Speaker 1: So you're free attatata.
Speaker 2: Hi guys, I'm going to do a sound check. If
you can hear me, okay, go to the heart with
the plus sign and hit the heart. So if you
can hear my voice, go to the heart with plus sign,
hit the heart. Wonderful. Now, if you can hear Jay,
I want you to go to the heart with the
plus sign and hit the one hundred.
Speaker 3: Say hello Jay, that's that's what's up.
Speaker 4: How you guys doing. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Perfect? All right, go ahead and hit that one hundred
if you can hear him and the heart. If you
can hear me both, wonderful. Great. We're gonna get started
in just a minute. Now. If at any point you
lose me, or you lose Jay, or you lose the speaker,
you lose anything, go ahead, leave the space, come on
back in and that's going to fix everything. Please share
the show. I want to get as much people listening
as possible. It was sort of a I had to
had technical difficulty, had to start the space. So we
want to get as much of those people back as possible.
So all right, go ahead, share the show. That'll be wonderful.
We're going to get started in just a second. Hello everybody,
and welcome to Spaces with Josie. I'm your host, Josie
the Redheaded Libertarian. My guest today is Jay Dye. Are welcome, Jay.
Speaker 4: What's up? Joe. Glad to finally talk to you sort
of in person.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely. We've been trying to schedule this for some
time and just the universe was not having it. It
tried to stop us again today, but you know what,
we overcame, overcame.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I'm excited.
Speaker 3: I know you had Joel Berry on and you know,
try to get him to come have discussions.
Speaker 4: He doesn't seem very willing to do that.
Speaker 3: So I'm glad to have these kinds of discussions secondhand,
at least proxy wise.
Speaker 2: Yes, I like these long for these long form interviews,
you kind of you kind of get more answers than
you will be just just a post, you know, and
and a little more information and we can delve into
some things. So last week I talked to Joel Berry
about Zionism and Christian Zionism. He's a Christian Zionist, and
I told him straight up, I'm like, I'm not I'm
I'm not a Zionist. I'm i believe that the that
the Covenant was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, and
that's as Christians what I believe. And you know, I'd
asked him straight up, does that make me anti medic
And he said he didn't know how to answer that,
but probably not. So anyway, we're going to get into
kind of the the other side of that discussion that
I have with Joel today. So some of you I see,
some of you, I reckonize some of you that were
in there last week. So you're going to be able
to hear kind of the other side of that. So
I actually had invited you guys are invited him to
come speak on your show, and he wouldn't.
Speaker 3: So, oh, we we have a double turnout. I'm getting
ghosted in this left and right.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely all right. So I guess to start off,
who are you and what do you do?
Speaker 4: I'm Jay Dyer.
Speaker 3: I do a lot of geopolitical analysis. I do a
lot of film analysis. I've written four books now, three
on Hollywood and one on philosophy and theology. I do
a lot of debates with atheists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Protestants,
you name it. I've done a lot of debates with
feminists whatever podcasts. I've been on Tim Cass multiple times,
maybe five times now for some debates as well.
Speaker 4: So yeah, I host the fourth hour of the Alixe.
Speaker 3: Jones Show, and I write for the Sam Hind Show,
so I do quite a bit of different things.
Speaker 2: Very cool. You are a jack of all trades, that
sounds like, and you're very knowledgeable, so I'm very happy
to finally get you on my show. All right, So
I guess to start off, what is Zionism? So how
would you define Zionism political verse Christian? And why is
Christian Zionism incompatible with Orthodox theology?
Speaker 4: So Christian Zionism is a political movement. Some of the
founders were religious to a degree, particularly figures in the
mid to late eighteen hundreds like Heim Weissmann, Theodore Hertzel,
and Moses Hess. Moses Has, for example, is the.
Speaker 3: Founder of modern utopian socialism, so he also shares a
lot of the founders share a lot of similarities, more
so with communism, Marxism, and socialism than they do with
anything based in capitalism. But even though primarily a political movement,
it does have a quasi religious association due to the
idea that the Jews have a promised homeland a Llah
Genesis twelve, fifteen, seventeen, et cetera with Abraham, and as
I said, like some of them also had quasi maybe
you could say agnostic types of views. Moses has, for example,
in his book Revival of Israel, seems to have kind
of Hegelian process theology of views, so nothing close to
even what we would call orthodox Judaism. More so, he
says he's influenced by people like Spinoza, he was a
pantheist and philosophers like Hegel. So that's why it becomes
very closely associated again with Marxism and socialism. A lot
of the kiblitzes that were established were a communal living
type situations. But it's incompatible first of all with Christianity
in any flavor because Christianity, as you noted, believes that
Christ is a fulfillment of all of these Old Testament
prophecies and types umber one, they're obviously going to be
split on the notion of the Messiah. Many Zionists don't
actually believe necessarily in a Messiah. Some of them actually
believe that it's the nation state of Israel or the
Jewish race that will become somehow the salvation of mankind
in general. So they have a kind of a supremacy
amongst some of them, not all of them. There's Orthodox
Jews that believe that the Zionist position is actually incorrect
and the Jews shouldn't be in the land.
Speaker 4: Until the Messiah comes.
Speaker 3: So there's a variance of opinions amongst religious Jews and
even not sill religious Jews. But the other element that's
really important historically speaking is if you read books like
the History of the Rothschilds family from authorized biographies, you
learn that the political motivations of Zionism are much earlier
than nineteen seventeen or the early twentieth century. It's actually
goes back into the eighteen sixties, where you had members
of the political faction of Moses hass asking the Rotcheut
family for and then Hin invitesman asking them for money
to actually help purchase.
Speaker 4: The land in the Middle East. And this happened pretty
early on.
Speaker 3: All the way back in the eighteen sixties, seventies, and eighties,
there were movements and actions by the Roschel family, for example,
to purchase large squads of land from the Turkish Sultan,
and originally they wanted to purchase the whaling Wall as well,
but that didn't go through, but it was an earlier
project then people typically tend to admit, and a lot
of propaganda says things like, oh, the Rochel family had
nothing to do with it.
Speaker 4: That is patently false.
Speaker 3: They brag about it in the authorized biographies that they
had a huge role. They even brag about the Balfour
decoration as well, even though that didn't really amount so
much until many years later. So that's the political side
of it, and it's as I said, probably the most
incompatible element would be the socialist tendencies, but also the
sort of reading of the religious mythology in a you
could say, atheistic way for Christianity, for worthdox Christianity, which
I think we would agree with Catholicism generally speaking on
this principle.
Speaker 4: Christ is the fulfillment of.
Speaker 3: All those Old Testament things, and so the nation state
of Israel during the Old Testament period had a very
important role in being a type or a foreshadowing of
the realities that would come, namely the Christian Church. And so,
for example, in Daniel nine, you have a famous prophecy
in twenty four to twenty seven, that when the Messiah comes,
the nation state of Israel and its temple administrations would
be done away with this Echoes Matthew twenty one forty three,
where Jesus says to the Pharisees and the Jews and
Scribes of his day, that the Kingdom of God will
be taken from you, the vine dressers, and given to
another group, namely the Gentiles, because of the unfaithfulness of
Israel and so many other tax Galatians six sixteen, Paul
calls the New Testament Church the Israel of God, the
spiritual Israel.
Speaker 4: In Galatians three, paulses that the.
Speaker 3: Only way to be a moment of the promise in
Genesis twelve of the Seed of Abraham is to be
in Christ, the capital s Seed. So there's only one
seed who is Christ fulfilling all those predictions and promises.
And that means that anyone baptized into Christ is the
Abrahamic Seed. So faith in Christ of what makes you
truly spiritually circumcised. And that was also a fulfillment of
all the Old Testament prophecies throughout Isaiah, the Psalms, etc.
That say that the Gentile nations would convert and worship
the Messiah.
Speaker 4: So that's the basic boiled down case as to why.
Speaker 3: For Christianity it would be a violation of Galatians or
the Book of Hebrews especially, which is all about the
symbology of the Jewish ceremonies being fulfilled in the work
of Christ, and then Christianity sort of being.
Speaker 4: The fulfillment of Judaism.
Speaker 3: So that's why we could never go back to, you know,
admitting these points religiously speaking or theologically speaking, and also
from a geopolitical perspective, it puts the West and it
puts you know, the Christian and so called nations of
Christendom in a weird position because the purpose of the
nation state of Israel was originally a British imperial project
that kind of ended up kind of taking on a
life of its own.
Speaker 4: And then we get into more.
Speaker 3: Modern, you know, political foreign policy problems.
Speaker 4: With the nation state of Israel as it is today.
Speaker 3: So it's a really nuanced, difficult topic, but that's my
quickest possible breakdown.
Speaker 2: Thank you. What is dispensationalism.
Speaker 3: Dispensationalism is a theology that emerged in the late eighteen
hundreds out of a sect called the Plymouth Brethren, and
this was run by a guy or kind of headed
up by a guy named John Nelson Darby, and he
came up with this speculation about how history was not
unified under an overall redemptive covenant theology, but instead it
was divided up into these arbitrary sections where God dealt
with man according to a plan A, a plan B,
A plant C, a plan D.
Speaker 4: Et cetera.
Speaker 3: And the seven chopped up, you know, sort of skits
printic view of history where God keeps changing what he
wants to do, ends up putting a severance between God's
relationship to the nation state of Israel and God's relationship
to the Church, and so the Church kind of ends
up being, in many dispensationless a Plan B, and there's
still these promises that are completely separate to the nation
state of Israel in history, and so it really divides
up and judaizes what was already, as we said in
the first five minutes, kind of a fulfillment. The nefarious
part of that is that you have people in the West,
particularly in America, who fell under the spell of Darby's
student C. I. Schofield, who was a famous conyent he
got involved with.
Speaker 4: He was a Presbyterian.
Speaker 3: Minister originally, and that he fell in with some people
called the Luintemeyer Club. Samuel Lintemar had a club, and
that was one of the first prominent Zionists in America,
Samuel Wintermeyer, and they got the idea that that they
could put together a study by and promote that then
they could probably help sway American evangelical and Bible Belt
opinion towards, in my view, some of the geopolitical designs
of the British Empire. And so it's not accidental that
you have the Scofield Study Bible coming out of Oxford
Press being promoted heavily in America. And then that's right
around the time when you get, you know, the push
for the Balfour Decoration. So distanceationalism has a two pronged
problem approach, both with Christian Zionism in America, with all
this weird sort of speculation on end time stuff, and
you know, you've got John Hagey and the seven Blood
Moons and the blood Moon.
Speaker 4: Pies or whatever he's eating. That really muddies up the
water right.
Speaker 3: And gets it all confused because eschatology for Christian theology
before Schofield is nothing like this. It's a new kind
of heretical heterodox movement. So that then is also used
by to go back to the Cold War, there's a
lot of evidence for evangelical groups and movements being used
by the Sight or in the Cold War to really
picture anybody who's against the US or against America as
Gog and Maygog and all this prophetic imagery. But a
lot of that had to do with foreign policy and
nothing to do with theology. So again we have a
huge laundry list of problems that result from dispensationalism.
Speaker 2: Do you think that the Schofield Bible has influenced our
foreign policy towards Israel?
Speaker 4: Oh, absolutely, there's.
Speaker 3: No question, because many of the important people who work
even with Trump, you know, you have PAULA White and
these spiritual counselors, many many presidents, all the way back
to Billy Graham. You know, Billy Graham was a rabid dispensationalist,
you know, pre millennial rapture teacher as well. And you know,
if you read big historical geopolitical accounts like David len
Hauns's book on the history of the CIA's involvement in religion.
It's called the Doctrinal Warfare Program. It's declassified in twenty thirteen.
It's a real project. The CIA was very interested in
using both Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism as the form of
American soft power, and so that that was very crucial
to have people, especially like Billy Graham, pushing an idea
that they believe was effective against the Soviets and atheism.
So Billy Graham was also kind of a mouthpiece in
a lesser degree for the CIA in terms of soft power.
I'm not saying he was a CIA agent or operative.
I'm just saying he was used. So I'm being very
precise in my terminology because people are going to say
I'm crazy and it's good.
Speaker 4: So no, it's not.
Speaker 3: You can actually find this in the documentation, the PDFs
and the Foyer request materials. But yeah, so all the
way up to people like Pete Hegseth, who you know,
does good things, but a lot of these people, a
lot of the big organizations TPUSA included, they're very influenced
by these types of you know, pro Israel, APAC, pro
in times Zionists, you know NGO's think tank Thin Groups.
Koofy is an example of this. John Hagee is involved
in Christians United for Israel, which is another one of
these operations. Ted Cruz openly talks about, you know, supporting
Israel at all costs because it's you know, God's chosen people.
Speaker 4: But really none of that is accurate in Christian theology.
Speaker 2: So I guess the overall question is why why are
they pushing Israel? Why are they using religion in this?
I know when it came to the Founding Fathers, for instance,
the British would push the Church of England and they
do horrible things in the name of faith, and we
see that happening. But why why are they doing this?
Is it political? Is it abusing Christianity? Why?
Speaker 3: Well, if you're the state, and as a libertarian, I'm
sure you would know this and you would vibe with this,
like the state has a desire for power, yes, and
it will use whatever means they're at its disposal to
achieve that power. And it really has no limits, necessarily
or any qualms doing immoral things. And so the state
has always understood, going back to the ancient world, the
power of religion and you know, in the ancient world,
the state was worshiped, right, Caesar was God.
Speaker 4: The state is God on earth, et cetera.
Speaker 3: And even though we're in a modern, you know, secular,
post Enlightenment world where we don't think that way, the
state still operates as if it's divine, you could say,
in general, and so it wants to utilize any possible means.
Speaker 4: And that could be Hollywood. It could also be religion.
Speaker 3: And so if you read there's a famous essay by
Joseph Nye, who is the Thing's of the Kennedy School,
you know, government policy writer that's pretty well known.
Speaker 4: He wrote a paper called soft power a long time ago.
Speaker 3: And soft power is really just the use of American ideology,
in this case for extending your power through non connecting means.
And so that would be anything that's not warfare, but culture.
That could be economics. You know, we're pushing free markets,
we're pushing total sexual freedom in other countries, we're pushing
gay rights like NATO does, as a form of soft
power warfare. So the another angle or tentacle you could say,
is religion.
Speaker 4: Religion is very.
Speaker 3: Useful for soft power and at many many levels for example,
there's many books that have been written on how missionaries
have been used as spies.
Speaker 4: They're very good. It's a very classic.
Speaker 3: Espionage cover for the CIA to US or as you said,
even British intelligence with Anglican missionaries being spies, and even
corporations can use missionaries for for those types of purposes.
So evangelical megachurches have a long history of also being
used for money laundering. We've had so many cases of
the you know, megachurch pastors being involved in all these
scandals that are pretty well known. But it's no different
with you know, in Times eschatology views right, especially during
the Cold War, for example, it was very useful to
promote things like uh, well you've got to be into
you know how lindsays in Times books or whatever, because
the Soviets are going to nucas at any moment.
Speaker 4: And so the power of the nuclear threat combined.
Speaker 3: With eschatology and especially the dispensational theology, was a very
powerful motivator too, especially a lot of evangelical boomers. I mean,
my family is a bunch of evangelical boomers, and you know,
they still believe that El Putin can nucus at any
moment and it will be the end times and Russia
is gog and magog and they're going to come down.
And this is predicted in the Book of Ezekiel and
it's all just nonsense, but it's very useful for the
average you know, Middle America person.
Speaker 4: The purpose of the state.
Speaker 2: If you keep people afraid, then they're willing to give
up their absolutely.
Speaker 4: What you what's moral?
Speaker 3: You know, like that's like the like the most powerful
fear is like the end of the world is coming
and we're getting nuwe right, So.
Speaker 2: Absolutely so, so that makes sense. And I know, I
was trying to read up on the on the Whaling Wall.
Why why do they kiss the wall? And I'm going
and I'm down a rabbit hole looking at why they
kiss the whaling wall and what it means. And for them,
it's it's a fulfillment of prophecy that we believe has
already been fulfilled, right, and and they believe it and
it's going to like usher in the second coming a
seconds actually is what they believe. So it's really anti
Christian for a Christian to kiss this wall.
Speaker 3: Yeah, unfortunately, I mean I think, you know, if you
go back to the Middle Ages, if the you know,
Kingdom of Jerusalem had maintained this position as a Christian kingdom,
which it was at one time, perhaps you could argue
that it could be a form of Christian relic because
of course, if you know, Christians go to Israel, we
go and we visit the problem the you know, the
tombs of Daniel or Ams, so we would yeah, we
would honor some of that. But the problem is that
the motivations, as you said, behind why many politicians do
it today and why that's sort of expected is that
it's sort of a sign of deference, right that you're
you're you're on board with this program here, and it's
it's nothing really to do with again, the real theology.
It's more so to do with you know, geopolitical subservience.
And that's the problem absolutely. But it would also be
a form I think of judaizing too, because it's not
being interpreted in the context of you know, this is
an Old Testament relic pointing to Christ.
Speaker 4: You know, if, for example, the Arc of the.
Speaker 3: Covenant was found, you know, like Indiana Jones found the
Ark of the Covenant or something, and he opened it
up right, and the angels came out or what I'm joking.
But if they found it, like yeah, I'm sure we
could say, you know, that's a holy object just like
anything else from the Old Testament, but it would need
to be interpreted in the Christian context that well, the
ark of the Covenant is the type of Mary and
a type of Jesus. So it's like the type has
been fulfilled. But that's not the way the wall. The
wall is understood. It's understood as as you said, the
sign of the gentile nation submitting to the atheist nation
state of Israel, and then that being a sign of
a coming new Messiah who's not the Messiah.
Speaker 2: So absolutely, yeah, it's to us, I guess it would
be like an anti christ would not somebody where we
want to usher in. And it's an anti Christian to
think that you have any control over that too. So
I was just down this it all. I was like,
this is alarming to me. But Ted Cruz when he
was on the show with Tucker, he had quoted the
Bible and he said something that wasn't even in the Bible.
He said, if you bless Israel, you'll be blessed. If
you curse Israel, you'll be cursed. What is he referring to,
because we know that nowhere in scripture, nowhere in Genesis, nowhere,
it doesn't say that anywhere. So what was he actually
referring to.
Speaker 3: Well, the statement is said to Abraham, I will bless
those that bless you, and curse those that curse you.
And so the promise again is to Abraham in Genesis,
and there's key chapters that are really important as twelve, fifteen, seventeen,
and twenty two, and those are all the areas where
God explicitly makes the covenant with Abraham. And in the
Old Testament period, it is true that that was a
promise to the Church of the Old Testament, which Galatians
three in Hebrews four says was the nation state of Israel,
just like at the time of Noah, Noah's family was
the church of that era. So when we have the
established of the New Testament, fulfillment of that which is
the Church of Christ Jesus, not the Church of Jesus
Christ Latter day Saints.
Speaker 4: But the Christian Church.
Speaker 3: When that's established, that becomes the new Israel. And that's
the fulfillment. And so thus those promises and the warnings
of those who attack and try to persecue the Church
are transferred to the Church.
Speaker 4: So it's correct that the.
Speaker 3: Blessings and the cursings still apply, but the Covenant is
no longer with the flesh nation state of Israel as
policies in Galatians four, because that represents the Old Testament.
That's the old Covenant. The New Covenant is the fulfillment
of those things. And for example, if you look at
Revelations two and three, where Jesus speaks through John to
the seven churches of Asia, Minor Johnson specifically says, Jesus
is now going to bless or curse you seven churches
based on whether you are faithful or unfaithful. And Jesus
uses that covenant sanctioned terminology of blessings and cursings, and
that lets us know that that warning that was given
to Abraham and his descendants, and that promise that I
will bless us a bless you and curse as they
curse you, that's actually now applicable to the Church. It
is not applicable to those, as Paul says, who are
merely fleshly circumcised.
Speaker 2: What they always go back to is God would never
break a promise. God would never break a promise, but
in his numbers fourteen thirty two, he actually says, and
ye shall know my breach of my promise. Like he
says it, he breaks the promise in the Bible saying,
if you scorn me, then I'm going to score on you.
And he says this. So a lot of what they
use to defend Zionism is kind of picking and choosing scripture.
They'll often point a scripture about God keeping the Covenant,
but they're going to ignore the scripture where he breaks
the covenant. Deuteronomy for twenty six, the Lord shall scatter
you among the nations. It's so we saw, we saw
Israel be scattered among the nations because of something God did.
You know. So when Ted Cruz will come out and
say hey, you know, or Randy Fine will come out
and say, we don't have a homeland. We've been scattered
amongst the nations, it's like, well, according to scripture, God
did that. So what do you think of that?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's actually a really important profound point because you
have what appears on the surface to be a contradictory
position throughout the Old Testament, whether it's Deuteronomy, where you
have the covenant sanctions.
Speaker 4: It forgets Heteron in.
Speaker 3: Twenty six or twenty eight, where you have this list
of if you are faithful, I will bless you, but
if you're unfaithful, I will spew you out of the land,
and you will be dispersed amongst the nations.
Speaker 4: You'll be in a diaspora.
Speaker 3: But there's also promises that God will divorce Israel if
they do certain things.
Speaker 4: So how is God going to be faithful.
Speaker 3: And have an everlasting covenant with Israel at the same
time as He's going to divorce her and predicts that
he will in Joseah, for example, in other Old Testament passages,
Jeremiah example, for unfaithfulness, I will give you a writ
of divorce because of your unfaithfulness. He says, Well, the
reconciliation is explained in the New Testament many times over,
when the Israel that's always been spoken of is the
Israel of faith.
Speaker 4: And so Paul says in again Galatians three and four.
Speaker 3: Hebrews says in Hebrews four that at any point in history,
the only way that you were really part of Israel,
whether it's Abraham or whether it's Noah.
Speaker 4: Before the nation state of Israel is.
Speaker 3: If you had faith in the coming Messiahs and they
were the Messiah, they were saved in the same way
as Us through grace. So the Israel, the only one
is the Church at all times, even back to Genesis.
Speaker 4: So that's the only Israel that even counts.
Speaker 3: The Old Testament nation state of Israel was a public
national covenant of which there were true and false believers
amongst them. So the true Israel and the Old Testament
was those who had faith in the coming Messiahs. In others,
Isaiah believed in Jesus. Abraham believed in Jesus. And Paul
makes this very explicit. Jesus says in John five through nine,
in these debates of the Pharisees, he says, Abraham rejoiced
to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.
Abraham believed in me. I Am before Abraham. Right, So
he's saying all these things. The Pharisees say, how could
Abraham believe in you? You weren't there, you're a young man.
It's because Jesus is the son of God, and he
created the world, and so he was always the one
who was interacting in the Old Testament.
Speaker 4: As that Angel of the Lord.
Speaker 3: He's the one that made the covenant and had that
meal with Abraham in Genesis. So that's important to understand
how on the one hand, God does keep his faithfulness
to the Covenant of Israel, which is the true Israel
the Church from Genesis all the way to the end
of the world. But he also divorced Israel and kept
that promise when in seventy a d. Israel's destroyed by
Titus Vespasian, fulfilling what Jesus predicted in twenty one in
Matthew twenty four that on this generation, he says in
Matthew twenty three, all of the vengeance of the things
written in the prophets will come upon this time in
that time of Christ, because they had rejected the Messiah.
So the culmination of Israel's sins happens in the first
century with the crucifixion of Christ, and it culminates in
seventy a d.
Speaker 4: Which I think many New Testament passages, especially like twenty one, Jesus.
Speaker 3: Says, you standing in front of me, you're going to
live to see Jerusalem surrounded by enemies and its destruction,
and then you flee into the wilderness that has nothing
really to do with people living today. It makes a
lot of sense to people living in the first century
who would in their lifetime see the destruction of Israel,
which happened in seventy eight. Josephus, the famous historian, was
an eyewitness to this. He wrote about it in his
books Wars of the Jews, wrote a paper on that
in grad school. So you have an explicit, you know,
not just biblical reference, but historical non Christian reference, with
Josephus attesting to this really pivotal event of the Jews
going into diaspora in seventy a d. So that's how
you have a actual divorce which happens in the first
century when the Jews would reject the Messiah. Jesus says,
you're going to be the kingom God has taken from you.
That's the divorce Matthew twenty one, forty three. And then
it's opened up to the gentiles, which fulfills all of
those promises. But the gentile nations would be brought in
to worship the God of Israel.
Speaker 2: Now what scripture would you say that is? Is that
the scripture about the vineyard, or is that when Jesus
has the Last Supper and break spread. When do you
determine it to be the New Covenant is established?
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I mean, I think for most theologians in
the Orthodox or Catholic tradition, there's not like one specific
instance because really all of Christ's first coming is kind
of subsumed under one big thing that is kind of
the transition period.
Speaker 4: So you have from the birth.
Speaker 3: Of the Messiah all the way to seventy eighty this
kind of transition period, and many many New Testament books
kind of work through this period of Acts is of
course describing the history of the Church being primarily Jewish
for the first ten chapters of Acts, and then the
Jews kind of more and more so on the whole
rejecting it, and it becomes more and more so majority
gentile convert church, even though.
Speaker 4: There's always believing Jews.
Speaker 3: And according to Romans nine through eleven, Paul says that
God always in every generation, still has Jewish descendants that
still believe in the Messiah.
Speaker 4: And so in that sense, there's a remnant that always believes.
Speaker 3: So God has maintained all of those promises, and whether
it's the birth of Christ, his ministry, his establishment, the Eucharist,
or whether it's his death, roll, resurrection, et cetera, ascension
or all the way to seventy eighty, all of those,
that's all kind of one redemptive act.
Speaker 2: You could say, would you say one where he says
the covenant is now with the Christians. So if there's
one passage that you had to point to where anybody
listening could say, actually, know the covenants no longer with you,
with us now, and this is my scripture to prove that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think the Last Supper is a strong one
because this is, you know, the blood of the new
Covenant of my flesh. I mean that covenant reference is
a reference if you look at the masoretic texts of
Jeremiah thirty one and thirty three. That's a reference to
those two chapters of Jeremiah because Jeremiah said that when
we come to this new era of the Messiah, it
will be a new covenant, not like the covenant that
I made with your forefathers, So not like the mosaic covenant.
Speaker 4: That's something surpassing it and superseding it.
Speaker 3: And although the Orthodox Church normatively uses the set Tulagen
for the Old Testament, because the apostles did. Sometimes there's
really interesting insights in the masoretic texts, which is what
Protestants and Jews use, because even within those masoretic texts,
there's some really powerful statements that were kind of left
in that still point to the superiority of where we
are now.
Speaker 4: And if you read Jeremiah thirty one and Chapter thirty.
Speaker 3: Three, you get this idea that when the branch, when
the massage I have, the diavidic branch comes, this new
covenant will be superior. And if you understand that new
covenant language that Jesus is saying with the ego Christ,
you're a spot on excellent.
Speaker 2: If anybody in the audience has a question that you
have for Jay or for myself, you can go ahead
a request to be a speaker down there at the bottom,
and I will make you one. Be brave, be brave.
A lot of times I don't get any questions. Sometimes
I get a slew of questions, so we'll see what well.
Speaker 3: I always open it up to people's de baby all
the time, so.
Speaker 4: I welcome opposition. Feel free.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely all right, we got one.
Speaker 5: So I just posted in the purple pill downe there
Leviticus where he says he will remember the covenant with Israel.
And also when you go into like things in Genesis
where he establishes the covenant, he basically establishes a covenant
between the people and the land. And I do think
you're correct. This is a very convoluted topic because it's
been twisted and edited over two thousand years.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: But with the the Darby stuff and the Schofield stuff,
yes they're incorrect. There's no rapture, pre tribulation, rapture, any
of that stuff. But when you go back and you
look at the ancient church, like what's his name, Iron
as he goes over dispensationalism in the historic manner the
way they used to believe it, where it's not that
God changes his mind and becomes schizophrenic so to speak,
over the dispensations. It's that God laid out what was
going to happen over each dispensation for each period of
That's why the disciples ask, you know, what's going to
be the sign of your coming in the end of
this age?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: So the end of the age is what I'm referring
to as seventy a d In seventy A d.
Speaker 4: The age of the Old Era, the entire whole Covenant ended.
Speaker 3: That's why many passages in the New Testament talk about
the destruction of the Temple as the end of the
Old Age. The Book of Hebrews is about the destruction
of the Temple and the rolling up of the heaven
and the earth, which was symbolized by the Temple. The
temple is a little miniature of the entire universe. It
has that stellar symbology in it. So when the Temple
is destroyed, that's the sign of this whole Old Testament
and fallen world being done away with. Everything in Adam
is now recapitulated in Christ and will be restored in Christ.
So to go back to Leviticus, though, as the New
Testament makes it very clear many many times over, Paul says,
in every one of these passages in Leviticus that's referring
to the typology fulfilled in the Church. Iernas is not
teaching dispensationalism. This is a word concept fallacy that you're
mixing up the dispensation, which is just God's way of
dealing with people at different times in history. That it
is not dispensationalism. That's a much later mistake. So two
different things have nothing to do with each other. And
iron As is not teaching anything like this.
Speaker 5: Worthy I agree, he's not teaching any thing like modern
day dispensationalism.
Speaker 4: He is.
Speaker 5: He does say, though, that Israel will come back into
the land, and he does state very clearly that the Antichrist,
the final Antichrist, will come and set the Church to flight.
So when Jesus says in.
Speaker 4: God to believe that too, then that has anything to
do with diss.
Speaker 5: But when Jesus says that he would come back at
the end of the age, which would be the Church age,
as the dispensationalist call it, apparently, you know, he says
that he would gather his elect and then establish his
millennial kingdom.
Speaker 3: Right, No, the kingdom is the Church. He set the
kingdom up in Matthew sixteen in the First Advent.
Speaker 5: But he said he would gather his elect And then
if you go back now, if you're counting what we
are now as the is the millennium the Kingdom of Christ,
then Jeremiah is a liar.
Speaker 4: How's that?
Speaker 5: Because Jerem I said that during the millennial reign of Christ,
that your baby will stick his hand into vipers and
ask and be fine, and that your kids will lay
with lions, and the lion's gonna eat grass and everything.
The world's gonna be a peace.
Speaker 3: You're you're judaized as a heretic reading that literally. It's
not talking about babies literally putting their hands and viprus ness.
It's talking about the peace that the Messiah brings in
his church and his kingdom. And that's why the New
Testament always interprets these things in a spiritual way. Jesus
comes back, Yes, there's a body resurrection, but those passages
are not taking it to me.
Speaker 5: What you think, well, how much peace has the Church brought?
Speaker 3: The peace is within the church, Jesus says, the Kingdom
of God is within you. In the Book of Luke,
the Kingdom of God is the Church. Matthew sixteen, Peter
says you are a chosen the nation, a royal priesthood.
On Peter two, the Church is the kingdom. So your
pre millennial heresy is the root problem of this, which
means that you're a judaizer.
Speaker 2: It's are you there, James.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm here.
Speaker 5: Sorry, I'm having a laugh.
Speaker 4: So every time the New Testament cites Psalm one ten.
Speaker 3: It says that when the Messiah ascended, he sat at
the right hand of the Father. Okay, that's a reference
to the ascension. So every time the New Testament cites
Psalm one ten, it is not about the end times
or a future pre millennial kingdom. It's about the ascension,
which happened in the Book of Acts. That means that
his reign began at his first advent, and he reigns
in the church. And that's the key component that you're missing,
which is that the historic Church isn't Protestantism, it's the
Orthodox Christian Church. Irenaeus that you mentioned was a bishop
of the Orthodox Church. He teaches what we teach.
Speaker 5: So when Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies, did he literally
and physically fulfill them as they were written or did
he just symbolically and spiritually fulfilled them.
Speaker 4: No, it's both.
Speaker 3: And so in Luke twenty one he says, you standing
in front of me will see the temple destroyed.
Speaker 4: I will come in judgment on the clouds.
Speaker 3: If you read Isaiah nineteen, and if you read the
Book of Ezekiel, when God comes to destroy enemies and
places the kingdoms. The judgment is the other nations that
come in and destroy them. Did he literally fly into
Egypt on the clouds, or did he come in judgment
with another nation to judge them. His prophetic language in
Luke twenty one of Matthew twenty four are talking about
Titus Vespasian destroying Jerusalem in seventy eight. So evangelicals unwittingly
take away one of the strongest prophecies in the New
Testament that the New Testament documents are accurate by not
understanding that Luke twenty one is historically about the destruction
of Jerusalem in seventy eight y. So he did come
in judgment in seventy eighty on Jerusalem through Titus Vespasian,
which is exactly what he did throughout the Old Testament.
Speaker 4: Likewise, he will come again bodily at the end of
the world. So it's a both end. It's not another word.
Speaker 5: Yeah, and that's that's what I'm getting it. It's a
both ends. So the destruction of the Temple was fulfilling
what Jesus was talking about when he said the but
and so yes, the destruction that came. But you also
got to look back at the prophets. They said, Israel
will be dispersed three times into the nations, the third
time into all the nations, first into Syrian, then Babylonian. Now,
if you want to look at the Balfour Decoration as
being something of man, then you must also look at
the declaration to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem as something
of man.
Speaker 4: No, I don't know why.
Speaker 3: I don't be because in the promises that we mentioned earlier,
in Deuteronomy and the Covenant promises, God says that when
you are righteous, I will then restore you to the land.
And so if you want to interpret Balfour Declaration and
all that as a righteous movement back into the land,
the problem is that according to the Orthodox Jews, they
shouldn't be there because they were not actually righteous and
brought back into the land.
Speaker 4: So can you demonstrate that in the early.
Speaker 3: Twentieth century the Jews were suddenly righteous when they went back.
Speaker 4: Into the land.
Speaker 5: Oh no, they're definitely not righteous, and they're going to
be judged for that.
Speaker 4: Israel is going to die. Want me back in the land.
Speaker 5: According to you, two thirds of Israel is going to die.
Speaker 4: What does that have to do with this point.
Speaker 5: Well, that's what I'm saying. They're being regathered into the
land for the final.
Speaker 3: Judgments, and the Covenant promises you're not able to come
back to the land until you're righteous.
Speaker 4: So you're arguing that, well, I guess they must have
been righteous.
Speaker 3: Well when I go, if you look at Tel Aviv,
it's a giant's the world's gay capital.
Speaker 4: Is that righteous Israel?
Speaker 5: Well they're they're not restored to the fullness of the land.
Yet they're just in a now now.
Speaker 4: It's fullness of the land.
Speaker 5: Well, that is what you promised, right, then a fulfillment. No,
the Balfour Declaration is the beginning of the fulfillment. It's
the regathering at Visrael back to.
Speaker 4: The land judgments.
Speaker 3: Then at the time of the Balfrow Decoration to go
back do what when were they righteous? How do you
demonstrate that at the time of the Balfour Decoration to
have the right to go back.
Speaker 5: Well, they're not righteous. But he also says they would
regather into the land without being righteous for judgment, because
they're going to be judged.
Speaker 3: You just contradicted yourself. You said that they're not righteous
at that time. You said a minute ago that they
were partially, so which one is it? So when Christ
comes back Israel, which is the believing Jewish and the Christian.
Speaker 4: Again, that's not to do with the end times. It's
about nineteen fourteen. Were they righteous at that time?
Speaker 5: No, they're still not righteous, and neither are we.
Speaker 3: I don't have a right to go back to the
land according to the Covenant, which you're referring to. Are
you familiar with the Covenant promises and curses?
Speaker 5: Yes, I just posted.
Speaker 3: Well, okay, so it says when you repent, then you
can come back to the land.
Speaker 4: You just admitted that they didn't. So you contradicted yourself.
Speaker 5: Well, I guess you'll see because it's about to happen.
You're watching. You're a prophet, okay, sure, you're Well, no,
I'm just following prophecy. I'm not a prophet.
Speaker 3: Insane interpretation, which is exactly why this protest evangelical nons
This puts us in this idiotic position.
Speaker 5: I'm not a protestantory evangelical. That's the problem. What are
you a follower of Christ?
Speaker 3: Well, then you're Protestant or Evangelical, because that's the only
thing that's not Orthodox or Catholic.
Speaker 4: You have to be one of those.
Speaker 5: I don't have to be anything. I can just be
a follower of Christ.
Speaker 4: You're a cult leader. You're a cult leader making up
your own religion.
Speaker 5: No, I go to a church that's no anominational, it's
not Protestantortity, Evangelical, That'svangelical.
Speaker 4: So not you lied because you said you're not evangelical
when you are.
Speaker 5: Just because I go to a church for fellowship does
not mean that I ascribe to everything that they say.
Speaker 3: Well, you're dishonest because you go to an evangelical church
and you just said I'm not evangelical, So that's no.
Speaker 5: The Evangelicals are like the Holy Rollers rolling around on
the floor, and.
Speaker 3: Any describes anything that's like a Protestant not Classical Reformation church.
Speaker 4: So you're just ignorant.
Speaker 5: Sure if I don't understand all the terms, because I
don't really care about the terms, I care about what
the scripture actually says.
Speaker 4: So you're you're proud of your ignorance. Good job.
Speaker 5: Well, the Lord says he'll make you a fool.
Speaker 4: And you think that literally means being a fool? Okay,
well thank.
Speaker 5: You, and as a man. Yeah, a lot of people
think a lot of people think you're crazy when you when.
Speaker 4: You say what the Bible actually says, but you can
see it.
Speaker 3: You think that you're spiritually appointed to things and you
have no idea what you're talking about.
Speaker 4: Is there? Is there anyone else?
Speaker 5: James?
Speaker 2: Do you have any follow up questions?
Speaker 5: Well, all I'd say is why why is Israel the
center of the topic right now?
Speaker 4: What? What?
Speaker 5: Why? Why have they become so significant in this day
and age at this time.
Speaker 2: That's a good question.
Speaker 3: Why why would you say, Jane, Because for many years
people have criticized Israeli involvement in American foreign policy, and
they were censored, and they were defamed, and they were
mistreated and called everything in the book. And now that
has sort of broke through the control and so now
people are figuring out that our foreign policy is not
for American interest, but is foreign interest.
Speaker 5: That's why And why do you think it waited till
just now as Israel really starts coming back into the
land and making Aliah, and specifically from the north more abundantly.
Speaker 4: Than the rest, they just start coming into the land.
Speaker 3: They've been going back to the land according to you
in nineteen fourteen, but they were going into the land
in the eighteen sixties, which did you even know that?
Speaker 5: Yeah, no, they had people there during that time. It's
been a slow roll, that's for sure. They've been gathered
in slowly. But do you not also admit that there's
an increased focus on Israel and the topic of discourse
in the world. There's an increased wine towards Jewish people.
Speaker 4: I just stated whine.
Speaker 5: Okay, but you're looking at it from the physical point
of view. Look at it from a spiritual.
Speaker 3: Point I mean, we just spent twenty minutes arguing the
spiritual point of view. So you're just find mentally a
slow person.
Speaker 4: Man. I don't know what to tell you.
Speaker 5: You'd be surprised. Anyways, I'd keep an eye on Israel,
and i'd keep an eye on those two aircraft carriers
saving and be there.
Speaker 2: Thank you, James. Does anybody else have any questions? You
go ahead a request to be a speaker down there
at the bottom, and I will make you one. All right,
that's good. I do like these long form interviews, and
I like it when people can come up in debate.
And that was those very brave of you, James. So
how do you think? Okay, So how should anti Zionist
Orthodox Christians approach us aid to Israel, regional peace and
the Jewish Christian dialogue in general.
Speaker 3: Well, it's funny so that because we just had the
patriarchs and of the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem yesterday issued
a statement that Christian Zionism is absolutely destructive as a
heresy in the Christian sense, and by the way, it
never existed until you know, the last thirty years. So
this should tell people who have any interest in being
associated with or connected to the historic Church which actually
put the Bible together, that this recent heresy should that
should alone be an indicator that this is a bunch
of bologney. But I mean, it's just destructive. Like because
again it's not that Jews shouldn't have a homeland. I
think that they should, but it's not their own faults that,
at least the Jews living today, that the British Empire
and the Rothchilds and these people decided on putting that
homeland in the Middle East on purpose to create a
powder cake. There were other places that were discussed. There
was a discussion of Austria, of New Zealand.
Speaker 4: All kinds of different places were considered for a Jewish.
Speaker 3: Homeland, and it was actually a tiny mustache Man that
supported the exportation of those people, and through the Havara Agreement,
the Tiny mustache Men followers supported it being in the
Middle East, and so you really couldn't have where we
are at least post nineteen forty eight with the United
Nations recognizing the nation state of Israel without Tiny mustache
Men and his persecutions. So my view, I believe that
the banking elite, the power structure in the West, funded
that war.
Speaker 4: They wanted that war.
Speaker 3: So I don't blame Jewish people for wanting a homeland
or for where they are.
Speaker 4: That's why there's no easy answers to this solution. But
the problem is.
Speaker 3: That Americans are forced into and I would agree that
I don't care whether it's Katari or whether it's anything.
We shouldn't have our tax money trucked off to all
these foreign countries, Ukraine or any of them, because it's
the maintenance of this ridiculous empire, which is what this
is all about. And so the money is all for
corporate scammers and political elite. It's all stolen, it's all
used for blackmail, it's all funneled into just nonsense, and
that's why our country is being destroyed.
Speaker 2: So do you think that they landed on Israel because
of the holy sites and the history as opposed to
Austria or opposed to somewhere else.
Speaker 3: I think that if you read quickly on it, he
goes into quite a bit of depth about this. They
they felt like that would just resonate better with the people,
and so you know, Jewish people would have a natural
affinity with the land of their ancestors in Abraham than
if it was some other place like New Zealand.
Speaker 4: So I mean, I think that was one component of it.
Speaker 3: Also, this is you know, going back to the Great Game,
and at that time, the British Empire really wanted to
establish outposts that would be strategic against the Ottomans. You know,
prior to that, when it's in eighteen sixties, you know,
when the Rostils are buying the land from the Sultan,
the Ottoman Empire was a big threat to the British Empire.
This is also why the British radicalized and made alliances
with a lot of Sunni groups and Wahabby groups to
fund or to fight against the Ottomans. And so that's
why Turkish Islam. The Turks and the Sunnis have always fought.
The British wanted to control, for example, Muslim holy sites.
They wanted to control Mecca because they felt like they
could control Islam. So likewise, if they could control the
Middle East through a proxy like.
Speaker 4: Israel, that's why they wanted it to be there.
Speaker 3: So there was a lot of reasons why Great Game
battling Russia. It's not just the Ottomans. They were also
part of the Great Game against Russia. So they wanted
all the outposts that they could have and also oil.
There's a great book on this by a French intelligence
analyst named Gilbert Munier, and he has a book called
Black Gold Spies, which is the history of the British Empire.
They were split amongst their intelligensia and the royal society leads.
There were the Araba files like Kim Philby and Gertrude
Bell and Saint John Philby and not Kim philmy St
John Philby, his dad, Gertrude Bell and T.
Speaker 4: Lawrence.
Speaker 3: They were obsessed with and loved Arabic culture and them
loved Islam.
Speaker 4: But you also had the Rothchild side of it.
Speaker 3: They were obsessed with and loved Zionism eventually, and the
Israeli they were Israeli files.
Speaker 4: So the British power structure was struggling with us. They
were split.
Speaker 3: And for example, a lot of those British pies they
didn't want the nation state of Israel. They were absolutely
opposed to it. And these are really prominent, important people too.
So if you look at there's actually a nothing great
of a movie, but all of.
Speaker 4: This plays into the film.
Speaker 3: It's Nicole Kidman played Gertrude Bell in a movie I
forget the name of it, but she played the famous
British by and of course Peter O'Toole played to Lawrence
famously in Lawrence of Arabia. And so if you watch
those films you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
So that's a long answer to your question, but it's
all the above.
Speaker 2: Goold answer, JR. Are you there?
Speaker 6: Yes, I am hi.
Speaker 2: Do you have a question for Jay?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 6: I just wanted to back up what he was saying
in regards to me and Jay are friends, by the way, But.
Speaker 4: A lot a lot of paid.
Speaker 6: A lot of American Protestantism separately from Israeli Zionism had
developed an idea of Christian Zionism in its own theology
because of, you know, the way that they particularly read
the Bible, and so that's that's another thing why the
actual world of Palestine would be the proper place for it,
and why it would fit in with American Zionism in
the twentieth century, because there was already a misreading by
American Protestants that moved in that direction already as well
corresponding with it, you know, like Israeli Zionism, like Theodore Herzel.
Speaker 3: Parallel to that, Yeah, and John's correct, to be precise,
Even before Schofield and Darby, you had Anglican ministers that
were sort of proto. They weren't dispensationalists, but they were
British Israelite theory proponents, and they had come up with
this idea that the nation that the Lost Tribes and
the Old Testament were actually somehow perhaps the British Isles tribes,
and so they kind of felt like England and so
forth were sort of this you know, directly associated quasi
Zionist Jewish heritage group, and so that prepared the way,
I think for the rise of Schofieldism through the because
the Plumouth Brethren were not like a huge movement, you know,
they were kind of a small sort of you know,
decentralized let out of Anglicanism that didn't have a huge influence.
But there was this tendency which which exists even amongst
the British Royalty to this day, where they kind of
believe this weird apology that they have a descent from Jesus.
Speaker 4: Some of them do.
Speaker 3: This is why they will reference Joseph of Arimathea and
supposedly they descend from from this biblical heritage. I mean,
it's all ridiculous, but it's useful again for geopolitical purposes. Right,
So if you're if you're a medieval king and you
can say, well, I'm actually descended from the House of David,
like you could see how that might be useful.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, do you have a hard stop at eight?
Speaker 4: I'm down for whatever.
Speaker 2: Okay, cool, there's more questions. I just I didn't want
to be respectful of your time.
Speaker 4: No, it's cool.
Speaker 2: Great. Well, James, who was asking you questions earlier, has
a follow up. So James, what's your follow up?
Speaker 5: I'm curious what what is your understanding of the geopolitical
landscape that must be in place before the Antichrist rises
and through Messiah returns.
Speaker 3: As the Orthodox Church teaches that there will be a
falling away at the end of the world by the Church.
There will be some mass apostasy, There will be an
anti Christ figure. He will probably arise out of the
nation state of Israel. Hence he would be able to
dupe those. Like Jesus said, if one comes you know
in his own name him, you will believe Jesus says
in John. So we believe that there will be a
worldwide persecution. There will be some form of total global
economic control. So we believe those things. We do believe
there will be a mass conversion of the Jews. Most
of the Church fathers teach that, especially the Eastern Church
fathers because of Roman's eleven. But none of that has
anything to do with dispensationalism or the modern Protestant judaized heresy.
Speaker 5: Well, I was more specifically asking about the world governance.
What is the government stance supposed to be during this time?
Speaker 4: The government stance, I don't understand the question.
Speaker 5: So what form? Okay, the ten Kings also, hey, Lewis,
how's it going the Ten Kings? Do you guys believe
or ascribe to the fact that the Ten Kings will
arise and then the Antichrist will take out three of them?
Speaker 3: So I believe that if you read books like Days
of Vengeance Ay David Chiltern or Children, or if you
read Peter Leiheart's commentary on Revelation, that most of what's
happening the book Revelation was fulfilled in seventy eight d
with neuro So I don't have any direct copy paste
analog for every one of the elements of the book Revelation.
To the end of the world, the Orthodox Church has
a humility approach to it. We believe that as the
end of the world approaches, we will have the mind
of Christ and we will know how.
Speaker 4: To interpret those things. But as at this stage we
do not know.
Speaker 5: I would just like to point out that within six
months went from no King protest to long Live the
King in Iran.
Speaker 6: You gotta understand a lot of Protestant eschatology is a century,
late nineteenth century. That's it like, there isn't any like
interpretation of the you know, of a tribulation or the
end times. That's all developed in the twentieth centuries, not
any older than that.
Speaker 4: I don't think he cares he's doing it. He's a
lone gunner for Jesus. So no.
Speaker 5: Iron As specifically states that to not be.
Speaker 4: Worried to teach anything like what you teach.
Speaker 5: Iron specifically states to not be worried until the ten
Kings arise.
Speaker 4: Aaron As has nothing to do with what you believe
at all. Why are you studying.
Speaker 5: Arnas because that's part to where I got my understanding from.
It's from aaron As.
Speaker 4: That As is a bishop of Leone. Uh huh. Does
your church have bishops? Is? What? Does your church have bishops?
We have elders. That's not a bishop. That's an episcopage.
Speaker 3: Right, So if you read book three of as heresies,
or if you read book four he talks about the
tradition of Apostolic succession, does your church have that?
Speaker 5: Well, no, because all the churches have a very incorrect
understanding of what's about that, right.
Speaker 4: And you've got to figure out now. So that's why
I say you're in pre last.
Speaker 5: And you have nothing, And so you said you'll find out,
I dude, you'll find out keep an eye on Israel
on those two aircraft carriers.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 3: For those the scorpions in the Book of Revelation. Is
that the aircraft carriers? Is that what John was prophesying,
the aircraft carriers?
Speaker 5: No, that's in Daniel, You're just an idiot. No, not
talking about aircraft carriers. Just heah, he was the wings
of the eagle. What's on an aircraft carry?
Speaker 4: The flight aircraft?
Speaker 3: Actually your skits though I thought we were actually into
like product.
Speaker 4: This is just skids, the level stuff.
Speaker 5: Keep an eye out.
Speaker 4: You'll find out, Thank.
Speaker 2: You, James. Does anybody else have any questions? There was
somebody in here with a question, but I think they
got booted out. So if they come back at them
back and again, anybody else says any question? I have?
Some are the Jews of today, the Israelites.
Speaker 3: I do agree with the way that most of the
Church fathers of the later post you know, Theatristic era, like,
they continually speak of the Jews as Jews, and so
there is Judaism, there are Jews, and for the Jews
to convert, there has to be the existence of Jews.
So I do believe that Jews exist. They are actually Jews.
I don't believe what the people think that there's no
such thing as Jews anymore. That's kind of a crazy position.
Jesus says, salvation is of the Jews. In John four,
the Book of Zachariah talks about Jews. So Jews are
a thing. They do exist, they are real. But it
is true that Rabbinic Judaism went off in its own
direction in the second and third century as it gradually
moved away from Christianity. So they parted ways and they
have very different worldview, is a very different ethos. There
really is on such a thing as Judeo Christian civilization
because they're not diametrically.
Speaker 4: Opposed at the root. But that doesn't mean that there's
no Jews and they don't exist.
Speaker 3: There is Judaism, And as Romans eleven says, as Saint
Cerle of Alexandria says, the Jews of the world will convert.
John Damascus says this on the Orthodox faith. One of
the signs of the end of the world is the
conversion of the Jews.
Speaker 2: Excellent. I'm going to go through read the comments, all right,
I says Paul's faith never wavered for the sake of Christ.
Then I am content with weakness, insults, hardship, prosecutions, and calamities.
For when I am weak, I am strong Corinthians twelve ten.
Thank you guys. All Right, dude said, this is from Alexandria.
Dude said, and neither are we righteous, even though the
Bible calls us righteous of a jillion times. And he
doesn't know he's an evangelical, he his opinion on biblical
interpretation should be rejected. Okay, I'm guessing that one's about James. Okay,
we are hearing the gospel of progressive Are we hearing
the gospel of progressive Christianity? I just heard about or
was warned about this in church today, So so that's
a question. Are we hearing about the gospel of progressive Christianity?
He was warned about it in church?
Speaker 4: Or who's is? Are we hearing about it? Like with
me talking about it.
Speaker 2: Or like in it sounds like it sounds like a
question that he has in general, Like, Jay, are we
learning to have the Gospel of Christianity? I just heard
about that today in church?
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean these kinds of things pop up all the time,
Like you know, back in the two thousands, there was
the emergent church movement, which was, you know, this weird
kind of evangelical in geo creation to try to remake
non nominational churches with a kind of a little bit
of tradition. And so I think there's always these kind
of new trends that spring up. But in my view,
you know, the only church that has all the same
views as the Church of the.
Speaker 4: First thousand years is the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 3: So if you want to guard yourself from that, the
best place to guard yourself from that is the Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: Okay, go Tech says on a side note, Jay kind
of sounds like John Goodman. Well, Jay doesn't look like
John Goodman, but well, thank you.
Speaker 4: I mean I could put on a well, actually he
lost a lot of ways.
Speaker 3: I was gonna say, like, maybe maybe is it John
Goodman in you know, like in the nineties, or like
John Goodman as King Ralph Hopefully not like.
Speaker 4: Maybe he means I'm eli Jimstone, Right, it's like the righteous.
Speaker 2: Jimstone Sully from Munsters, Inc. All Right, what makes Jay
Dire an expert? That makes you an expert?
Speaker 4: Joe, Well, I didn't claim to be an expert, but you've.
Speaker 2: Been interpreted as one. Then, I mean I.
Speaker 4: Would said there are certain fields that I'm proficient in.
Speaker 3: I would say there's a couple of areas that mine
might qualify as an expert in, but I wouldn't give
myself that title. I think it was a little pretentious.
But I mean, I know philosophy and worldviews very well.
I would say I know debate very well. But in
these other areas, they're just areas that I've spent i
don't know, twenty five thirty years studying diligently.
Speaker 2: I think that that's enough. I mean, we saw the
experts during COVID weren't experts at all, So you know,
I think that it's fine that you don't claim to
be one. I think that that's admirable.
Speaker 3: I mean, my grad work focused on philosophy and psychological warfare,
so I could say I'm proficient in those areas.
Speaker 2: What's your degree in?
Speaker 4: Well, I left in.
Speaker 3: The midst of my grad thesis, so I did peer
review publish it. I like to say that just because people,
well they used to think view peer review more highly
than they do now. Yeah, So I always like to
debunk peer review by saying, well, if you think I'm crazy,
you realize I am pure viewed, right, Like I can
point you to my pure review paper. But no, my
studies were I went two years of grad school and
as I was working on a master's thesis, had a
huge falling out with the advisor.
Speaker 4: But I studied English and philosophy, very cool. My grad
work was on James Bond.
Speaker 2: Actually really like who who?
Speaker 4: Like who?
Speaker 3: The way that Bond was used in the Cold War
as a form of propaganda.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, I see.
Speaker 3: If you find if you can find my my grad paper,
at least the first chunk of it.
Speaker 4: It's it's like the Journal of American.
Speaker 3: Sociology and Economics, and it's it's called the Mini Layers
of Double seven was my grad paper. And so how
they were using James Bond as a form of soft
power propaganda during the Cold War.
Speaker 2: Interesting, I'm seeing people used I mean, I study revolutionary history.
I'm seeing people bring that up at every term with
everything going on, and it's all very very eple understanding
of what actually happened and saying, oh, it's just like
the Boston Tea Party, and you know, dude, so yeah,
it's that can be kind of rough sometimes.
Speaker 3: Question did you study that academically or is it just
a personal interest.
Speaker 2: That's a personal interest of mine. I'm an out of
didact so and I try to do my best. But
I mean, I gone to school. I did. I have
an associate's degree and all that, but I I took
some courses, but I'm like, this isn't I was in Massachusetts,
so I guess that that, you know, was a lot
of rewritten stuff, and I knew it was, and so
I was like, I don't need a degree. I can
just teach myself, and so I did. I studied for
like eight years, and that's why I am the way.
Speaker 4: I think that's definitely acceptable.
Speaker 3: And not that I judge your studies or whatever, but
in my assessment, you know, most of what I learned
and undergrad in grad school, what the best part of
it was just that it forces you to read a
lot of people that you normally wouldn't have read.
Speaker 4: It forced you to engage with.
Speaker 3: And you know, interact with ideas that you disagree with
or you probably would have just dismissed. And then it
forces you to write hundreds and hundreds of papers. And
so the writing was I think the best thing for
me because that led to, you know, writing books. So
I probably wouldn't be able to do that if I
had not done all those stupid college papers.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, and that's that's how I learned too. I'm not
sure how you learned, but I have to write, so
I can. I can read and read and read, but
it's as soon as I write it down, it's committed.
It's committed to my memory.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I'm marked up. My books have to
be all marked up. So that's the only way that.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I got it right. It's in the margins
for sure. All right, this question is question for all
the listeners. In your opinion, has Christian Zionism been a
net benefit or a net liability to Christianity's moral witness
and continued presence in the Holy Land and why You
can answer that.
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, any thing that is a heresy or
anything that's heterodox cannot produce good results or good fruits.
So I would say there has to be overall assessed
as something that is bad. For example, you know in Palestine.
Speaker 3: You do have Amas, which was set up by Israel
originally as a counterbalance against the PLO that's in victor
of Strowsky's books. But you have the same time a
small minority of Orthodox Christians there, so to support the
you know, removal and deletion of those people amounts ultimately
to persecuting the you know, the Christian Church. So you know,
Evangelicals are completely ignorant of that, but they would have
to be in this position like Ted Cruz kind of
is of like you know, well, do you have support whoever?
Speaker 4: Anybody that's an enemy of Israel is an enemy of
you know, God, so that's in that negative.
Speaker 2: Yes, all right, this last question, all right, it looks
like it's referencing when James had mentioned Israel was in
the news a lot, says question, Iran is in the
news a lot, and it has been. Does that mean
Shia Islam is true?
Speaker 4: Of course not.
Speaker 3: I've debated most of the Muslims out there, had some
pretty serious engagements and chats with one of the foremost
Shia scholars. We argued on several open live streams and xpaces.
Speaker 4: So of course not she Islam as is it insane cult?
Speaker 3: It's basically just neoplatonism, and no, it's not any more
true than rabbinic.
Speaker 2: Philosophis James, you have a question.
Speaker 5: No, I was just gonna make a statement on that
question because it seems like I was a little misunderstood.
The fact that Israel is targeted, that there is primary
in the news is part of what the prophecy says,
that Israel be the focal point of all the things
that are going to happen. The news has nothing to
do with your Can I finish my statement please? I
thought you were well versed in debates. But the thing
that was going the thing that's going on in Iran,
du the thing that's going on in.
Speaker 4: The Ran debate.
Speaker 5: Okay, well are you well versed in conversation? Can I
finish my thought?
Speaker 2: Finish your thought?
Speaker 5: James, Thank you. So the thing that's going on in
Iran is the first of the ten Kings rising. That
is why you're seeing the king and that's why the
United States is pushing the prince, the exiled prince of
Iran to come back in and take over Iran. That
is the first king rising.
Speaker 2: Brilliant, Thank you, James. All right, Okay, well I'm done
with my questions. There don't seem to be any more
questions from the audience. So you mentioned books, You wrote
books where can people find your books?
Speaker 3: Yeah, if you go to jasonalysis dot com, which is
my website, I have a vast archive there of stuff.
But I also have three books on Hollywood Aster Hollywood one, two,
and three and this is over a thousand pages of
symbolic analysis of film. And then I have my read book,
which is about six hundred pages of apologetics, theology, philosophy.
Speaker 4: You can go watch all my debates with all the
top Muslims.
Speaker 3: If you think that this makes me some sort of
weird Muslim apologists, totally not true.
Speaker 4: You can watch all the debates that with atheists.
Speaker 3: And yeah, it's all at Jason Alys's Jason Webb jasonalysis dot.
Speaker 2: Com, Analysis dot Com. Okay, perfect, all right, great, so
jasonalysis dot com if you'd like this interview and you're
interested in what jays to say and go find more
information there in his books. There. Thank you again. How
can people find you in support your work?
Speaker 3: Yeah, you can also follow me hero next just Ja Dyer.
You can find me on Instagram. I'm usually hosting the
fourth hour of the AUCT Show and so on Fridays.
I've done that for the last six years. You can
find me at the Sam Hid Show. If you watch
the first season, I co wrote most of those. So yeah,
that's where I'm at and I'm on YouTube. Jeddyre on YouTube,
and I'm happy now we do almost daily live stream
so you can find me usually live stream on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Very cool, and I'm happy to have you debate somebody
on my show and to love to host debates and
I it's so hard to find people who want to
debate at this point. Yeah, I'm going to keep you,
keep you in the wings for that, all right. So
when I log out, I'm gonna have you hang out
with here with me for a little bit, but we're
going to let these guys go. Now. Thank you everybody
for coming. Take care of yourselves, take care of each other,
and stay free.