the kingdom.
We get the Northern Kingdom of Israel and southern Kingdom
of Judah. And I explained this on this channel as well,
Like the Northern Kingdom is wiped out. That's about ten
ten and a half tribes gone, and I mean eliminated
by the Assyrians, because that's what the Assyrians do. If
you surrender the empty out of the city, you know,
spread out the population throughout the empire and then bring
people from throughout the empire to the location. If you
don't surrender, they make a festival, you know, just just
gory outurageously vile and violent means of execution and humiliation
of the population, you know, making banners of their skins
and you know, different piles of heads, you know, including
for children, you know, and then use that as that's weird.
Speaker 3: Those are the thoughts I have when I watch whatever
podcast or Pasha, I wanted to go back to one
something so we don't lose. Yeah, it's on the fundamental
distinction that dispensationalism itself is sort of the dividing up
of chronology h Christianity in time through sections. Correct, Yes,
and because of that, you're the attempt is now to
point to any given section and say that's complete or
near complete or yet to come.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Generally speaking, that's kind of what the gist is.
Speaker 2: Kind of yes, because it's not over yet. But a
dispensation is basically a prevailing paradigm in a particular time.
That's outside of dispensationalism. The time you'll hear a dispensation
is the phrase special dispensation, which is, you know, some
type of exemption, some type of granted right due to
certain extraneous circumstances, but it's a certain paradigm right prevailing
for a time. And the dispensationalism we get all types
of divisions. I don't think these are necessary for the
purposes of this stream. You know, with ultra dispensationalism, hyper dispensationalism,
liberal or progressive dispensationalism, et cetera. You know, they have
different different world views. When you get the church, you know,
traditionally it's pentecost. Others would go with commercial of Paul
et cetera. And they have their arguments. It's unimportant. When
Jay gets here, you know, we'll talk about they they believe.
One of the reasons, they believe that Church and Israel
aren't comparable. Or you can't say that the Church is
the new israel Is because they believe that the Church,
the word itself, starts the New Testament. And that's just
not true. Sure, you get a certain type of special use,
but that's because now we're starting to write in Greek.
But when you read the translations, like the Sebturgent, the
word ecclisia is you because the word church means the
gathering place, right, or in other words, a congregation. Now
this is a proper, proper noun, you know. So it's
not like a place where we gather. To explain it
to people, I say, okay, we can call this stream,
we can call it a congress because we all came together.
But that doesn't mean we get to pass laws either
on a state or a federal level in the United States.
And no one would think that because it would be
on its face ridiculous that, Okay, anytime two people gather,
now there are congress and they get to pass laws.
No same thing with the church. But you see this
type of simplicity. As I said, that's why it's such
a nexus of Protestant problems with methodology in particular, is
you can't really correct them because they only take corrections
of the from the scriptures, which they themselves interpret and
call obvious.
Speaker 3: Darby keenan four nine and thank you, he said, didn't
Darby also split the Bible into different sections as well,
certain verses books for the Bagels and for the Christians. Yeah,
we're going to get into Darby. That's a good actually
point here. You can answer that as we bring this up, Posh,
what exactly did Darby do? We'll actually get into it.
There's a little short section I'll play in fact for answering.
But for those of you who don't know Darby, is
I guess the we could say the origin. That's why
I asked, Posh, is there something that he's leaning on
that with certain actors or certain proponents he's relying on
to make this work. But most people historically just kind
of go to Darby as an arbitrary starting point. I
wouldn't call it fully it like.
Speaker 2: You can say a lot of influence from like early Anabaptists.
They have that fanaticism, They have that that you know,
idea of oh the apocalypse is coming, everything is imminent.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: Don't ask a woman who age a man his salary
and a dispensation dispensationalist what imminent means. So it's you
can say that there are certain antecedents, but then so
much of it is very peculiar to dispensationalism that I
can't say it's some type of direct offspring. It's just
that there is a strain of thought in certain Protestant
branches that could influence.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we could say it's just another predictable offshoot of
the rejecting church authority and historicity. I mean, I mean,
come down to it, right.
Speaker 2: About with the winds of contemporary thinking.
Speaker 3: Sure. So yeah, so Darby comes before people make reference
of the Schofield Bible and all the truthers with their
background music, do all the videos and so on. But
it starts with this.
Speaker 2: This guy.
Speaker 3: It's a good place to start. Hey, Jay Dyer, welcome
to the stream man.
Speaker 4: Hey, sorry, and no problem.
Speaker 3: We're just getting into it. We're introducing Darby. We were
talking about whether or not Darby is leaning on something
beforehand that that's more foundational, that gives him even the
impulse to do such a thing. I guess we just
came down to, Uh, he's just rejecting church authority and
this is what it leads to. Right, Is there anything
else you want to add?
Speaker 2: So I'd like to say to Jay, I mentioned there
is Anabaptist influence, you know, and this apocalyptic thinking with
people like Mutska and sorry Munta and what's his name,
mathis U and these type of crazy people who go
But I don't think there's like a direct line, so
correct me if I'm if I'm wrong.
Speaker 4: Well, I'm I have to let you guys know that
I went and dug out my folder shoulder, my actual
study bible, nice my name emblazoned on it. So I'm
here to correct all of your uh legalistic errors and heresies.
I even wrote the five points of Calvinism at the
beginning in case. I don't know why I thought I
would forget them, but I.
Speaker 3: Well, dude, that's really good handwriting.
Speaker 4: What happened I did have handwriting today. I don't know
what happened.
Speaker 3: It's like, wow, yeah, So is there is there anything
you want to add as far as like, can we
start with Darby or is there something more fundamental that
he's leaning on that could be more even ancient or
back in time that seems to be a bigger problem
that we even mention, Or is he kind of just
going like, you know what, I'm just going to kind
of invent off the cuff.
Speaker 4: Well, just to hit on that point of rejecting, you know,
tradition and church authority. One thing that happens is that
the early Church, there was a period where there were
there were people who were possibly premillennial and some that
were definitely premillennial. So some of the early Church fathers,
the the debate is that some of them were in
the first and second century. You can debate what what
exactly they meant, even by citing certain passages. But even
if we granted that they were by the time of
the Second Ecumenical Council, when the when the Creed includes
the phrase whose kingdom shall have no end, that's intended
in the Niceno Constapolitan Creed to exclude any form of
killism or literal millennialism. So by the Second Council, this
view was basically so okay, we can't we can't have this.
So you're right than to say, posh that the First
Reformation groups that seem to revive this idea of a
literal millennium, or the Anabaptists.
Speaker 3: Okay, So can you just quickly without making it two dense,
if you could just distinguished from my own chat the
millennialist view or paradigm, the thing that you're referring to,
the two of the two of those, so they get
a sense of it as we move forward.
Speaker 4: So basically, you know, in the latter chapter is the
Book of Revelation, there's there's a passive about the millennium
that when Christ sits on the throne, he will reign
for a thousand years. And then after the thousand years
we have this period where there's a brief allowing of
Satan to be loosed again, and then you have the
final Armageddon and then the final things where you have
the Resurrection and the great, the Great White Throne judgment.
So the pre millennialists believe that Christ returns before he
sets up this earthly literal thou in your millennium. Most
of them believe in Israel with an actual newly built temple, etc.
And the reason they think that is that they mistakenly
have a hermeneutic that thinks that the promises to the
Jews have never been fulfilled, and so even though the
Messiah came and he was rejected by the Jews, the
Jews still have all their Covenant promises waiting for them.
And then this other sort of Plan B was initiated
with the Church, the Gentile Church, and then at the
end of the world, Plan A will be fulfilled in
this literal millennium. That's kind of the dispensationalist model that
we're talking about now. Nobody in the early Church was
a dispensationalist, obviously, they all believed that the ones that
believed in a millennium, the very few that did, they
thought is just well, Christ comes back and then he
sets up a thousand year kingdom. I'm not even aware
of them thinking that there was a literal temple in
Jerusalem would be rebuilt. Early Church, pre millennials just believed
that Christ would come up and set come back and
set up a thousand year earthly kingdom. No rapture, there's no,
none of that. So a couple of features that these
guys bring that's new to this discussion by the way
the other position. As you said, the Church eventually adopted
a non literal millennial position. So basically, the Church just said, no,
there's no thousand year rain on earth. It's a symbolic
timeframe that the Bible uses a thousand years in other
places as well, for just a long time. Yeah, and
it just signifies the period in which the Church is
the Kingdom of God on earth and Christ reigning through
the Church.
Speaker 2: So that's it.
Speaker 4: No rapture before the tribulation.
Speaker 3: No, none of that, gotcha. Okay, So we'll go over
this and you guys can stop it. We'll go point
by point. If this guy is messing it up or
perverting it, just let us know.
Speaker 4: I also brought my other pre millennial books I found
so nice. I have my Dictionary of Premennial Dispensation.
Speaker 3: Jay, Was that a study a point in time of
your study or you held the view?
Speaker 1: No, I was.
Speaker 4: That's why I had at my Scofield Study Bible. Like
when I when I first started reading the Bible, when
I was like eighteen or nineteen, I went to the
I went to the Christian bookstore and this was what
I got my Scofield Study.
Speaker 3: But we got I gotta see the script again though
we got can you show that again what.
Speaker 2: That would mean? Or was it like by chums that No.
Speaker 4: I just kind of like, oh, I want a Bible.
Here's a study Bible. And the thing that that appealed
to me was, Oh, this one deals with like end
time stuff and that's cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a very American.
Speaker 3: Thing that it is, isn't it.
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: End times. It's like it's a classic thing to appeal to.
By the way, the title, the title is apocalypse in
space and Time here, so uh.
Speaker 2: I'd like to mentioned before we start, apocalyptic does not
mean end times. Apocalypse particular, apocalypsis means like revelation. That's
why it's called the Book of Revelation the Apocalypses.
Speaker 4: But this book has Darby on the cover if you
notice there. It's got all the characters.
Speaker 3: He was big on profile shots. Who made the jump
then posh to that that etymological problem there between apocalypse
and I.
Speaker 2: Can't tell you because all of these things are so
convoluted that you can't.
Speaker 3: Really go for some truther though early truth definitely.
Speaker 2: Definitely, but most of them were like the Anabaptists. If
you read about them, yeah, I watched a couple of
videos on it in preparation for this. In one comment said,
before I thought that Anabaptists were terrorists, but now I've
changed my mind and now I think they were Satanists
and terrorists. So that's basically what happened. You know, they
would stop running naked through the streets, you know, starting wars,
constantly trying to like light the fuse of the end
times because they were obsessed with this apocalypse. And I
personally believe that they because of the content of the
Book of Revelation, they started associating the term apocalyptic with
the end times. Now, the Book of Revelation isn't just
about the end Times. It does contain that, but it's
about a lot more like the Seven Churches that have
described you know, they were historical churches with historical problems
in the time of the life of Saint John. So
it's it's this type of retroactive reading back into it.
But that again you see it here like if you
want to use an a word for the end times,
use armageddon, you know, but that there's no Book of Armageddon,
so that really ruins it. And again it's it's so
fun it's like white people like learning about demonology and ancipology.
It's fun, it's got.
Speaker 3: And it applies to a very modern take of politics
because you can kind of transpose the apocalyptic wrongly use
of the word, as you stated, view onto politics. That
and then you start to see these people use sort
of a similar accelerationist view, where well, let's contrive the end,
let's just force the end of the structure, let's take
down governments, let's let's get back to the land. Bro
this kind of you and it's very Yeah, it's parallel,
it's not identical, but it's certainly parallel.
Speaker 2: What apocalypse means. It means this overall view of history
from like a heavenly perspective. The Book of Daniel is
apocalyptic in a lot of ways. There's also different types
of apocalyptic literature throughout the Old Testament. So that's what
it means. That's clear. I'm not just saying it doesn't
mean en times in telling you why. It's translated as
revelation literally means to lift up a veil in gotcha.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, I'm going to play this little bullet
point here and we can comment. You can tell me
to stop whatever This.
Speaker 6: Is followed, he says, by conscience after the fall, but
before the flood. From the flood until the call of Abraham,
what he calls civil government. This is followed by the
patriarchal period Genesis chapter twelve through Exodus nineteen, in which
the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and so on become
the centerpiece of God's redemptive activity. With Moses, we have
a new dispensation called law. It begins with the Ten Commandments,
continues until the period of the Church. The Church is
called the Age of Grace. We are living in the
Church Age. It will continue to an end determined time
in the future, at which point there.
Speaker 4: Will be what was called the Rapture.
Speaker 6: The Rapture removes the Church from the world and gives
birth to then finally, the Kingdom. The Kingdom is a
millennial kingdom in which Christ is ruling in a political
sort of way from Jerusalem over the peoples of the
entire world.
Speaker 3: All right, let's stop there. I just want to look
at the picture. I mean, if he was trying to
sell this, that is the worst picture to sell. If
that guy was looking at me like that, trying to
sell this to me, that picture on the right, I'm.
Speaker 4: Out of here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's giving us what did the kids call? Yeah, yeah,
a little pizazz. He's like, honey, you have no idea
what you're in for. Is there anything you want to
comment on here? Because this seems to be. What we're
saying is that, you know, you divide into these sections,
and then obviously each section you're going to look into
some you're going to assign some perverse interpretation anyway. So
the question I have is from a orthodox view, let's say,
are things divided at all similarly and and they're just
missing misreading or you just don't do this at all.
Speaker 2: We don't do this. I'm sure you can say how
Satan tricks Adam and do you It's not that he,
you know, somehow tricked them into greed or whatever. They
were still very new, so he uses this innocence against
I guess you could call it that that's something.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, well the reason I ask is because we're doing
a critique from a specific view, and you know a
lot of people watching me a percent always say, well,
you guys do that or they do this. I just
want to cover that in advance.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'd like to touch on that because back when
I was a dispensation, so the thing that got me
out of it was beginning to look at the way
that the New testamentry to the Old and then I
got into what's called covenant theology, which I think is
way more biblical. And this is the idea that God
relates to mankind historically through a series of covenants. And
it's odd that, I mean, why wouldn't the dispensed sessions
want to use the thing that the Bible itself says
is how we relate to God, which is the covenant relationship.
And in those covenant relationships the way there's kind of
a similar patterner structure to all biblical covenants. Love theologians
have noted this over the years, whether Protestant or non Protestant,
but so basically, well so to the comment, it's not
exactly covenant theology, because what they're doing is they're saying
that in these dispensations, the way that you're saved and
the way that you have a relationship with God changes,
it's different, and that's not covenant the Covenant theology says
there's a unified pattern to these covenants. They're all essentially
one covenant. Dispensationalists do not believe that it's all one
covenant back. Many of them are dual covenant believers. They
believe that there's a covenant for the Jews and this
other covenant thing for Gentiles, which is totally different from
all these previous covenants in the past with Noah or whoever.
So it's a really yanky like whack type of anti
covenant theology. It's a very opposite of what orthodox or
even most Protestants would believe about the Old Testament Covenant.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so there is there are similarities with viewing it,
you know, with the covenantal theology. But they they love
each other Covenentalists and dispensationalists. As I said, like in
the beginning, a dispensation is a prevailing type of order
or rules or whatever. It's almost like imposed. But there's
also no interaction, right, there's just things are playing out,
which again plays into different types of Protestant strains of thought.
Protestants not big on free will and stuff is going
to play into it. So but but you can't say
it's like covenant theology as far as back to our
timeline has described here, they basically just pick us, you know,
an event that's important, and then say, oh, this is
like a carve out, this is a specific dispensation.
Speaker 3: So nine eleven could very well be if darted today, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, okay, that might be more joking, but nine
eleven would definitely be one. But as far as these
types of events, the problem isn't that you can't you know,
just set about Okay, let's view this period here in
this man. The problem is that you carve it out,
as they said, it sort of becomes like self subsistent,
like it has a saiety. And the problem with that
is like throughout history, I know, how do we do
we define the Middle Ages? And usually we would say,
you know, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire,
you know, to either the fall of Constantinople or the
discovery of America. That's the general timeline. But that does
not mean that all of a sudden, you know, like
in strategy games, you know, like advanced period and all
soldiers turn from like Roman engineers to like knights and something.
You know, things don't change that sharply. But in dispensationalism
you do have these sharp edges, and they view it
as separate things and as Jay said, convenentalists do not.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's also it's very romantic looking. It's like if
you were removed the Genesis and all these biblical references
and just kept these bullet points, I wouldn't know if
you're looking at the chapters of a comic book or
a romance novel or something like it could be. It's
almost like that. That's the impulse, is to sort of
categorize it in this way that's more reduced, so that
people sort of experience it like they're in this storyline,
like what chapter are we in? Right from that view,
and that seems to be kind of a problem in
itself to assume that you have the knowledge of what
chapter you're in, right, Jay, you're your ummute bro on,
mute bro.
Speaker 4: Every covenant that God makes with man, and by the way,
you'll notice to the structure of covenants is that they
begin with Adam, and then it moves to a family
with Noah, and then it moves to a tribe with Abraham,
and then it moves to the nation with Moses. Then
it moves to the kingly covenant with David, and then
we have the final covenant with the Messiah. So there's
a logical structure to the movement of the evenance. There's
no logical structure to this arbitrary adhocs system. And furthermore,
each covenant in the scriptures, even the for example, a
Brandmic covenant, it includes stipulations, so you'll have these sort
of statements of the vassal to the covenant people. The
stipulations are given, and there's also promises. So every covenant
includes promises, grace and stipulations or laws. Even with Moses,
even with Abraham. If you look in twenty two, God
makes the stipulation that you have to obey his statues,
his decrease, his commands. So they'll often try to say
there's no law or stipulations in the Bramic Covenant. But
in Genesis twenty two, when God repeats that there is
law and stipulation, there's law and stipulation in the covenant
without him. Be faithful, you know, don't eat of that tree,
et cetera. When Adam sinned, he broke essentially all the
ten commandments, and so they fundamentally misunderstand that there's always grace,
there's always uh stipulation. Even the Mosaic Covenant includes grace too.
So that's that right there, as a total destruction of
the whole presupposition of covering dissations.
Speaker 3: That's interesting because I mean it's not exactly the same,
but it did remind me of like an Orthodox view
of being saved, having been saved, saved, and will be
saved versus I got my trans stamp saved. See, it's
like a similar error, but just not as a big magnitude,
I guess, or how they're doing it here. You're saying
a lot of these titles or things would exist in
all of these chapters in some way, so to divide
them and I assume they they're non existent previously is silly.
So I don't know how. My question is, how did
you get away with this? Is it because it was
just an absence of church authority in Western modern culture
of this time, modern relatively modern, that they just didn't
get catch it.
Speaker 4: I would say there's kind of a long tradition already
in the West, especially in England, of Protestant assumptions. So
you know, from the time of Henry the eighth and
the Anglican Church in the UK, you've already kind of
got a few generations, a few centuries of these Protestant assumptions,
and so these people are kind of like, oh, you know,
look what we've discovered, and they're basing it on the
fact that you know, you already had probably I think
a few Anglican ministers who were pretty famous prior to
this who were premillennialists. So I think there was a
few popular Anglican theologians before Darby and these guys who
were premillennial, So they were probably working with some of
that and saying, well, he's premillennial, but he's not consistent
enough because he's not understanding that, you know, God's got
these different plans. And then I think there's also a
geopolitical motive, which we'll get through here in a moment.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah, at the time, right.
Speaker 2: I'd like to say that the with among the reformers,
you had people who had outright hostility towards Mosaic law
because they separated so much from you know, we are
saved by grace and back then he was saved by works. Again,
basic illiteracy in terms of understanding scripture. But I believe
Luther said that he would punch yeah, because he demanded
so much works. I don't know how that works. With
solar scriptra, you know, like Moses felt like putting all
of these.
Speaker 4: Well, I read a lot of Luther. I had a
Luther phase. I read a lot of Luther. And what
he says is that, well, what counts as scripture is
what preaches the word of God. What preaches the word
of God is what preaches the Gospel of grace. So
essentially whatever Luther thinks.
Speaker 3: So he wanted to punch. He wanted to punch Moses
for abiding by works like high demanding it. Oh demanding. Well,
that's funny because that would be a work, that would
be like a work to punch him like that would
be a good deed in action from his.
Speaker 2: But even if he didn't see it as a good deed,
he would have to God, like, we make fun of
people who are like we have no pictures and that
this or that, that's all idolatry, you know, Okay, And
I tell them, okay, go back to when they were
building you know, the tabernacle and the the arc or
later on the temple, you know, and go tell Moses
he's an idolator, and he'll tell you, but God told
me to do this. Well, then God is an idolator,
because God doesn't preach iconoclasm or something like that. But
it's it's these things are read retroactively into the Bible.
It's it's the definition of Jesus, which they, you know,
constantly complain about everyone else doing. And the dispensation is, specifically,
are so obsessed with saying that any different reading of
the Bible requires like a film to be put over
the Bible, like some interpretive schema has to be imposed.
But this is the clear teaching of scriptures. And as
Jason mentioned, the word of God, and I keep arguing
with Protestants on Twitter, the word of God in the
scriptures never refers to the scriptures. It always means the
second person of the God, the Word of God, Jesus,
and especially I'm too illustrated. I mentioned the beginning of
the Book of Jeremiah. It says, the Word of God
places his finger on my lips. It's not unless it's
some type of origami of like papyrus with words written
on it in Hebrew. You know, No, it's a person.
It's a guy. It's a guy. When it's with Abraham
and he recognizes him physically with the two angels, you know,
it's not this ethereal disembodied voice. So they also views
the term word of God, and then to this day
justin still say what God means the Bible, you know,
and it interpreted like you know, faith comes from hearing
and hearing from the Word of God. They interpret that
as you know, scripture readings with.
Speaker 3: Something yeah, yeah, keep going a couple of seconds. I'm
gonna bring up a meme that really embodies this problem
real quick.
Speaker 4: Okay, no problem personally, I could do something. I would
disagree a little bit there. I'm not trying to cause
the dissension or anything like that. But I think like
if you read Psalm one nineteen, which is the Master
I think it's one eighteen, there's a lot of references
in there to the law, and it's identified also as word,
and I think there it is talking about the written text.
So I don't see necessarily a problem with at times
identifying the written text as the Word of God in
a limited sense, because, as Maximus says, the content of
the Word of God or the Shuman's content the scriptures
is the same as the content of anything else about
divine rebel, which is just the low gee. So if
you understand that it's not the Bible that is, technically speaking,
the living person of the Word, but in a limited
sense you could call it the law of God or
the Word of God, as that Psalm does. It's just
referring to the message or the content, which is ultimately Christ.
And that's relevant for dispensationalism because there's another key hermeneutical
mistake that they make, which is a dispensationalists think that
the Old Testament is not primarily about Christ. This is
huge because all those promises that they see in Genesis
to Abraham, to the seed, to the nation, that He
will make them as the sand of the sea the
stars of heaven. They see that it still promises to
literal flesh Israel. And so if you don't have a
crystological hermeneutic of the Old Testament, you're going to fall
into dispensationalism because they don't believe that the Gospel was
taught in the Old Testament. That's why we say, as
Paul says in Galatians three and four, Romans four, and
Hebrews four, that the Gospel was preached to Abraham and
to the Jews in the wilderness. No dispensationalists can say
that or beliefs that. So it's crucial that they have
this rigid, what's called only grammatical historical interpretation of the
Old Testament, no emphasis on Christology. They'll admit a few
Messianic prophecies like Psalm twenty two or whatever, but they
will not admit that there is a presentation of the
Gospel in the Old Testament. They would be really confused.
I think about Theophanes or the idea that the Trinity
is in the Old Testament. All of this would confuse them.
So they had this unitarian idea of the Old Testament,
which is what many other people have. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Interestallations three twenty nine specifically says those who belong to
Christ are the seeds of Abraham and as to the promise,
And that goes with what we were saying before you
jumped on Jay, that all of this genetical, genetic, racial
ethnic view. Yeah, that is very prevalent in dispensationalism and
basically unnecessary prerequisite for the Zionist aspects of it are
a product of modern understanding of ethnicity and genetics.
Speaker 4: And just that phrase, the Gospel was preached to Abraham
from Galatians three, and the Gospel was preached to the
Jews and the wilderness Hebrews four. Just that phra. No
dispensationalists could ever Wait, no, there's no Gospel preach during
the era of Promise or law.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because it wouldn't make any sense.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wanted to show this meme because obviously from
this person's view who posted this, they could swap out
Catholic with Orthodoxy here. But it's got the Bible looking
at the boyfriend who's checking out church history. Well, this
is so stupid. It's actually a cell phone. Because the
Catholics would be people and men, and the Church history
would be men, and that would require mind and interpretation
and views. The Bible is presented as a as a person,
as a being, as a mind, as some sort of entity,
and that's ironic and ironically they posted this, and they
don't understand the problem here that from their view, that
is the problem that the Bible isn't a being. There
is no personhood of the Bible as an object with
words in it, and they do fundamentally kind of turn
the Bible into the fourth person in a weird perverted way.
Speaker 2: Throw back to yesterday's debate about Yeah. Yeah, I make
the same claim you know, critique about when they say
faith saves, they're almost like treated like an entity. Right. Yeah,
there's like furies in like Roman mythology. You know, there
are these spirits called furies, that female spirits, and they
go and possess people who do something wrong, you know,
and then you become furious. Right, And apparently they see
faith as that. You know, you get this spirit called
faith and then it acts and you'll stick.
Speaker 3: It's not pos you sure, it's not furries.
Speaker 2: There are no female it's all degenerate, all right.
Speaker 3: I want to move I want to move along here
because I do want to get especially to the cultural
aspect that Jay was pointing to that we're going to
get to, because it's that's really I think is really
the impactful part of this. Like obviously the education of
this is important, but how it how it impacts modern
policy geopolitics, which Jay is uh specialized in, I really
want to get into that. So I want to move
through this little overview, get a grasp of it. I
want we don't have to go too far in if
you guys think there's something we should cover before we
get into the geopolitical. Uh, Jay, will we.
Speaker 4: Be transitioning totally out of the theology stuff.
Speaker 3: No, if you want to cover theology but also cover
it as we go into geopolitics, I think it's still
relevant because a lot of these, like evangelicals, I guess,
or maybe others, you want to include all of their
patterns and their and their voicing of what we should
do in politics and Israel and all these stances are really,
wouldn't you say, largely informed by this broken theology.
Speaker 4: Whether they even know this is this is completely dominated
you know, the American evangelical mindset, which is actually now
spilled over into Protestant I mean a Catholic and even
sometimes Orthodox mindsets. They get this. They get tainted with
this idea that somehow, this a lot of this gibberish
theology is somehow correct and well, we still got to
you know, honor, you know this stuff happening in the
Middle East or whatever. I don't want to add real quick.
In Genesis seventeen, for example, this is another way to
easily just refute this stuff. When Abraham was ninety nine
years old, the Lord appierre Abraham and said, I am
God Almighty, what before me? And be blameless, and I
will make my covenant with you. So there's a promise,
but there's the stipul walk before me and be blameless.
So even the imbrahmic covenant is not a covenant where
there are no stipulations. Right. And then you know at
the end of gal another thing that easily refuses this
is at the very end of Galatians, Paul calls the
Church the Israel of God in Galatians six sixteen. No
dismisationists could understand the Church to be the Israel of God. Right,
So again you know Jesus and the Parables, when he
says that the King of God will be taken from
you and given to a nation producing the trusure of
their nation stands for the gentile nations. So it doesn't
mean that you can't be saved, but it means that
the national covenant with Israel is no longer going to
be mainly about Israel. It's going to be opened up
to the Gentiles. And if a Jew want part of
the covenant, they have to become a Christian. That's it.
Speaker 2: Al says that those who you know all the faith
of Christ, they are see Isaac can the physical I
think he calls it Israel or the flesh would be
like Ismaeilites, because and for those of you who need reminding,
you know, we have Ishmael, sorry and mixing up my language.
Is Ishmael, who is the son of Abraham through Hagar,
his servant woman. And God says, no, no, no, you
have to it has to be with Sarah. You know.
That's why he's called Isaac, which means laughter, because she
laughed when God said that they will have a child
in their very very advanced age. And you know, even
though there is a blessing that is still given to
Hagar and Ishmael, and that's not Islam. By the way,
there are people who claim that they would say Ismael.
You know, that's how they would connect a lot of things,
or attempt to connect it to the Bible. Right, But
Saint Paul Hid himself very distinctly says that no, no, no, no.
The Israel is the people of Christ, not some genetic thing.
And as Christ himself says, God can make children of
Abraham other stones. He doesn't need any of this. That's
a message throughout the Bible. You can't really bribe God,
so you know, good luck.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and again you like that text the King of
God will be taken from you in Matthew twenty one.
That whole parable thank you is about the fact that
the Jews had failed at what was essentially their covenant mission,
which was to produce the Messiah and then share him
with the world. They failed because they intended to kill him,
but ultimately divine providence, and also by the prophecies which
the Jews and even the apostles of the first century
had misunderstood until Christ reveals it to them after the
resurrection in Luke twenty four, they were they lost those
promises and were divorced. This fulfills the promises in Hoseiah,
the prophecies in other places in Jeremiah, where it's talking
about God giving Israel a writ of divorce, a bill
of divorce. Because of the culmination of their sins Matthew
twenty three, Jesus says, all of the things written in
the prophets, the vengeance of all of those periods will
come upon this generation, talking about his day in Matthew
twenty three, because of their crucifixion of the Messiah. That's
the culmination of their sins. We have this passage, for example,
in Genesis, where God says they fill up the measure
of their sins, talking in that passage about the Egyptians.
Here we're saying, basically saying that when the Jews fill
the measure of their sins in the death of Christ,
then the covenant will be opened, the bill of divorce
given to national Israel, and the marriage to the bride
the Lamb. So God finds a bride which is not
the adulterous Israel, it is the Church. The Church is
his bride of the fig tree. Is this so many
of those exactly some of those parables only makes sense
in this in this context. And the last thing I'll
say is that, uh, the teaching of Athenacious Cyril of Alexandria.
John Christism very clearly in his in his homilies on
Matthew twenty four other even origin, the tendency is to
be partial preadterist. What what what's funny?
Speaker 2: For a second, No, No, I'm laughing because, you know,
thinking of prosionist ideas in Saint John Chris system, you know,
not he doesn't.
Speaker 4: He's not very amenable to those ideas.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, we shall quote him on these.
Speaker 4: Yeah anyway, So, but partial preadism is the idea that
a lot of what's happening in the Book of Revelation
in Matthew twenty four and twenty one is the seventy
eighty destruction of the Temple. It doesn't mean everything is.
That's called fool predterism. That's a heresy that they believe
that even the Bali Resurrection has happened, which is stupid,
but I didn't want to mention really quick. There are
some great books on this that have been around for
a long time. Kenneth Gentry has his thd dissertation called
Before Jerusalem Fell, which is a really good book. All
of these, by the way, refute dispensationalism. David Chilton has
a classic commentary. He was almost going to become Orthodox
before he died. He's on his way and it's called
Days of Vengeance. It's a chapter by chapter commentary on
the Book of Revelation. It's really good. It's been now
superseded because people in his circles, like I don't know
if you guys know pere letheart is he's another person
who's even though he's Anglicanish Protestant. They've been borrowing from
Orthodoxy for the last twenty or thirty years. So this
is the Doug Wilson circles. Lightheart just put out a
new two volume commentary in the Book of Revelation from
this fantage point. So I haven't ready yet. I just
got it. I think it's going to be good. There's
another This is a Methodist guy who was anti dispensationalist,
and he wrote a commentary on a lot of Biblical apocalyptics.
So it's actually Milton Terry's Biblical apocalyptics. It's actually a
good reputation of dispensationalism. A couple more really quick ones.
This isn't This is another Protestant minister who was anti dispensationalist.
He wrote a book called The Destruction of Jerusalem, George
Peter Holford. So even the Protestants, ironically, after the advent
of dispensationalism, even the Protestants were like on this, refuting it,
and some of their books are pretty good reputations. David
Chilton has another little book called Great Tribulation, which is good.
So if anybody's looking for like a thorough sort of
like immediate treatment. Even Bonnson has a book I'm not
you know, I'm not going to recommend his theology per se.
But he has a good critique of this called House Divided,
I think is what it's called. Interestingly, Yeah, even the
Protestants have been all over this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you talked about motivating a little bit. Well, today
it's obvious everybody's talking points. We can get into the
motivation today of holding this view or even a partial
view of dispensationalism. But at the time, could we say
that there is a motivation here? Or could we split
motivation with just crappy uh, you know, hermeneutics and just
adding all this interpretation like is it is?
Speaker 2: It? Is it? Like? You know?
Speaker 3: What I'm asking is how much of it is like
sort of an innocent, ignorant impulse versus is there some
political motivation that can be talked about at this time?
With the guy on the screen, the guy in the
right there with the weird look, is there a motivation
at the time?
Speaker 4: I would say we could point to a motivation. Who's
that guy that became orthodox? He's he's put the most
time into studying this topic. I'm trying to think that
he wrote a book on the CFOLF. James Pearloff has
researched this a whole lot. He ended up converting to
Orthodox to a couple of years ago. So he I
don't know if he's written on this or he's gonna
write on this, but he's the first to really talk
about kind of the timing of this in regard to
the nation state of Israel. Right, So the modern founding
of it. So the Scopfield study about what comes out
in nineteen o nine from Oxford, right, And if you
follow the Quigly material, we know that the Oxford circles,
Cambridge Eton, these are all the upper what's called Cliveden set,
the Astors, the Miliner, Fabian, Ralph Child circles. We know
that they had a plan via Balfour, the Balfour Declaration,
to set up this new nation state. It makes absolutely
perfect sense that they would want to promote through this
study Bible, right, this to prep people for if it
comes out in nineteen oh nine, right, prep people for
what a few years later, the establishment of the nation state.
Speaker 3: It's like the PNAC, It's like the Project for New
American Century, but with Church like a like a.
Speaker 4: Crappy study, but a crappy PNAC study by.
Speaker 2: Way right, right, I mean Schofield Bible, produced originally by
the Oxford University Press, you know, very very suspicious. Immediately,
I just think of accents like mine but you know,
not talked about grown up with, and I immediately think,
oh God, something's afoot, something very vile and planned for
a century in advance.
Speaker 4: So you can see the first issue came out in
nineteen oh nine by can't.
Speaker 3: You Okay, but Jay, how about when this guy was
doing all of his work in his closet? Is their
motive before that? Is there some influence there if we
go even back further, like when this is all getting
sort of like you know.
Speaker 4: College could be Yeah, Parlof would probably be the person
to go to on that.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm personally unaware of any but as I said,
you know, they have this idea that church is a
New Testament thing, the term itself, but that's ridiculous. The term,
as I said, eclicia exists in the subturgent Congregation of
Israel is in English rendered as congregation, but then church
is rendered as.
Speaker 4: You know, uses the phrase that ecclesia in the wilderness.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, So there is a linguistic difference. If your
main resource isn't the subturgent. But even then you have
to consciously translate them differently. You know, as much as
I don't understand why the Book of Joshua is called
the Book of Joshua but Jesus is called Jesus, and
why no one decided to align them like it will
be in Greek or in Sabe, you know, called the
Book of Joshua. Can you Gossavina, you know, son of
Nave and it's Jesus, but the same way. You know,
then people don't make that connection because it's not that
obvious that Joshua and Jesus are the same name. You
have to analyze it. So to a lay person it
would be you know, it would seem like you're trying
to pull something on them.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: There's an interesting section here in the Premillennial Study Bible
on the life and history of John Nelson Darby, and
one thing it notes is that early on, from eighteen
twenty seven to thirty three, Darby's Ecclesiology and Eschatology underwent
a reformation. He was disenchanted with the relationship of church
and state in England. He addressed these early writings to
the fact that the church was a heavenly institution. He
then garnered around himself a bunch of like minded people
for Bible studies and houses without ritual and hierarchy. So
it seems like from the early outset it's just church
and states shouldn't be together. Church is a quote heavenly thing.
I'm gonna start having home Bible studies.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just a rejection and a rebellion of authority,
just like the modern era. It's just like, you know,
what follows can be a bunch of garbage right in
any direction, but seems like the foundation every time is
always the first thing is like, I'm going to reject authority.
I'm going to reject hierarchy. I'm gonna reject church, tradition, authority, historicity,
all of these things. I'm going to make my own stuff.
And really he's like the modern I mean, I'm gonna
call people, I'm gonna call truth or these truth towards
Darby's now because it's the same. It really is the
same thing. It's just it's just like a different take.
But really the impulse is just the same thing. Every time.
I don't need a church. I have a fire pit.
Speaker 4: Jay.
Speaker 3: You know, who are you going to tell me my
fire pit does do the job, Jared.
Speaker 4: It's a little side tidbit. You know who else was
raised Plymouth Brethren another most famous person in the world.
Speaker 3: Really, Oh.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you get raised in these horrid, ridiculous cults
and then you know, you end up all messed up.
Shocker exactly. But I wanted to mention that Derby, not
only is it not like a simple rejection of like
sacitoital priesthood or ecclesiastic authority adherents or even promotion of
such authority, he saw as you know, basically treason and blasphemy.
So it is like you go and kiss the hand
of some weird bearded guy in a dress like that's
that's basically the level of his you know, rebellion. But
that also means you get full lateral and horizontal freedom
to interprets the way you want.
Speaker 4: Here's an interesting piece of the puzzle. It might help.
This is the person I've never heard of. It was
while Darby was at Trinity College that he came under
the influence of a theologian by the name of Professor
Richard Graves, who happened to be an advocate for Judaism
and Jewish people in the British Empire. Graves believe that
through the conversion of Israel, it would bring about the
I guess the end of the world. It would it
would usher in the end of the world, and that
a gentile parenthesis had existed since the Jews had rejected
the Messiah. So here's the origins is from this person
called Professor Richard Graves. So I'm not familiar with him,
but he would probably be the key character here.
Speaker 3: Posh did say Jay is going to Jay will come
with the folders, and you did. You came through, Now I.
Speaker 4: Want to I came with an actual Schofield study Bible
with my name on it, with.
Speaker 3: Your name Golden gold Day Diary. This is interesting. You
said that there is even a connection to rejecting Christ
as God as the Messiah, because the starting point of
rejecting Christ as the Messiah basically necessitates of you that
you could invent a new future to live into that
you're waiting for. So it does make sense that any
kind of rejection of Christ would allow for, like Posh said,
horizontal vertebral building.
Speaker 4: Also, remember, based on that scheme that you have there,
if you can be saved in different ways in the
Old Testament or in that period. There's no reason why
you can't be saved in other ways, now right, Yeah, yeah,
waved books sure a separate way to be saved for gentile,
separate way just to be safe for Jesus.
Speaker 1: What book?
Speaker 3: What book did you just read out of? But yeah,
that what was that quote? Even though you didn't know
who was saying it?
Speaker 4: What was the So this is a diction area of
all these people, and they're belief arby entry underneath it.
Speaker 2: So it's not just the pictures at the cover that
are good. But I wanted to also say that the
whole apocalypticism that they're obsessed with leads to like today
people are Jesus come quickly. Jesus come quickly, which is
a horrible position to hold at The Book rep of
Revelations itself says that the blood of the martyrs is
crying from under the altar in heaven and the only
reason why it's not yet heated is that God still
gives us time for as many of us to repent
as possible, So to hurry it up is not just
you know, unbiblical, it's also cruel and shows the level
of narcissism that comes with the faith alone position. You
sign you know your name on the saved, you know Chopper,
and there you go. Now you're you're safe. So you're
going to be playing a hob on a cloud and
the others can found.
Speaker 4: Now keep in mind, so these goobers believe that they
can do certain geopolitical actions like trying to Originally in
the eighteen thirties, the idea was they could miss be
missionaries to Israel, convert the Jews that would bring about
the end of the world and return of Christ. Right,
what does Crowley think about the Book of Revelation. He
thinks it's a ritual book that if you do it,
it brings about the end of the world. So they
have the same idea that like, you can do these
actions like like this the technology right, yeah, in the
end of the world. Even Croley has that view.
Speaker 3: That's really interesting, Jay, Not to go off topic, but
Crowley's I would say intimate relationship. I don't know what
else included in that between him and Jack Parsons, who
basically not tried to materialize that particular view, but there
was definitely some sort of ritual in his combustion experiments
and rocket tree. Interesting.
Speaker 4: The Babylon working is an end of the world working.
Speaker 3: See, it's it's crazy how this stuff is. Like I
wish I had my truth or music cue because it
is really connected. Works every time. Yeah, that was fun. Yeah,
we're going to be doing another one. Hopefully Jay will
get a date and if you need any help, uh
finding it on a location. But yeah, I'll try to.
I'll just keep looking. I'm gonna keep going with this
and you guys, you guys can determine how much theology
you want to do. Even when we get into some
of the modern stuff. Like I said, it's still important.
But if there's any more you want to do, I
can keep going as long as you want.
Speaker 6: Here, I want to look at some of these in
a little bit more detail before we move on. The
millennium itself is a standard pre millennial conception, the idea
that Christ reigns for a thousand year period of time,
reigns from Jerusalem. All of this he shares with other
pre millennialists who basically developed similar ideas at that time
in history. The Millennium is immediately preceded by the Second Advent.
Christ comes before the Millennium, hence the term pre millennialism. However,
something unique to Darby's view of this is that the
Church is not present all the other pre millennial eschatologies
see Christ reigning for this thousand years through the people
who are the ones advocating.
Speaker 4: This particular eschatology.
Speaker 6: So if you're a Seventh day Adventist, he's going to
rule through the Adventus. If you're a Jehovah's witness, he's
going to rule through the witnesses. If you're a Mormon,
he's going to rule through the Mormons.
Speaker 2: You see.
Speaker 6: But Darby has a different view of very stunning idea
that the church is gone.
Speaker 4: And this church is in hill the promise that the
so called unfulfilled promises to the Jews.
Speaker 3: Okay, so this is why Jesus.
Speaker 4: So the church is raptured. Jesus comes back rules in
Israel for the Jews to fulfill those promises while the
church is.
Speaker 3: So he's declaring the Church is gone.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Does that mean so the Church is no longer physical,
nor is it existing metaphysically in a sense, just in heaven.
Speaker 4: Right, So, for example, the beginning of the tribulation, if
you're a pre tribulation rapture person, you believe that when
the seven year tribulation starts, the church has been raptured,
It's been taken out, and so the Antichrist comes right
the Jews convert. The Jews then start converting everyone, and
then Jesus comes back destroys Antichrist and then rules for
a thousand years, and then there's the great White thrown
judgment resurrection. So the church is in heaven as Jesus
rules on it.
Speaker 2: I'd like to make a couple of points here. So
one very basic critique of dispensationalist in this pre millennial
view is that it says that Christ rules for a
thousand years. And again, this was not an uncommon term
to use for a lot, like a thousand is a
lot to us today, Maybe not so much because we
live in times of tremendous axis of anything you can
think of. But it just means a long time, you know.
We have that even in Daniel that after a long time,
you know, we will get back to like the Second
Coming or something. But it says that after near the
end of that reign, because the strong man is bound
and that prefers to Satan, that his reigns must be
loosened a bit. What bloody point is there in Christ
coming back ruling one thousand years and just let Satan loose.
From our perspective, Christ is ruling right now. The Church
is alive, you know, with all the problems that you
know entails. But near the end of this long rain,
the reins of Satan will be loosened a bit, so
things will get rougher. That is not to say I
don't understand why people are so egocentric that they think, oh,
now is the end of the world, and they find
any single tip it, which is a very very Protestant
way of thinking, you know, oh this has happened, so
now I will connect it somehow. World War two was
a great place to think things are going to end,
and we don't know. There was a guy who called
in on this stream while I was on and said,
do you know this is the first time so many
Jews are back in you know, Israel, or the land
that described in the Bible as promise to Israel? You know, okay,
who says they will stay there? You don't know what's
going to happen, right, but they keep latching onto these
things and use it as this you know, like tarot readings.
Speaker 3: Or what part she was saying is basically bagel prepping.
Speaker 2: Is that what you're saying, preparing the water for the bay.
But you know they have this idea and use it
as a techne like you know Jay described, Crowley had
his own view on that, but there is no sense
in it why Satan would be loosened a bit, you know,
at the end of the millennial ring. So so that's
that's a very common one you can all take with
you and you don't need who knows how grand a
knowledge of theology to give them that example. But again,
like with all types of these niche Protestant schools, they
don't really go for logic, similar to Islam. You know
altos best. You don't need to describe anything. Who needs
to who needs God? Who needs to justify what God does? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Also, Josha, the modern era, with the technology, you think
it could be in our favor to get like a rigid,
narrow truth out there, but it actually works against us that.
Like you said, these people who are these apocalyptis tismos, apocalyptismos,
they're they can piece together things and find things. Oh
did you see that? You know they're all going back
to Israel. Did you see this sign? Did you see
the Olympics that they're just kind of like constantly in
this state of like fielding quick bits of information, uh,
digital post it notes and filling up their basement, right
and and not that they're even aware of these views,
but they're still you know, they're actually interacting with this
paradigm that we're critiquing right now without knowing it.
Speaker 2: And another parallel and this is going to be important
for the geopolitical aspects of it. Another similarity with Islam.
Islam teaches that Islam will go out into the world,
but it will retract like a snake, you know, between
the rocks. You know, it's going to become so incredibly
small again as it began. But it also talks about,
oh we are strong, we will conquer everything. You know.
So you've got both sides of the you know, dialectic,
so you can go back and forth. Anything good that happens,
oh you see, we're right because things are going well.
If things go wrong, oh you see, we are right
because things are not going well. Likewise, with these types
of apocalyptic thinkers, you know, anything that happens is proof
that you are right.
Speaker 3: Everything is yeah, all yeah, there's.
Speaker 2: No way to disprove it because they've captured both sides.
Speaker 3: It's a climate change. Yeah, I'm not going to read
I'm going to read relevant ones for those of you
bob chat or super chat and it's it's not totally relevant.
I will read it at the end. You can direct
it a posh or myself or Jay as well, But
this one seems relevant. Nine ninety nine. If dispensationalist heresy
is prominent in America, can we find any dispensationalists to
obliterate in debates like yesterday? Yeah, shout out to Jay
and Sam. You did very well. Highlight by the way
they tried to pin you guys against each other. Sam
geniusly just accepted heresy and said pray for me. I
thought that was a beautiful moment right there, totally deflated
their their.
Speaker 4: Well, maybe we knew they were going to do that,
so from the outset. Sam had said before the debate,
he was like, I'm just going to say I don't
know who's right on Philly o'quay and energies, whether Catholic
or Orthodox. So yeah, so I thought he was going
to say that but that ended up being a better
red rhetorical. That was awesome. Yeah, that was awesome, and
has converted to any I don't think he's formally converted,
but he says that he attends a Catholic church because
have the Eucharist, but he has to go through catechumen
process Orthodox and then he said, plus I don't know
whether Orthodox are right on papac and or not.
Speaker 2: Okay, but he hasn't made a formal declaration.
Speaker 4: Goes there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, here tends. But but but you have to get
baptized or at least you know, not Christ. But do
you call it Chris mate it? Something needs to happen
before you're formerly part of it. And as far as
I'm aware, he hasn't. So they were just even though
they have different understandings of Islam, they were trying to
pose the same type of disparacy. Oh yeah, I mean excellent.
Speaker 3: One of them was, Yeah, that was funny. He didn't
even flinch. Okay, we'll keep going here.
Speaker 2: So question was a.
Speaker 4: Is preterism the same as preterism is just the idea
that many prophecies about what people think of the end
Matthew twenty four, Luke twenty one, and even much of
the Book Revelation that it's about the things occurring in
the days of the people experiencing it. So, for example,
John if you believe in the early Day for the
Book of Revelation, was writing about the destruction of the
Temple in seventy eighty, so many of those things. I
don't think anybody really doubts unless they're super evangelical, that
some aspects of Matthew twenty four and Luke twenty one
have to be about the destruction of the Temple. There's
actually a really good Orthodox publication on this too, called
Apostacy and Antichrist from Jordanville Monastery. I think it's really
hard to get because it's out of print, but there
is a YouTube version of audio of this whole thing.
So it's only about forty pages, and all it is
is just collections of church fathers elder saints for the
Orthodox Church talking about apostasy and Antichrist and end times.
And it notes as well that much of what we
are looking at in Luke twenty one and Matthew twenty
four on page twenty two is the fulfilled fulfilled and
say it says, Holy Fathers of the Church explained that
these words at this point are about the destruction of
the temple in seventy eight eight, which is a prototype
of the future great tribulation and into the world. So
what happens here is that no dispensationalist believes in anything
preterist at all. So that's what's often called partial preterism.
That's what I mentioned earlier, earlier about the dating of
some of the events of the Book of Revelation and
when it happened. There's a different that's different from pre millennialism,
which is about the thousand year reign and does Jesus
come back before he sets up a thousand year early reign,
or is the thousand year reign typically called amillennialism, meaning
that there's no literal millennium, it's just the reign of
the church for an indefinite amount of time.
Speaker 3: And jr. That means Orthodox and Catholics are partial.
Speaker 4: Well if they dig into it. So for example, I've
got several Catholic commentaries in Book Revelation too, and the
commentaries that I have are not they do not talk
about preditorism. But I do have the missile, the Romancalic missile,
the traditional Latin mass missile, which does mention preditorist stuff.
So it's just kind of like you got to dig.
And there's not really official positions in anybody's church on
specifics of end time stuff. It's kind of like, well,
what did you know? Like what did Christism say? What
did CYRL say? What Athanatians say? Right, so we're looking
at them. There's not like a papal statement on this stuff.
It's just kind of like, got to dig to find stuff.
Speaker 2: Because this position was never popular in either Orthodoxy or Catholicism,
and usually you get these statements often there's been some
turmoil with people going for a position. But I wanted
to mention as far as possional prenterism is concerned, it's
a very consistent pattern in the Bible that gold does
something in a s sense, and then it comes to
full fulfillment later on, you know, like a sort of
advanced payment. So we yet Israel, the old Israel. It
is freed from slavery under Egypt and brought into the
Promised Land, not fully by a man called Moses, but
a man called Jesus or Joshua again in English. I
won't complain about that too much. Although it really irks me. Likewise,
the full promise is then fulfilled by everyone who becomes
part of the new Israel. The church is freed from
slavery under sin, under Satan the prince of this world,
and brought into the Kingdom of God, not again by
mosaic law, but by a man called Jesus. So again,
over and over again we get these patterns. Like Wise,
the we can see the destruction of Jerusalem as a prototype,
let's say, for what can happen later on. That does
not mean and like any serious church structure. Let's say,
let's I don't want to use the church the term
church willy nilly, but doesn't just look around for any
geopolitical event, any scientific advancement, and just well, there we are.
Chapter seven is.
Speaker 3: Here we go, turn the page, turn the comic book page.
Speaker 2: The trumpet is beginning to sound, you know, yeah, totally
like a fade in is starting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you set the stage right, getting your costumes.
Speaker 4: There's another key to this too that you can see
in the The Orthodox have an advantage in this regard
because we have first, second, and third Macabees in our
in our Bible, and that actually helps us with this
eschatology because a lot of the passages where Jesus talks
about what's twenty one Matthew twenty four, what's called the
alib discourse, those passages refer to an abomination of desolation,
the abomination. Right, what is this? How do we know
what this is? Well, if we know the Old Testament,
we know it really well because we know, for example,
the Temple Israel was destroyed five eighty six BC. Right,
the temple gets destroyed, gets the filed, that's the first defiling,
or the abomination of desolation, right when the Babylonians come in.
Then people don't know this, but if you read the Maccabees,
you know that there's another mirrored abomination. This is the
abomination of desolation of the next temple that Daniel writes about.
So when Daniel writes about this famous abomination of desolation,
this is after a five eighty six BC, Right, Daniel's
writing about what's going to happen in this future Maccabean period.
We get an abomination of the desolation of the Maccabees.
And then in third Macabees there's another abomination with the
Egyptian ruler told me, So we get another so there's
mirroring abominations of the filings of the temple. Right, So
if Jesus in his day is referring to another one,
what would be the next The only possible fulfillment would
be the destruction of the temple, which happens forty years
after Jesus talks about that seventy eighty. So we know
that seventy eighty has to be one of these clear
fulfillments of the abomination of desolation. And the last thing
I would say on that is just that the future desolation,
whatever that is, that's debated. Some of the church fathers
think that there will be a rebuilt temple, which would
be antichrist temple, and because it would be the reinstitution
of the sacrifices that we're done away with and fulfilled
in Christ's animal sacrifices, many church fathers say that would
be a sign of the end because that would be
Antichrist's temple. Some church fathers say, well, the final apostasy,
the great apostasy that we read about in Paul's Letter
to the Thessalonians, has to be something not in an
actual temple, but in the church. So there's a bit
of a debate amongst exegetes and theologians, church others as
to whether the great apostasy and the when it's the
text repulses, the man of sin will stand up in
the temple in the Church of God proclaim himself to
be God. Does that mean a spiritual temple of the
Church where a man within the church causes an apostasy,
or does it mean an actual, literal rebuilt temple in Israel.
I tend to actually think, I mean, I think there
will be an apostasy of the church whenever that is,
But I tend to think that it is talking about
a rebuilt, rebuilt temple.
Speaker 3: Jay, I just want to remind you that if something's debated,
that means there is no truth about it. So I
just wanted to according to Daniel, that dude, that that
was really funny.
Speaker 4: And by the way, he knows good and well when
you get into the nuances of Islamic debates on the
attributes of Allah, he knows good and well.
Speaker 2: They debate this all day long, and it's not clear
and simple. That's just a sales pit. They actually had wolves.
Whether the Quran is created or uncreated, well, and anyone.
Speaker 4: Is wrong, well, they'll call each other idolators in shirk
over the anthropomorphic views. So Jake and Daniel believe in
anthropomorphic views, and the other Muslims will say that they're
committing shirk by doing that.
Speaker 3: Jay, would you debate Sneako or you think it's wrong
to punch retards?
Speaker 4: I don't think Ko actually will debate anyone.
Speaker 3: No, he won't debate anyone. You No, I actually think
I think he's actually gonna I think he's gonna leave Islam.
That's my hope. Meeting him in person, I think he
occurs as like the little brother type, or he's just
like wide eyed and like I want to go do
the truth man, like this kind of thing. I think
he can be. I mean, I know he can be influenced.
So that's the good news about a young a young
pup like that. So maybe debating him isn't even in
the best process.
Speaker 2: Can I say? There was a super Chad that asked
if there was someone who is like the equivalent of
the dispensationalists like the Islamic debate from yesterday, And I'm
not sure that there is any structure you have major
like pro zionists and people who have similar eschatologies, etc.
But I don't think there's any formal structure.
Speaker 4: I've never heard of a dispensational debate. I mean back
in the days of like Monsen and Gentry and all that,
in like ninety nine or like the late ninetyes, mid
to late nineties, they were doing they were doing these
kinds of debates. But I haven't even heard of the
debate like that since the nineties.
Speaker 2: And nowadays you just hear apocalypticism and pro Israel stuff
John Hagy and crew, you know, just going away, whoever blissious,
who wish you?
Speaker 3: Yeah, this guy, I will and I will tell you
always support Israel forever and ever and ever until the end,
until the fire. Like this is basically modern politics, which
we'll get into. Uh. I think that's going to be
actually the very interesting, palatable more palatable with this. A
lot of the theology is important, but well you.
Speaker 4: Think of this as an evangelical thing, which it is,
But I mean Rat Singer in his one of his
uh later books before he stepped Down, was basically affirming
a form of dual dual covenant theology for the Jews.
So this this idea has basically spilled over into the
Roman Calolics as well.
Speaker 2: I think a lot of it is driven by a
certain mid century event that promotes a lot of guilt.
So now even though you disagree with it theologically, yeah,
you know, sort of feel bad about it, so you know,
you can't really deny any of it lest you look bad.
And then the only people who stand up to it
are usually crazy.
Speaker 3: Many religions, one covenant is the title Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's the six Things. So the so called trad
pope right was saying all kinds of crazy stuff.
Speaker 3: So okay, we'll just press play and see where this
guy takes us. I can't even tell. I don't know
if it matters the person who's presenting this, if he's
advocating or just simply described. I don't know if it matters.
Speaker 6: Eight of Israel and Christ is actually ruling through ethnic
Jewish people during this millennial period. I don't think anybody
in the history of the Church until Darby had ever
actually suggested that particular hypothesis. The church is removed, As
I say, the term of art that is used is
that the church is raptured. The term is not found
in the Bible, but It's usually an allusion to First
Thessalonians chapter five. So the church is taken out in
a kind of blink of an eye sort of event,
and that takes place before this millennial era begins. Old
Testament prophecies that look forward to a time of rich blessing,
And of course the Old Testament has many of these, Isaiah, Zachariah, Ezekiel, others, all.
Speaker 4: Sort of look forward.
Speaker 6: For the most part, all of the prophets have some
idea of a great period of blessing in the future.
Speaker 3: Generally speak trump trump, trump, trump, is that the is
that the is that one of the do you think
that could be smuggled in as that? Or you get
to choose whatever that is? Is it the eighties, I
mean the eighties were.
Speaker 2: I sent you that picture that the maga hat is
the muck of the beast?
Speaker 3: Right right, I'm interpreting this all wrong.
Speaker 6: Those have been identified with God's work among his people
in some sense or other in unfolding history. Classical Christianity
would say those are describing God's blessings on the world
through his.
Speaker 4: Work in the church, that sort of thing.
Speaker 6: However, Darby says all of those predictions actually refer to
the Kingdom, not anything that God is doing through the Church.
So those prophecies are actually prophecies of a coming millennium.
Immediately before the millennium is a period that Darby called
the Great Tribulation, borrowing that term, of course, from the
New Testament itself. This is a seven year period of time.
It precedes the second Coming of Christ. It is also
identified by Darby. Again he appears to be the first
one to suggest this hypothesis.
Speaker 4: He identifies the.
Speaker 3: I have a question, it might be really dumb when
people refer to the coming of Christ. Are they including
the birth and manifestation of Christ's man as the first
or are they talking about the resurrection as the first?
Speaker 4: The second coming, the coming into Okay, that's what they're
talking about.
Speaker 6: Okay, seven year period of the Great Tribulation as the
seventieth Week of Daniel. Now, if you've been in the
class or of otherwise study these things, you know, yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know.
Speaker 4: You probably don't want me to keep interrupting.
Speaker 3: No, you can keep it. This is really you guys
are driving this basically.
Speaker 4: So really important with Daniel's seventieth Week, because it's a
really important prophecy for Christianity, because it's basically Daniel in
his book looks back to Jeremiah and he realizes certain
things about what God's going to do in history. He
says in Daniel by reading Jeremiah, and Jeremiah talked about
seventy seventies and dividing up times into sevens and seventies,
and so Daniel comes up with this idea that there
would be a determined amount of time for the nation
of Israel. Now remember Daniel's writing in Captivity, so he's
writing as if the nation will be restored, and then
he predicts that there's this period of basically seven years
time seventy which is four hundred and ninety right, the
last seven years is this seven year period that Daniel
was talking about, and he says, in this last seven years,
this is really important because this is a really stupid
thing that the dispensationalists due. Daniel says that in this
last week, which is a week, is just seven years,
it's a week of years. This last seven years will
include the everybody says, seventy weeks are determined, and then
I'll skip down to the last Basically, there will be
an end of lawlessness atonement for sin. Everlasting righteousness comes
in the fulfilling and sealing up of visions and prophecies,
which means that there's no prophecies after. There's no new
visions and prophecies after the time of the Messiah. So
we don't need Mohammed and we don't need Joseph Smith
and to anoint the Holy One. And then he says,
this will be the coming of Messiah the Prince. Okay, Now,
the dummy dispensationalists are so stupid that they go with
the masoretic text, not the subtusion, because subtusient makes it
clear that it's Messiah the Prince. The Mazoretic text says
the Prince to come. They say that's the Antichrist. And
so they actually say that this last week is paused
when so Jesus comes, and then because the Jews rejected Christ,
the last seven years is paused to be the seven
year tribulation thousands of years into the future after the
time of Christ. Okay, there's nothing in the passage that
says anything about this. The passage actually says all of
these things are fulfilled when the Messiah comes. This is
Daniel nine twenty four to twenty seven. Right, excuse me, right,
and then it even says that the Messiah will be
cut off in verse twenty six. This the fulfillment of
the desillation, so we teach.
Speaker 3: So they introduced as sort of Nintendo arbitrary pause in
their in their game.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because though it's identified in the very passes that it's.
Speaker 4: The Messiah, the Prince in especially for the subtuagen, then
the next verse says that after this time the anointed
One will be put to death. The death of the
Messiah is so clear, right, idiots destroy one of the
strongest proofs of Christianity and the prediction of the Messiah
being put to death. These idiots destroy it. Make it
something two thousand years, three thousand years in the future.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the Jews were very aware of
this timeline in the time of Christ. And if that's
why people were already you know, if you claim they
start asking you questions, you know, they don't just hear what, well,
that's ridiculous. No, No, they were very aware of the timeline.
With the seventy weeks of years, you know, that's four
hundred and ninety years years and numbers in general in
the ancient world und it up massively. You know, it's
simply how things work. We are very methodical nowadays, in
large part due to the availability of writing and material,
both as in ink and as in a medium of writing.
So we are much more I want to say anal
about it, but yeah, we.
Speaker 4: Mean Rabbinic Jews has Saidic Jews they actually pronounce a
curse on gentiles that read this passage because this passage
is it's so difficult for them that they'll like, they do.
Speaker 3: A curse on the gentiles that they just spit they
just as randomly like drinks.
Speaker 4: I think they do it on Puim. I can't remember that.
They like, they'll drink wine and spit at the Jews
that read.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they have super they have like they have super
soakers and they just spreading people.
Speaker 2: Who is it Pentecostal?
Speaker 3: Wait okay, wait a second. Are you saying that the
dispensationalist view is partial to a it just happens to
be partial to a bagel view? Yes, that that the
best possible thing you can appeal to as far as
a prophecy of Jesus as God is rejected, which is
weird if you're taking a Christian view. Right, So you'd
be like, why would you pick the one thing that
really sets people into a into a spurgy frenzy.
Speaker 4: Right. So, and on top of this, because it's such
a damaging, dangerous passage, I also think that for they're
not actually allowed to read this for a long time
unless they're older Jews, and there's some rule about not
being able to read it until they're so uh or
or or maybe they're not allowed to talk on it
in the synagogue.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: There's there's some weird structures on it. But what's weird
about that is the passage is so clear and it
even describes the death of the anointed one that in
the Talmud they have a position that there's two messiahs. Right,
so you'll hear if you hear, if you're Jews debate,
they'll say there's no passages that talks about the death
of the Messiah.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: However, they're being disingenuous because the Talmut actually says there's
two Messiahs, one of whom dies. They believe in Messiah
Ben Joseph and Messiah have David and one of them dies,
so they even believe the Messiah dies. But to get
around these passages they've invented to Matua from Messiahs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and like with this position of elongating that last week, you,
with all Protestantism, you tie yourself to a certain conclusion
and then you reverse engineer any interpretation, including you know,
an uneasy relationship for example of Luther with the Epistle
of James, because you obviously you need to come to
this conclusion. So if anything is a bother to it,
you're going to reject it or at least discredit it.
And it's a very commonplace thing. So there's no way
this is saying what it's saying. It has to say
something that is in line with my expectation. And then
we have to listen to these exact same people tell
us how we apply different interpretive schemas in some self
serving manner. And it's again, there's no such thing as
plain reading. But if we just read it, it's pretty clear.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 2: As I said, there's no such thing as plain reading.
But it works with everything else. It works with Isaiah,
it works with the salts. We do it.
Speaker 4: That's a great point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, it locks with everything else.
Speaker 4: They believe in the simple, clear perspecuity of scripture, simple meaning. However,
when you get to Daniel nine, oh no, no, no,
there's this like pause, and it's two thousand years later,
and it's crazy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all of a sudden, perspecuity is gone. And then
they established some type of hierarchy of what is clear
isn't what is less clear, and then the more clear
interprets the less clear. And usually that means, well, what
agrees with me is more clear, but disagrees with me.
Should color be colored by what agrees with me?
Speaker 3: That sounds very sounds very Islamic.
Speaker 4: And Judaism all have the same like simple meaning and
book worship.
Speaker 2: Speaking of not talking about things in public. In the
last couple of years, there's been a complete collapse in
the Islamic argument of the miraculous perfect preservation of the Qur'an.
I don't know how anyone ever got to that point,
considering what the hardiths say. You know why it was
codified in the first place was because a lot of
it was lost with all the reciters. Quran means the recitations.
You know, all these reciters dying in battle or of
old age or whatever means of death. So they decide, okay,
we need to write it down. Everything we have, we
need to write it down and keep it right. And
that was replete with problems. But a couple of years ago,
Sneako's mentor, Mohammed jah I, just had a guy on
this that it's not just a guy that's Yasakadi father wrote,
his father wrote a book on the sciences of the Qur'an.
So he's not just you know, someone who's well informed.
He has a pedigree even with these types of things.
And there are multiple you know, not interviews, but like
lectures or things of him where he to how shall
we say, like an uneducated audience, like plebs. He says,
no perfect preservation, you know, every dot and no difference.
But then when he talks to as they call the
people of knowledge, which is to say, the scholars, it's
not that clear. And when a job had him on
a job kept pushing it until he said, these things
should not be discussed among you know, before the masses, Yochi,
you shouldn't talk about this. But it was just common
as filthy commoners here. This is something for us highly
educated people, which is a very very common thing with
mystic religions. You know, where you get this progressive revelation,
so to speak, where you get more and more knowledge.
This is what you'll get, as Jay said, you will
get it with Islam and Judaism, especially with problem parts,
and then Protestantism. I don't know, they don't do that.
They just sort of wing everything, and I don't know.
It's sort of like you never let them know your
next move if you can't really predict.
Speaker 4: That's providential that you said that past because literally I
had just watched that video two nights ago. I'd never
seen it in this interview, and I just happened upon
this interview. It popped up in my my feed. It's
called that there's a guy who captured it and kind
of made a summation video. He's he's a guy called
the Friendly ex Muslim. And if you're looking for this video,
it's called the interview Muhammada Jab tried to Hide from
the World, and it's it's like a twenty minute version
of what Pasha is talking about. I highly recommend that
because you'll see like Muhammad Joab starting to like freak out.
That's what this guy's saying, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, things things. That was a couple of years ago.
I know. David would had like a stream to commemorate
like four years since the interview, because then they kept spamming,
you know, striking for what's copyright copyright ringement, people who
would clip and repost it. Yaskaldi did that and YouTube
obviously obliged, so it's not as easy to find, but
it did happen. And basically everyone who is dealing with
anti Islamic polemics save that video, so there's no way
to delete it. It's just difficult to post and people
who host it somewhere else. You know, it's a very
important thing to find, but that has been destroyed. Another
thing that's been really destroyed as the scientific miracles, etc.
So it's a religion collapse. They you know, strike their
chests and pretend like, oh we are strong bitah, but no,
it's really going poorly for them. As I said Albania.
We have Albanians in the chat recently in.
Speaker 3: The Terrible Terrible People.
Speaker 2: Well, I wouldn't call them people.
Speaker 3: Hey, listen, one interruption here, Jay, I want to get
a sense of you and Posha's timeline. I do want
to get into geopolitics because it's very accessible to my audience.
This is all important, but dense. I just want to
get a sense of your timeline.
Speaker 2: In the sense of the stream.
Speaker 3: Yeah, how much time you have to because I want
to you guys have to s especially okay you have
beer Jay, especially because I want you here to go
over the modern implications what we're dealing with now in
our very cryptic way that we have to do it. Probably.
I just want to get a sense you you can
drive when you want to go into that, That's what
I'm saying. But I just want to give enough time
for it so that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you're limited in time, yeah, me, you are
the expert for the geopolitical aspect.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I don't want to miss out on that part.
Speaker 4: So well, I wouldn't even say an expert. I mean,
I just I mean, there's not a whole lot really,
that's that mysterious thing. It's pretty kind of easy to
follow and figure out basically. Just you know, a lot
of evangelical prophecy writers for many, many years, probably going
back to the eighties and nineties, and they've had a
very close relationship with Apak. We have certain figures who
have written who are Jewish writers, who've written famous prophecy books,
who work closely with foreign nations, shall we say, And
those are what they typically do in those prophecy books,
even the fiction books that are very popular, they will
promote the enemies of America and Jesus is almost always
Russians Chinese and they will usually just come on, yeah,
they loosely copy paste them onto Gog and Magog. Right,
there's this rabbinic tradition. I think that there's theories about
where the people groups from the Table of Nations in
Genesis ten went out into different regions of the world,
and so Gog and Magog and some of the rabbinic
ideas are you know, Russians and people like that. Anyway,
it's a lot of speculation in terms of that stuff,
but it's utilized in terms of geopolitics to push just
anything that's against you know, American, Israeli, Atlantis UK interests
must be one of these predicted prophetic in times inmates.
That's that simpoint.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, Jay, do you want Bosh real quick before
we get into geopolitics. Do you want me to continue
and do any more? Uh more theological? So it's still
interesting to me. I like it, the Chat likes it.
I just want to want to count for your time. Jay, Okay, Okay,
we'll keep going.
Speaker 2: Right back.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Pah amazingly doesn't have a catheter.
Speaker 4: Actually, I'm going to go to the restaurant. I'm actually
wearing a I don't want to go.
Speaker 3: Good, could go change the diaper. Well, and this is
a good time to look at some super chats, so
I don't miss them out. Okay, why did the Muslims
say that slavery argument like the atheist Well, because FB,
if you're talking about Daniel or the other dude, they
don't really have a standard because you know, if you
saw their argument was not their argument was conceding, even
with the pedo thing. They were like, well, you guys
hold this too. That's why they try to pin Ja
against Sam by appealing to to Aquinas. And so I
think I think the Christian and the Muslim have to
would have to have a debate about that particular item itself, slavery,
because Christianity like what you call slavery as far as
like capturing, like for instance, slavery. Let's say there's a
woman in the wilderness and in the time of of
like in a time of a horrid circumstance, you find
a woman in the woods now a woman. From a
Christian view, you can you could actually use force to
pick up the woman, put her in a carriage, and
remove her from the wilderness. Now would a modern person
say that slavery acting against autonomy will? Sure, But from
the Christian view, you're not arguing from you know, bodily
autonomy and consent at this point, you're arguing from a
larger position. So this it really brings up the question
of like, what is even considered the word slavery. Obviously,
the atheist Reddit, to your always use slavery incorrectly. They
always use this modern term of a trans and latic
slave concept, and then they transpose it into a biblical
historical context, which is inaccurate. But even if you granted that,
the atheist still has no justification for why any of
this is wrong. You know, so they're not even doing
an internal critique, which Jay and myself and many others.
I don't know what it's going to take to train
our opposition in this this distinction called an internal critique.
I don't know what's going on with their minds. I
don't know how to do. I wish they would do it,
because it's actually more fun to do to debate that way.
So Jay, you can answer this because you were in
the debate itself. Why did the Muslim say the slavery
argument like