Speaker 1: Alright, we have a very special episode here today. We
Speaker 1: have Jay Dyer, who is, if you're not familiar with,
Speaker 1: is an Orthodox Christian apologist, a student of philosophy, theology,
Speaker 1: co host the Alex Jones Show as well as the
Speaker 1: Sam Hyde Show, co creating co host of Hollywood Decoded.
Speaker 1: He is a general nightmare for every soy boy in
Speaker 1: the apologetics arena. Jay, really really happy that you've come
Speaker 1: back on here today. I appreciate it absolutely.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: We had a great conversation a while back, so I'm
Speaker 3: always down to come back and chat it up some more.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Man, it was actually good chat. You actually changed
Speaker 1: a few of my understandings and views on things. But first,
Speaker 1: first and foremost, we are talking about end times today
Speaker 1: and how that we reconcile that with Israel and American
Speaker 1: evangelicalism and how they view the political Israel and the
Speaker 1: state and how it's going to work in the end
Speaker 1: times and biblical prophecy. But before get into all that,
Speaker 1: after watching your videos for quite some time, you're a
Speaker 1: man of many accents. Can you do an Australian one? Uh?
Speaker 2: You're Australian, I assume.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah mate, Yeah, I'll just talk like this.
Speaker 3: Australian I think pretty well, all.
Speaker 1: Right, it's it's it's not too bad. It's not too bad.
Speaker 1: That's a little bit. It sounds like a pommy a
Speaker 1: little bit, a little bit British. The key is is
Speaker 1: trying to talk out of the nose instead of how
Speaker 1: are you going? Hang gown your naws? That's it a gown.
Speaker 1: That's not a bad effort. I love it. That's great,
Speaker 1: that's good. We can try and do the podcast in
Speaker 1: Australian accents if you like to make it really entertaining.
Speaker 1: Hey mate, what about end times? Right? You should see
Speaker 1: you should any christ? Yeah, pre belletial, this becalist, Mike,
Speaker 1: I'll tell.
Speaker 3: You what I had to think for a second to
Speaker 3: run the program in my head of Australian speak.
Speaker 1: So, dude, it's actually it's hilarious watching other people trying
Speaker 1: to do it. It's a very very hot it probably
Speaker 1: a Sithifrican accent is quite odd as well. But if
Speaker 1: you've ever played that rugby you you'll get to it's
Speaker 1: very melodic. Yeah, and almost the Scottish just then.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm from the South, so when I hear people
Speaker 3: trying to do Southern accent in the US.
Speaker 2: It's pretty. It's pretty noticing.
Speaker 1: How you doing, baby, Let's talk eschatologia and times? Baby,
Speaker 1: not bad. I'm trying. I man, I like doing accents.
Speaker 2: To hey girl, Hey girl, you won't come talk about
Speaker 2: and times of me? What you doing to that? Darling?
Speaker 1: Is it? Man? Is it in the South, especially in
Speaker 1: the Bible Belt? Is it all like premium dispensationalism, rap schut?
Speaker 2: A lot of it?
Speaker 1: What percentag would you think it is?
Speaker 2: Probably seventy eighty percent?
Speaker 1: Wow, Okay, that's big, because you know it's funny. When
Speaker 1: I got into my Christian faith, I actually watched a
Speaker 1: lot of apology at church. Jeff Derbin, James White, and
Speaker 1: I know it used to be a Calvinist as well,
Speaker 1: and they were really advocating for this postal eschatology. And
Speaker 1: I will get you to explain it for the audience
Speaker 1: to the different viewpoints. But one thing for me was
Speaker 1: just seeing the historical fulfillment in seventy eight D kind
Speaker 1: of blew me away and it really impacted my faith
Speaker 1: in a positive way, you know, just to see God's
Speaker 1: word come true and how so many Christians believed in
Speaker 1: this understanding of pre meal, just qush, just let's just
Speaker 1: probably start this. Can you explain these with end times
Speaker 1: and the fascination with the millennial kingdom and what the
Speaker 1: three positions are for the audience.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the basics of are premal all mil postmil. Premillennialism
Speaker 3: says that Jesus returns before the thousand year kingdom or millennium,
Speaker 3: and usually most of them agree that there's some kind
Speaker 3: of relationship to the nation state of Israel. Not everybody
Speaker 3: is a dispensational prim millennialists. There are some just pre
Speaker 3: millennial minded people. Some of the early first, second, first,
Speaker 3: second century Church Fathers were just pre millennial but they
Speaker 3: were not dispensationalists. So the idea is again Jesus comes back,
Speaker 3: sets up an earthly kingdom, he rules from most people
Speaker 3: think Jerusalem. There is a time of peace, prosperity, and
Speaker 3: for them this fulfills all of these global eschatological prophecies
Speaker 3: in the prophets, you know, in the New Testament and
Speaker 3: the Book of Revelation.
Speaker 2: So that's pre millennialism and then a millennialism.
Speaker 3: Millennialism is the idea that the kingdom is a spiritual reality,
Speaker 3: not the premal most necessarily deny its spiritual but the
Speaker 3: focus of the millennium is a literal, historical a thousand
Speaker 3: your kingdom on Earth. Amil says that there is not
Speaker 3: a literal thousand year kingdom on earth.
Speaker 2: It's a spiritual.
Speaker 3: Reality that began with either the beginning of the world
Speaker 3: and all of God's people from the very beginning, or
Speaker 3: it begins with the First Advent of Christ setting up
Speaker 3: the kingdom which is the Church.
Speaker 2: And they don't necessarily.
Speaker 3: Have a positive view of estatology. Most millennialists think that
Speaker 3: the world gets kind of progressively worse and then we
Speaker 3: get the return of Christ and then you just have
Speaker 3: the end of the world period, right, so that's the
Speaker 3: final judgment, the great White Throne, you.
Speaker 2: Know, it's the end.
Speaker 3: And then post Mill says that there is a kingdom
Speaker 3: that's set up that is the Church. It's synonymous with
Speaker 3: the First Advent. It's not a literal thousand years. For
Speaker 3: almost every post millennialists there are there have been a
Speaker 3: few post Mill people who thought that Jesus set it
Speaker 3: up and then the kingdom went in with one thousand years.
Speaker 2: Later, but that's very very few people.
Speaker 3: But so post Mail typically has a positive appraisal of
Speaker 3: where history is going, and the idea that a lot
Speaker 3: of those prophecies are fulfilled, not at an end times
Speaker 3: literal kingdom, but that the Church grows and grows and grows,
Speaker 3: kind of like a tree from a seed to a tree,
Speaker 3: filling the whole earth. The knowledge of the Lord will
Speaker 3: cover you know, the earth as the water covers the sea.
Speaker 3: All the tribe sellings and nations will not necessarily all
Speaker 3: be converted, but it will be a worldwide.
Speaker 2: Phenomenon at some point.
Speaker 3: So the first two tend to be pretty pessimistic in
Speaker 3: their appraisal of where we are and where history is going,
Speaker 3: and post millennism tends to be more long sighted in
Speaker 3: the fact that maybe we've got another ten thousand years.
Speaker 2: Maybe we got you know, time the world to be.
Speaker 3: Christianized in some significant sense, and then comes the return
Speaker 3: of Christ. So that's the basic breakdown of the three positions.
Speaker 3: And then amongst, as you mentioned, the first position to premillennialism,
Speaker 3: there is this subset that became very popular in the
Speaker 3: last one hundred plus years from John Nelson Darby and C. I. Schofield,
Speaker 3: the Plymouth Brethren and then the US with a lot
Speaker 3: of evangelicals what's called dispensationalism, which is the idea that
Speaker 3: history's chopped up into a bunch of different plan bes
Speaker 3: that God had for people, and many of them believe
Speaker 3: in a dual covenant theology that a lot of the
Speaker 3: promises to the nation state of Israel were not fulfilled
Speaker 3: and so they still lack fulfillment. But there's this sort
Speaker 3: of separate thing going on with the Gentile Church, which
Speaker 3: is a separate covenant from the churches from the Nation
Speaker 3: State of Israel. So you've got church in Israel, two
Speaker 3: dual covenants, and then in the future there will be
Speaker 3: this you know, pre tribulation, rapture, and there will be
Speaker 3: this series of you know.
Speaker 1: And just to interject here, one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: this is an important topic, we actually see it influence
Speaker 1: certain international foreign policies and the culture of American evangelicalism.
Speaker 1: This idea that is that of these covenants yet to
Speaker 1: be fulfilled, and how we interpret that for the nation
Speaker 1: state of Israel. It almost gets to the point where
Speaker 1: you've heard those sermons of passes in the States, where
Speaker 1: let's bring on the Third Temple, let's demolish the mosque
Speaker 1: and bring about the end times. There's almost this idea
Speaker 1: that they can bring about the end times themselves if
Speaker 1: they get this third temple rebuilt on the Temple Mount
Speaker 1: So and there's a huge part of the population that
Speaker 1: believes this, almost advocating for starting a new Holy war.
Speaker 1: So it is actually far more serious even from an
Speaker 1: unbelievers perspective. And you need to take this serially because
Speaker 1: so influential. So that's that's certainly something to consider. Can
Speaker 1: you briefly explain pan millennialism as well for the audience
Speaker 1: is a niche option.
Speaker 2: I don't even know what pan millennialism.
Speaker 1: It's means all pan out so flight joke there we
Speaker 1: are cliche biblical joke for people that get so worried
Speaker 1: in the different positions. We actually have a lot of
Speaker 1: Christian brothers and sisters actually fight over it over end times.
Speaker 1: I mean we all we always try and reconcile the
Speaker 1: best we can.
Speaker 2: But one thing I.
Speaker 3: Would say is that in the attitude of the Orthodox
Speaker 3: and the Calvic Church, romancloy Church and Orthodox Church, the
Speaker 3: Second Acumenical Council dealt with killism or the idea of
Speaker 3: literal millennialism, and it forbade it when it composed the
Speaker 3: addition to the Nicene Creed which says whose kingdom shall
Speaker 3: have no end? That was actually intended to be added
Speaker 3: to exclude any form of pre millennialism.
Speaker 2: So no orthodox or calog person can.
Speaker 1: Interesting. So it is the church historically or postmil or
Speaker 1: how do they?
Speaker 3: I would say predominantly amil, But you could make an
Speaker 3: argument that some people had a positive quasi post mail approach.
Speaker 1: And it makes sense too because if we go to
Speaker 1: the dating system, you know, anam Domini the year of
Speaker 1: our Lord, they must have seen him reigning in some capacity.
Speaker 1: You can't make a historical case for pre millennialism of
Speaker 1: for the church. And now that you've mentioned that, could
Speaker 1: you just briefly mentioned that again, which Econmenical council would
Speaker 1: to create?
Speaker 3: So the second Acumenical councils kind of Constantinople one in
Speaker 3: three eighty one. It was presided over by saying mildials
Speaker 3: of Antioch and the chief theologians are the Cappadocians. So
Speaker 3: Basil Gregor of Nissa and Gregor nazi Azeus are the
Speaker 3: main theological proponents of that council. This is the one
Speaker 3: after and I see it it was held actually out
Speaker 3: of communion with Rome, which is interesting because we typically
Speaker 3: use that as an argument against papal authority in the
Speaker 3: early Church, because you have an acumenical council defining the Trinity,
Speaker 3: and this is really the essential trinitarian council after and
Speaker 3: of course Nicea deals with the deed of Christ, and
Speaker 3: then constant umber One deals with the triad and it
Speaker 3: affirms the Cappadocian doctrine of the Trinity, but it also
Speaker 3: deals with other errors in heresy that were around at
Speaker 3: that time. It deals with the pollinarianism. I think it's
Speaker 3: the first time that that's addressed, and millennialism.
Speaker 1: What's pollinarianism.
Speaker 3: Pollinaris is a heretic who denied the full humanity of Christ.
Speaker 3: He denied Christ having a rational soul, and so the
Speaker 3: replacement in Christ for the rational soul he thought was
Speaker 3: the person of the logos, and the rejection of that
Speaker 3: was on the basis of the fact that if Christ
Speaker 3: didn't assume all of our nature, including all of its parts,
Speaker 3: including irrational soul, then he didn't redeem us. He can't
Speaker 3: redeem a whole man if he doesn't assume that whole
Speaker 3: man's nature. And I don't mean to start, you know, squabbles.
Speaker 3: But William Lane Craig, for example, is a modern day
Speaker 3: self profess a pollinarian. He believes the appollinarian position. So
Speaker 3: he's an example of somebody who would disagree with the
Speaker 3: Second Acumenical Council.
Speaker 2: But that's just a separate issue from escaltal.
Speaker 1: Just real quick that just on that point, I wouldn't
Speaker 1: mine since you brought it up, because I saw that
Speaker 1: he recently, you know, did a debate with Muhammad Hijab
Speaker 1: and he was actually commenting him on that that the
Speaker 1: historical Church has got it wrong. According to William Lane
Speaker 1: Craig with regards to the Trinity, why did he take that?
Speaker 1: I assumed many the many the positions with top line
Speaker 1: apologists aren't necessarily I would they'd say they're adhering to scripture.
Speaker 1: But you can see that it seems to come from
Speaker 1: an apologetic standpoint about what's the best argument, what's the
Speaker 1: best argument of defense? Why did he take just according
Speaker 1: to your opinion, why would he take that position on
Speaker 1: the Trinity?
Speaker 3: What Trinity is reflecting from his position on personhood in Christ?
Speaker 3: So because he thinks that personhood is in some way
Speaker 3: a reducible to a trade of nature. That's the Apollinarian mistake.
Speaker 3: He does the same thing in terms of personhood in
Speaker 3: the Trinity. So he believes in what's called the inseparability
Speaker 3: of the separability of.
Speaker 2: Operations in the Trinity.
Speaker 3: So he has a position that nobody in the verse
Speaker 3: thousand years of the Church had that the persons of
Speaker 3: the Trinity have their own will and energy. All Trinitarian
Speaker 3: theology has always held that there's one will, one essence,
Speaker 3: in one operation in the Triad. So he departs from
Speaker 3: that Trinitarian view. I don't exactly know what he thinks.
Speaker 3: I'm sure he's got some reason why he thinks that's
Speaker 3: a solution to problems, but it probably due to challenges
Speaker 3: from Muslims on what's called the logical problem of the Trinity.
Speaker 3: But if you want, if you look up doctor bo Branson,
Speaker 3: he's an Orthodox professor. That's a good buddy of ours.
Speaker 3: We've done a couple breakdowns of this position from William
Speaker 3: Land Craig and doctor Branson just published a book with
Speaker 3: doctor Craig on four of you on this issue.
Speaker 1: Okay, great, Well, what I'll do is I might get
Speaker 1: you to send me that link and I'll leave it
Speaker 1: in the description below. This is just a quick digression
Speaker 1: to the into the trinity, but for those that are
Speaker 1: interested in this, we'll leave it in the description for
Speaker 1: you to follow up on that. That would be highly interesting.
Speaker 1: I'll watch that myself. Okay, so good.
Speaker 3: He'd be a good if you want to like an
Speaker 3: Orthodox professor on anytime, Doctor Brands would be really good.
Speaker 1: Awesome. Yeah, I'll definitely check it out. You my last video,
Speaker 1: you messed with my epistemology and no you're with our
Speaker 1: last podcasts. Yeah. Man, you had to really reconcile how
Speaker 1: broken sole the scripture is anyway, So it's something that
Speaker 1: I've been reconciling over time. Nonetheless, I think yeah, I'll
Speaker 1: definitely follow up that video as well. Now for clarification,
Speaker 1: what is your position? Where are you at? Catallogically speaking?
Speaker 3: That book that compares the US is called One God.
Speaker 3: It just came out One God, three Persons, four views. Awesome, okay,
Speaker 3: and with Kayline Craig is in there, Doctor bo Branton
Speaker 3: is in there, and I forget the other guys in there.
Speaker 1: But we'll leave that. We'll leave that Amazon link as well.
Speaker 2: I have a. I would say that I tend to
Speaker 2: favor the post mill position. I think has the most
Speaker 2: evidence behind it.
Speaker 3: But there's also the possibility that you could have a
Speaker 3: fulfillment of a lot of those positive universalized texts within
Speaker 3: a short span of time. So a lot of times
Speaker 3: postmo people say, well, maybe we've got ten thousand more years. Well,
Speaker 3: if you look at Roma's eleven, Paul says that when
Speaker 3: the Jews convert, it'll be like life from the dead, right,
Speaker 3: And so you get this idea that it might even
Speaker 3: be possibly a phenomenon that only takes a few years
Speaker 3: to achieve the fulfillment of a lot of the prophecies
Speaker 3: about the the widespread acceptance of the Church and the
Speaker 3: success of Christianity.
Speaker 1: Okay, plenty of things that come back to you. I've
Speaker 1: even got a friend of mine that believes were in
Speaker 1: the little season where Satan is loosed after the millennial rate, people.
Speaker 2: Calling in and asking me and I don't even know
Speaker 2: what I mean, I know what.
Speaker 1: The tax My mate JT follows JC. I call him
Speaker 1: the Christian Alex Jones. Okay, he's on Instagram. I've about
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand followers. Super passionate guy, but loves to
Speaker 1: try and draw in all the conspiracy theories through a
Speaker 1: Christian lens. It's a bit of entertainment, but he is convicted.
Speaker 1: He does you know, he does love the Lord. But
Speaker 1: he he's really a strong advocate for it. When we
Speaker 1: started talking about post mill and he's gone on this
Speaker 1: year journey and he's really the one that's really pushing
Speaker 1: this narrative. Actually the little season. It's an interesting thing
Speaker 1: because he's tied it in with these dates. And I'll
Speaker 1: explain another time. But one of the reasons I like
Speaker 1: for anyone, especially in terms of my audience, they like
Speaker 1: apologetics like yours. One of the reasons post millennialism is
Speaker 1: and a millennialism is a strong position to consider, is
Speaker 1: because you'll see that there's an atheistic hand grenade that
Speaker 1: gets thrown out towards Christians. And Christopher Hitchins did it
Speaker 1: on his tour with a lot of pastors and pologists
Speaker 1: who were pre millennial which is the idea that Matthew
Speaker 1: twenty four, Luke twenty one, Mark thirteen, the Olive It discourse,
Speaker 1: the end of the world that was predicted by Jesus
Speaker 1: never happened. And guess what if it never happened, Jesus
Speaker 1: is a false prophet, and the only way for the
Speaker 1: premal position to get round that is when Jesus says
Speaker 1: all these things will take place in this generation, have
Speaker 1: to change the word from this to that, they corrupt
Speaker 1: the text. So, in your opinion, if you can explain
Speaker 1: how I would love to get into this olive discourse,
Speaker 1: and then I'd love to live the israel component and
Speaker 1: the dual coment theology and all that for the latter
Speaker 1: half of this episode, just to get people understanding about
Speaker 1: end times and why it's important. This hand grenade by
Speaker 1: atheist is still being used today. Alex O'Connor, bart and
Speaker 1: Dan McClellan, all these guys, they're saying that Jesus is
Speaker 1: a false prophet because of the end of the world
Speaker 1: did not happen. So without having to go through everything,
Speaker 1: can you take me the two main scriptures in that
Speaker 1: in Matthew twenty four is the idea of the Son
Speaker 1: of Man coming in the clouds. How do you interpret
Speaker 1: that the idea that every man will see it, everyone
Speaker 1: on the earth will mourn when they see the Sun
Speaker 1: of Man coming in the clouds. That's taken as a
Speaker 1: literal prophecy, the perusia. How do you negotiate your way
Speaker 1: out of the text, as mister doctor Dan McClellan says
Speaker 1: all the time, Well.
Speaker 3: We already have in Ezekiel and in Isaiah very similar
Speaker 3: prophetic language that when God comes in judgment on Egypt
Speaker 3: or on battleon that he will come in the clouds,
Speaker 3: he will, you know, destroy the city the idols. Right,
Speaker 3: you get this very similar type of prophetic language. That
Speaker 3: was not talking about a bodily advent. It was simply
Speaker 3: talking about the destruction of that empire by another force,
Speaker 3: another empire. On top of that, I think it's also
Speaker 3: important to understand that the Orthodox view, as I would argue,
Speaker 3: and I have, you know, plenty of Orthodox saints and
Speaker 3: theologians and elders and bishops that can can back this up.
Speaker 3: But we believe in a mirrored fulfillment. So if you
Speaker 3: look at what the temple symbolized, the temple is a
Speaker 3: little miniature of the universe. And you know, Paul makes
Speaker 3: us very clear and Hebrews seven when he talks about
Speaker 3: the you know, high priests going into the Holy of Holies,
Speaker 3: that's signifies Jesus going up into in the ascension.
Speaker 2: Of the Holy of Holies, which is when he began
Speaker 2: his reign right.
Speaker 3: So we have to understand that Psalmon ten, every time
Speaker 3: it's quoted in New Testamus, sit in my right hand,
Speaker 3: I'll make your enemies of footstool is a statement not
Speaker 3: about the second Coming, but about the ascension. So the
Speaker 3: reign of Christ begins when he ascend it. And in
Speaker 3: that model of the way, Hebrews, in my view, talks
Speaker 3: about the Temple in its ministry and it's being wiped away.
Speaker 3: The Orthodox exegesis has typically said, whether it's Chrysostom or
Speaker 3: any other say in the Church that talks about this
Speaker 3: specific issue, that's a symbol of a sign of the
Speaker 3: future rolling up of the heavens and the earth right,
Speaker 3: which is like a scroll in the conflagration or in
Speaker 3: the restoration.
Speaker 2: Right the Escaton.
Speaker 3: So the very destruction of the Temple in seventy eighty
Speaker 3: itself points forward to the conflagration and the destruction of
Speaker 3: the universe in order to restore it to its original
Speaker 3: Edenic state.
Speaker 2: That's the Orthodox view.
Speaker 3: The other thing I would say is that this mirrored
Speaker 3: view is also proven by the Maccabees and it's very
Speaker 3: helpful for Orthodox because we have first, second, and third
Speaker 3: Maccabees in our book.
Speaker 1: Jo quickly, do you consider it? Does the Orthodox consider
Speaker 1: I know it's a part of the canon, but do
Speaker 1: they consider it inspired Macabees? Yeah, they do consider it inspired. Okay? Cool?
Speaker 1: And in many ways for me, I've always especially with Maccabees,
Speaker 1: even in First Enock, how they refer to the Gost
Speaker 1: New Testament writers refer to Enoch for the Enoch Maccabee's
Speaker 1: shows so much interesting fulfillment, even from Daniel, and they
Speaker 1: provide so much context. I mean, it really does make
Speaker 1: sense why it's a part of the canon in many ways.
Speaker 3: And anyway, continue and it well, it helps with preterism,
Speaker 3: is what I'm getting at here, right. And so if
Speaker 3: you if you're an Orthodox, if you're an Eastern you know,
Speaker 3: reader of the texts, and you have the Duro Canon,
Speaker 3: which is pretty early on in the Eastern Church. You
Speaker 3: can find i think it's Theditiki as a prederist text.
Speaker 3: You can find a Hippolytus of Rome.
Speaker 1: Why do you say the Dedicay is a prederist text.
Speaker 3: There's a specific statement about seventy a d And it's
Speaker 3: either a pistol, Barnabus or dedicate. One of them has
Speaker 3: a reference to the destruction of the temple as.
Speaker 1: Interesting that might become a future real Thanks mate, I'll
Speaker 1: give you credit.
Speaker 3: Apoliticis of Rome is one of the first to talk
Speaker 3: about seventy eight being a fulfillment, and we can get
Speaker 3: into the church Father's later. Of course, Christism has entire
Speaker 3: sermons on Luke twenty one Matthew twenty four that the
Speaker 3: cover preterism origin was a preterist I'm going from memory here.
Speaker 3: Athanasius interprets Daniel nine about the First Advent, not about
Speaker 3: you know, the end of the world, that you could
Speaker 3: say is also adjacent to preterism anyway. But back to
Speaker 3: this mirroring point about the mccabees. We know that when
Speaker 3: Antiochus Sapafani's when he sacrifices the pig on the altar
Speaker 3: in the Book of Maccabees, that's the defiling of the temple.
Speaker 3: That's called the abomination of desolation. When Jesus talks about
Speaker 3: what's coming, he calls it an abomination of the desolation
Speaker 3: or of desolation.
Speaker 1: Just look to the Profet Daniel. Yeah, so that.
Speaker 3: We know that Daniel was prophesying the mccabees, but it
Speaker 3: also applies to seventy eight, you see, So it's.
Speaker 2: A mirrored thing.
Speaker 3: And my argumentation there is that by extension, the same
Speaker 3: principle applies that the removal of the Temple in seventy
Speaker 3: a d also points forward to the removal of this
Speaker 3: administration of the heavens and the earth. Right, Paul likens
Speaker 3: the temple to add him to the Old Covenant, to
Speaker 3: the mortality of the flesh, and we still have that
Speaker 3: reality around today. Right Paul says that even though Christ reigns,
Speaker 3: we do not yet see all things subjected to him,
Speaker 3: even though they are so there's still aspects of even
Speaker 3: the Old Covenant, you could say, where we still have mortality,
Speaker 3: we still have death, we still have the adamic existence
Speaker 3: which is embodied you could say, in the Temple in
Speaker 3: its administration. So the Temple's been destroyed, that's all gone,
Speaker 3: but the temple look forward to the rolling up of
Speaker 3: the heavens and the earth, and that hasn't happened yet.
Speaker 2: And I say that because I.
Speaker 3: Just had a debate with a full preterist the other
Speaker 3: day on mind Channel, and we went into some of this,
Speaker 3: and he admitted a future fulfillment, but the very thing
Speaker 3: that the future fulfillment of the temple signifies, he says,
Speaker 3: has already happened, so it wouldn't be a future for filming.
Speaker 1: Sorry. And there's demons still active today, so I don't
Speaker 1: understand how they reconcile exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's at the same point it's does evil still operate? Yeah,
Speaker 2: but I don't know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I made mind just going to watch
Speaker 1: this as a full predice. Then I'm going to send
Speaker 1: them that I'm going to I'm going to clip that
Speaker 1: and send it to him. Here's here's something, So the
Speaker 1: Abomination of Desolation, So Jesus is going through these signs
Speaker 1: what's going to happen? In Matthew twenty four And just
Speaker 1: so everyone understands, there's parts of Daniel ezekiel Revelation and
Speaker 1: what we call the All of It Discourse Matthew twenty four,
Speaker 1: Luke twenty one, Mark thirteen, which is about this same event.
Speaker 1: I think Revelation goes deeper more than any other book
Speaker 1: into the future. And and so Matthew and Mark specifically mentioned
Speaker 1: Abomination Desolations spoke a by the prophet Daniels. So if
Speaker 1: going back to this Greek king, he also from memory
Speaker 1: he besieged Jerusalem, right, and he basically went to war
Speaker 1: with with Jerusalem. Did he not banish?
Speaker 3: Yes, yeah, he's so besieged Jerusalem, and he sacrificed a
Speaker 3: pig on the altar, which.
Speaker 2: Is not violent.
Speaker 1: And so this this abomination desolation, and I understand, but
Speaker 1: the statue of Zeus, it also encompasses, you know, in
Speaker 1: many ways that war is coming. What happened, what what
Speaker 1: the Greek king did all those years ago, spoken by
Speaker 1: the prophet Daniel, what was prophesied essentially is going to
Speaker 1: happen again. And so people see this language and you
Speaker 1: mentioned it before the sun and moon dark and you know,
Speaker 1: the stars falling from the heavens. This is all Isaiah
Speaker 1: Ezekiel imagery of destruction. Yeah. So so there's these there's
Speaker 1: this lead up where it seems to be considered the
Speaker 1: premial dispensation is considered a worldly event. But even Jesus says,
Speaker 1: how do you avoid it? Flee to the mountains of
Speaker 1: Judea pray that's not Sabbath.
Speaker 3: Sabbath which is a reference obviously to is immediate audience.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and pray that it's not in winter. Flee to
Speaker 1: the mountain. Jujita. Now listen, I'm in Townsville, North Queensland,
Speaker 1: the Texas. Stude, dude, It's going to be very hard
Speaker 1: for me to get to you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I feel like Jesus is making it hard for me.
Speaker 1: So it seems to be localized, and there seems to
Speaker 1: be a localized, consistent theme. So where does this idea
Speaker 1: of a that Matthew twenty four this olive discourse is
Speaker 1: a worldly event, you know, a global event. Where does
Speaker 1: that come from that understanding interpretation? Well?
Speaker 3: I do think in the early Church, from the earliest days,
Speaker 3: people did kind of immediately just assume and read it
Speaker 3: as only referring to the Second Advent. And I don't
Speaker 3: think that it's wrong necessarily to think that there is
Speaker 3: no reference to the Second Advent.
Speaker 2: Again, if you.
Speaker 3: Believe in this sort of mirrored fulfillment, which is the
Speaker 3: very point I think.
Speaker 1: Of time, dual fulfillment, well it would it be.
Speaker 2: Dual because it would be mirrored.
Speaker 3: Duel is just too and there's more than like like.
Speaker 1: For example, like a shadow fulfillment.
Speaker 3: And then like me get so the babyloning captivity is
Speaker 3: the destruction of the First Temple, and a lot of
Speaker 3: the prophecies and statements about the destruction of that temple
Speaker 3: also applied to the future destruction of the Temple under
Speaker 3: the Maccabees when it's defiled, and the seventy eight D
Speaker 3: destruction of Harris Temple. So that's why I keep saying
Speaker 3: the word mirrored, because I don't even know that I
Speaker 3: would say it's dual, because again, the destruction of the
Speaker 3: Temple and seventy eight D is a sign of the
Speaker 3: configuration and the destruction of the entire.
Speaker 2: Universe to be restored. So when we say destruction of the.
Speaker 3: Universe is the Orthodox, we think that the universe gets
Speaker 3: restored to an e den x state.
Speaker 2: It's not like wiped.
Speaker 1: Away, Heaven and Earth back together again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, exactly, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, And I guess that's why we see
Speaker 1: in Ezekiel fourteen, you know, these same four judgments of Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: John reiterates that, and with the Imagery of the Horseman,
Speaker 1: exactly the same judgments and this mirror fulfillment, and even
Speaker 1: with Paul, So, can can we just speak into something
Speaker 1: now that the idea that it might have something to
Speaker 1: do with the second Coming in terms of this mirror fulfillment,
Speaker 1: which I think a lot of the critical scholarship at
Speaker 1: the moment says, it's quite both when the apostles say
Speaker 1: to Jesus that when will be when the temple falls down?
Speaker 1: When's this going to happen? And when we will be
Speaker 1: the coming the sign of the coming of the end
Speaker 1: of the age. Right, So I think it does refer
Speaker 1: to both, and I think it's fair to have that
Speaker 1: and that mirror for filming that you as you describe it,
Speaker 1: creates that link there that we can link it in
Speaker 1: with seventy a d n with the future. In terms
Speaker 1: of critical scholarships, say like your Dan McClellans and your
Speaker 1: skeptics will say that their first century expectation with Paul
Speaker 1: is that they believed, you know, sell everything, the end
Speaker 1: is coming soon, and then you can see their views
Speaker 1: somewhat evolve over time, even in the New Testament scriptures
Speaker 1: like even that's why in Second Peter it's kind of like,
Speaker 1: you know, one day's a thousand years and people are
Speaker 1: crying out, when's this is going to happen? So what
Speaker 1: is your thought in answering that that if the first
Speaker 1: central expectation was that the Olivet discourse and that prophecy
Speaker 1: had to do with the end of the world coming
Speaker 1: soon and it didn't come about, you know, how do
Speaker 1: we answer that that that critical take.
Speaker 3: Well, again, the fact that some people got it wrong
Speaker 3: doesn't mean that it wasn't fulfilled. In the same way
Speaker 3: that Jews, for example, got it wrong in terms of
Speaker 3: interpreting the prophecies for Christ's First Advent, the fact that
Speaker 3: the Jews got that wrong wouldn't mean that there wasn't
Speaker 3: a first Advent. It would just simply mean that the
Speaker 3: Jews got it wrong. So likewise, in the early Church,
Speaker 3: the fact that people misunderstood Paul, I mean, Peter even
Speaker 3: says that, you know, people misunderstand and misinterpret Paul's writings
Speaker 3: because he writes about difficult things, right, So you know,
Speaker 3: that's really I would say, people that think that as
Speaker 3: a good argument is kind of a fallacious non sequitor.
Speaker 3: And I would just say that even in the early Church,
Speaker 3: the centuries that we mentioned, you know, you've got kind
Speaker 3: of competing interpretations amongst the church fathers. But what's interesting
Speaker 3: about and it's not totally the Western or the Eastern Fathers,
Speaker 3: but preterism dominate partial predism dominates in the Eastern Church Fathers,
Speaker 3: which is just interesting.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: Exactly what the reason for that is, but maybe because
Speaker 3: they had access to typically directly reading the Greek text,
Speaker 3: and then the West you get tendency to you know,
Speaker 3: read the Vulgate and the Jerome's translation. So maybe a
Speaker 3: lot of the Greek didn't translate that well to them.
Speaker 2: I'm speculating.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but you do have a pretty consistent attestation to
Speaker 3: preterism from you know, people that listed origin athanacious very clear.
Speaker 3: In Saint John Christis without any doubt, I believe, even
Speaker 3: Usebius refers to the seventy eight as a destructure.
Speaker 1: All the CBS writings that, like, you know the fact
Speaker 1: that they went to the mountain city of Pella, the
Speaker 1: Christians escaped, Yeah, you know, like he's seen it, he
Speaker 1: must be.
Speaker 2: Seeing And on top of that, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3: I when I wrote, I wrote a grad paper on
Speaker 3: partial preudhism for one of my history classes, because I
Speaker 3: did a double in history and I almost have a
Speaker 3: double measure. But in my history class, I wrote on
Speaker 3: orcue me as an undergrad paper I wrote on Josepha's
Speaker 3: So I read Josepha's account of these events and sort
Speaker 3: of lined it up with Luke twenty one in Matthew
Speaker 3: twenty four, and it's pretty pretty clearly. I mean, Josepha
Speaker 3: doesn't have any interest in vindicating the Bible, he doesn't
Speaker 3: care about the New Testament text. But his eyewitness account
Speaker 3: does line up with what Matthew twenty four and Luke
Speaker 3: twenty one described. So that's another you know, sort of
Speaker 3: extra conn I'm called attestation to these events.
Speaker 1: And it's frightening in terms of and this is what
Speaker 1: got me in a lot of ways. When you see
Speaker 1: things like Josephus mentioned the five months siege and in
Speaker 1: Revelation you see that that took five months, they'll wish
Speaker 1: they were dead and it won't have it. Then they'll
Speaker 1: receive it, or even eating the babies and things like that,
Speaker 1: pray that it's not pregnant when this happens. And even
Speaker 1: this idea, but even the trees being cut around that
Speaker 1: he describes around Jerusalem, and something really strange right now.
Speaker 1: A lot of Josephus is used to try and disprove
Speaker 1: the New Testament. A lot of the critics do that,
Speaker 1: you know, with the dating of Luke or Querinius and
Speaker 1: all those things. But then you see this odd thing
Speaker 1: that Josephus mentions about chariots in the heavens coming out
Speaker 1: of the sky. And he's like, and he says, this
Speaker 1: sounds like a fable. He goes, yes, I'm just reporting.
Speaker 1: I'm just reporting what they're saying. So they like to
Speaker 1: ignore that part. This heavenly looks like a heavenly judgment
Speaker 1: coming out of the skies from Josephus of all people.
Speaker 1: What do you see about that?
Speaker 2: Now? I cited that in that paper.
Speaker 3: I cited that, I cited the other manifestations of things
Speaker 3: that he talks about. I want to say, I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm going for I haven't looked at this in fifteen years,
Speaker 3: but I want to say that Josephas talks about even
Speaker 3: like an earthquake. Yes, I want to say, he talks
Speaker 3: about darkness or like a you know, eclipse or something
Speaker 3: of that nature.
Speaker 2: I mean, again, this is fifteen.
Speaker 1: He even says that one hundred thousand Jewish people were
Speaker 1: enslaved and sent back to Egypt. And that takes us
Speaker 1: back to douterotomy that if you turn away from me.
Speaker 1: I'll send you back to Egypt.
Speaker 2: The curses, Yeah, the Covenant curses exactly.
Speaker 1: So it's just sort of like, yeah, it's hard to
Speaker 1: ignore the partial preterism or post millennial worldview when it
Speaker 1: comes to end times. And now you've mentioned it's quite
Speaker 1: a lot of church fathers and the other church held
Speaker 1: a very similar view, which obviously strengthens the case for this.
Speaker 1: So here's something I have for you. You mentioned something
Speaker 1: one other thing too, Yeah, go for it. You go on.
Speaker 3: One other thing is also think that it's important that
Speaker 3: a lot of times when we bring this up, I
Speaker 3: think a lot of people just default.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure why, but they default to Matthew twenty four.
Speaker 3: And Matthew's written for a Jewish audience, and so there's
Speaker 3: expectations and assumptions, right, But if you read Luke twenty one,
Speaker 3: I think it's even clearer because it's written for a
Speaker 3: gentile audience, that this is definitely talking about something that
Speaker 3: will happen contemporary with the people hearing Jesus speak at
Speaker 3: that time. Because he says, you know you will you
Speaker 3: in front of me, will see Jerusalem surrounded by enemies.
Speaker 1: He doesn't use here I mean, there's.
Speaker 3: So many things in Luke that kind of just make
Speaker 3: it obvious that he's talking about within that you know,
Speaker 3: near future span of time.
Speaker 1: It's it's funny how he doesn't mention all that Jewish imagery, right,
Speaker 1: because Mak's very Jewish, Matthew's very Jewish. He doesn't mention abomination, desolation.
Speaker 1: He says, when the armies are at the gates, it's good,
Speaker 1: there isn't it. Do you think Luke was written? Mind?
Speaker 1: You do? You? Do?
Speaker 2: You?
Speaker 1: You put it pre seventy a d.
Speaker 3: I don't know, but I mean I tend to think
Speaker 3: that we don't want to lose one of our best
Speaker 3: evidences for inspiration. And that's the thing about the disservice
Speaker 3: that dispensationalism and pre millennialism typically does, is that if
Speaker 3: our position is correct, then Matthew twenty four, you know,
Speaker 3: Mark thirteen, Luke twenty one become very powerful predictions of
Speaker 3: what happens in seventy eight. So yeah, I believe that
Speaker 3: Revelation was also written pre seventy eighty.
Speaker 1: I am one of the questions that I like to ask,
Speaker 1: and because I know the scholars date Luke posts seventy
Speaker 1: a d and Matthew is, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: Luke the idea that he documents the acts of the
Speaker 1: Apostles and Stevens martyrdom but fails to mention Paul and
Speaker 1: Peter they're martyrdom. Fails to mention the nine to eleven
Speaker 1: of the first century, it's the fall of Jerusalem. So
Speaker 1: these ideas that he failed to mention, if he wrote
Speaker 1: it in the eighties, makes there doesn't seem to be
Speaker 1: a literary consistency as to why he would do that
Speaker 1: if he wants to give it actory historically, I think
Speaker 1: it was after right, Yeah, So it's like the only
Speaker 1: logical conclusion as to why that information is absent is
Speaker 1: that it didn't happen yet. So that'd some other theories
Speaker 1: which are interesting, But can I can.
Speaker 2: I add one one plug here?
Speaker 3: My godfather actually just spent the last three or four
Speaker 3: years translating and not translating collating. There's a I guess
Speaker 3: you'd call him Anglican an Anglican, a scholar that's still
Speaker 3: I think it's still live, but he's kind of getting
Speaker 3: nearer to passing away. Have you heard of James Jordan?
Speaker 3: So Jordan is a kind of a well known American
Speaker 3: kind of biblical symbologist. He's out of the Anglican reformed
Speaker 3: and reformed into Englandish tradition. And he wrote a three
Speaker 3: volume what amount to now a three volume series, and
Speaker 3: my godfather just edited, collated and put this together, and
Speaker 3: that it's written from a partial predters perspective. It's, for example,
Speaker 3: if you heard of Peter Lightheart, so Lightheart's in the
Speaker 3: same circles as Jordan. So Lightheart put out a two
Speaker 3: volume commentary and revelation from a partial preader's view a
Speaker 3: couple of years ago, and now Jordan's commentary is out,
Speaker 3: and I would just recommend that people are interested, you
Speaker 3: can go and get Dean Arnold's commentary.
Speaker 2: U excuse me, Dean Arnold's edited.
Speaker 3: Version of James Jordan's three volume commentary, which is saying
Speaker 3: that's because it just came out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, awesome. We'll leave it in the description along
Speaker 1: with the other Trinity book as well. I think the
Speaker 1: advantage of doing these type of episodes here is I
Speaker 1: know that the people watching it. It's obviously the views
Speaker 1: on my channel was smaller than all the Instagram stuff,
Speaker 1: but I know people he actually want to learn and
Speaker 1: they will follow up these books.
Speaker 2: You'll like this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's really really good. Okay. So this is the
Speaker 1: question I have for you before maybe we move on
Speaker 1: to the Israel stuff. Is you mentioned something about before
Speaker 1: about the idea of maybe so I wasn't sure if
Speaker 1: you said certain New Testament writers got their interpretations wrong.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Peter. That's difficult to understand him when I've
Speaker 1: referenced to Paul. Are you okay with the idea of Paul.
Speaker 3: I don't mean the writers got it wrong, Okay, Okay,
Speaker 3: I'm saying like a Christians who interpret Paul thinking that
Speaker 3: it's the end of the world, okay, not the writers.
Speaker 3: I don't think the Bible is errors.
Speaker 1: No worries understood. I just wanted to clarify that because
Speaker 1: I assumed that was your position. But are you okay
Speaker 1: with the idea that maybe Poor himself misinterpreted when the
Speaker 1: end would happen. So, for instance, this idea that poor himself,
Speaker 1: this is from a critical standpoint, the idea that Paul
Speaker 1: himself believes at the end of the world will happen
Speaker 1: within his life lifetime, and then maybe his position changes.
Speaker 1: Have you heard about this critical take? I have not,
Speaker 1: no yeah, okay, Well that's okay. Then I thought you
Speaker 1: may have been aware of this idea that the first
Speaker 1: central expectation with the New Testament writers such as Paul
Speaker 1: and Peter, that it was going to happen in their lifetime,
Speaker 1: and then the fact that they didn't. You can see
Speaker 1: the positions, you know, almost change. So the idea of
Speaker 1: even just if you talk about a hypothetical here, whether
Speaker 1: true or not, an inspired writer potentially themselves misinterpreting the
Speaker 1: idea of the perusia. When that would occur, do you
Speaker 1: reckon that's a possibility that can occur from him? No?
Speaker 3: I mean I I would say that the Apostolic teaching
Speaker 3: and their enlightenment from Christ. I would say that they're infalliable.
Speaker 3: I don't think they made teaching or theological errors. Now
Speaker 3: individually you could say, okay, Peter fell into this error,
Speaker 3: but he got corrected by Paul. But I'm saying that
Speaker 3: when it comes to their normative teaching, what's included in scripture,
Speaker 3: I don't think they made errors.
Speaker 1: Okay, Because I think the thing is this, this is
Speaker 1: going to be a good segue into Israel, the Kingdom
Speaker 1: of God, and the first century misconception the Kingdom of
Speaker 1: God with Jesus kept redefining, and you know, it's not
Speaker 1: coming in ways that could be observed. It's in the
Speaker 1: midst of you. It's a mustard seed and the leaven
Speaker 1: and the bread. You know, everyone, even John, He's like,
Speaker 1: I want to sit at your right hand when you
Speaker 1: come into your glory, you know what I mean. He's
Speaker 1: like Jesus, like, you have no idea what you're asking.
Speaker 1: You don't know what that And you know what I
Speaker 1: love about that part is that I feel like Jesus
Speaker 1: granted him that request at the cross and he sees
Speaker 1: and it's like John's like, I never knew this was
Speaker 1: going to be the seed of glory, you know, like
Speaker 1: that that was the seed of glory that was going
Speaker 1: to change the world, the throne or in many figurative ways.
Speaker 1: And so with this idea of the redefinition of the foot,
Speaker 1: could you explain what was Why did Jesus have to
Speaker 1: do that? Why did you have to redefine even the
Speaker 1: apostles in acts? You know, it's like when is the
Speaker 1: restoration of Israel going to happen? So what were they
Speaker 1: expecting the Messiah to do when he arrived in the
Speaker 1: first century.
Speaker 3: I think that throughout the Gospels and even into the
Speaker 3: Book of Acts there it's pretty clear that the standard
Speaker 3: Jewish expectation was that you would get another king David,
Speaker 3: who would rule from Israel, subdue all the enemies. Israel
Speaker 3: would be on the top of the nations. Everyone would
Speaker 3: flow into Israel. The Gentiles went, in some way just
Speaker 3: sort of default to, you know, submitting to the nation
Speaker 3: state of Israel. And when the First Advent was not
Speaker 3: that that was a letdown, I think to a lot
Speaker 3: of what the Jews at that time expected, right, I
Speaker 3: think it's pretty you know, the Zelots and others like
Speaker 3: Simon the Zelot and others like this is kind of
Speaker 3: well known that this is what people expected. And so
Speaker 3: what Jesus taught instead was, you know, at that point
Speaker 3: at that time, repentance and preparation for the coming of
Speaker 3: the Kingdom of God. What she says is the basically
Speaker 3: the presence of the Holy.
Speaker 2: Spirit in your heart. And so you know that's the kingdom.
Speaker 3: The Kingdom is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, journalists, you
Speaker 3: know all the virtues that Paul lists.
Speaker 1: Just real quick, just real quick. When you said that
Speaker 1: in the king is the Holy Spirit. I love that
Speaker 1: because one of the translations is that the Kingdom of
Speaker 1: God's comedy ways could be observed. It's in the midst
Speaker 1: of you. One of the other translations in the Greek
Speaker 1: it's in your midst you. Well, it's not just in you,
Speaker 1: it's in front of you. And I feel like Jesus,
Speaker 1: that's one of the translations. It depends how you take
Speaker 1: it exactly, and what does he give his spirit, you know,
Speaker 1: And the Kingdom of God is where the presence of
Speaker 1: God is. That's why I'm like, it's it's huge, you know,
Speaker 1: it goes beyond in many ways. If you look at
Speaker 1: the Daniel prophecies and even Isaiah, it's an everlasting kingdom,
Speaker 1: one that will never be destroyed. You can destroy a temple,
Speaker 1: and when they destroyed the Temple, it wiped out Judaism,
Speaker 1: for it was just for three four hundred years, just
Speaker 1: their cultural, economic, socio economic, like everything. It's their hub.
Speaker 1: Eat it is the hub for all of Judaism. The temple.
Speaker 1: You wipe out the temple, you wipe out Judaism in
Speaker 1: many ways. And then how do you destroy a billion, moving, breathing,
Speaker 1: living temples. Do you know what I mean exactly, Like,
Speaker 1: how do you destroy that kingdom? You can't. It's ingenious
Speaker 1: now when you can bind.
Speaker 3: Right, And the more you try to stamp it out
Speaker 3: like the Roman Empire did, the more you know, the
Speaker 3: sea the blood of the martyrs is the seat of
Speaker 3: the church.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I totally a great dude.
Speaker 1: There's this thing that I saw the other day about Barabbas, right,
Speaker 1: And I never realized that Barabbas means son of the
Speaker 1: Father bah Abah, right. And and so you know, you
Speaker 1: hear these sermons that we are Barrabbas, we were set free,
Speaker 1: that cross was meant for us. You know, Jesus took
Speaker 1: penal subs I know that's not it's christ as Victus, right,
Speaker 1: the Orthodox position on the tone. Yeah. So but this idea,
Speaker 1: I think that's okay for me, the idea that Jesus
Speaker 1: died for me and for my sins and that we
Speaker 1: are Barabas. But then I thought to myself, hanging on
Speaker 1: a tick. If Barabbas is that son of the Father,
Speaker 1: it's almost like you've got a contrast between Heaven and
Speaker 1: Earth in front of you at the trial. You've got
Speaker 1: the son of Heaven and the son of Earth, the
Speaker 1: political insurrectionist right, who's also trying to usurp Rome. And
Speaker 1: you've got the earthly system and the fleshly system versus
Speaker 1: the heavenly spirit system. Now which one did they choose?
Speaker 1: The crowd? See where the crowd? We chose Barabas right
Speaker 1: seemed given over to us. They did go ahead with
Speaker 1: the military usurpation of Rome, and they got wiped out.
Speaker 1: What happens three hundred years later the heavenly system. You
Speaker 1: know that Rome bends the knee. So it's sort of like,
Speaker 1: you look, get this idea of this promised kingdom. It's real,
Speaker 1: It's very real now. It Actually what I try to
Speaker 1: explain to people is that the Gospel is and the
Speaker 1: kingom of God is so real. You just need to
Speaker 1: go to a third world country and see where the
Speaker 1: Gospel hasn't touched. I almost feel like we're rich kids,
Speaker 1: like growing up with a lot of money, and you
Speaker 1: just don't appreciate the light or the presence of God
Speaker 1: in a Western country and you just need to go
Speaker 1: to man Papua New Guinea. They're still eating people right
Speaker 1: above Australia.
Speaker 3: Well, and speaking of that, that reminds me of Daniel two.
Speaker 3: People overlook the fact that Daniel two towards the end
Speaker 3: when he interprets the dream, it's around forty four to
Speaker 3: forty seven.
Speaker 2: He explains that.
Speaker 3: The base of the statue, right, the dream that Nebuchinezer has,
Speaker 3: the base is the Roman Empire, the legs of iron
Speaker 3: and clay.
Speaker 2: That's Rome.
Speaker 3: That's under that's the empire under which the Messiah is
Speaker 3: born and the kingdom is set up. It's another reason
Speaker 3: why they're dispensation less than primalennialists, who will typically prolong
Speaker 3: and delay that Daniel prophecy to the end of time.
Speaker 3: It specifically says that in the days of these kings,
Speaker 3: meaning under the last one, under the Roman Empire, that
Speaker 3: God of the heavens will set up a kingdom which
Speaker 3: will not be destroyed, and it will grow like a tree.
Speaker 2: And consume that kingdom. That's the Roman Empire.
Speaker 3: And as you put it out, Daniel's predicting that within
Speaker 3: a few centuries, the Roman Empire bends the New to Christianity.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you want to heed something really wild? You know,
Speaker 1: there's ten kings of the Kingdom of Iron. Have you
Speaker 1: counted from Julius Caesar Julius, Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius,
Speaker 1: Neo Nero off that Galba Vitellus for Spatian and then
Speaker 1: Titus the son of spas.
Speaker 2: Interesting.
Speaker 1: It's super wild. I know from a critical standpoint they
Speaker 1: attributed that to Greece and the ten Kings from Alexander
Speaker 1: through to Antiochus Epiphanies, but knowing that the Messiah would
Speaker 1: come in the time of the Fourth Kingdom, Jesus came
Speaker 1: the time of Rome, the Christian lens. We see it
Speaker 1: that way, which I think that's fine because we have
Speaker 1: the resurrection. So that's super interesting. Okay.
Speaker 3: One thing I would add to that might be kind
Speaker 3: of something to peak your audience's interest that you may
Speaker 3: not be familiar with, is that we also believe that
Speaker 3: as Orthodox that in Revelation five through nine, when John
Speaker 3: sees into Heaven, we think, because John's an apostle, he's
Speaker 3: also in the spirit on the Lord's Day, he's doing
Speaker 3: the liturgy. In our view, so in the midst of
Speaker 3: the liturgical prayer and service, John sees the liturgy of Heaven,
Speaker 3: and part of that revelation to him is that the
Speaker 3: church's worship on Earth is identical to the liturgical worship
Speaker 3: in heaven. So whereas the Old Testament temple was a
Speaker 3: type and a pattern a tupos, as Paul says about
Speaker 3: what Moses received, he received a type of.
Speaker 2: The worship in heaven.
Speaker 3: We would say that when the veil was rent, the
Speaker 3: temple was destroyed, that means that the reality is now here.
Speaker 3: So there's a tendency and a lot of Protestant mindsets
Speaker 3: and grooves and churches. I'm not trying to be fussy
Speaker 3: or argumentative or anything, but just pointing out that if
Speaker 3: from our perspective, the spiritual worship that came is not
Speaker 3: antithetical to liturgy or physicality or materiality. In fact, when
Speaker 3: John sees like what he's seeing, yeah, I think so.
Speaker 3: But there's a good book on this called Living Orthodox Worship,
Speaker 3: Living Continuity with the Synagogue of the Temple.
Speaker 2: In the Early Church, and we'll put that in Protestant
Speaker 2: scholar who's an.
Speaker 3: Anglican liturgist, and Hugh Weiber, he wrote a really good
Speaker 3: book called Orthodox Liturgy. It's a history of the Byzantine tradition.
Speaker 3: And both of those I think kind of give a
Speaker 3: new perspective or a fresh perspective. If you're a Protestant
Speaker 3: on the idea that if preterism is true, and if
Speaker 3: seventy eight is the you know, instantiation, so to speak,
Speaker 3: or the finality of the arrival of the Kingdom, then
Speaker 3: that also applies to the worship of the Church, which
Speaker 3: is itself in our review. You know, when John starts
Speaker 3: seeing like the angels being sent forth in Judgment, it's
Speaker 3: in the midst of a liturgy, and so we kind
Speaker 3: of believe that when the divine liturgy is happening like
Speaker 3: this is like sending out spiritual warfare into the world
Speaker 3: and into society. You know.
Speaker 1: It's actually just on a side topic, I've been listening
Speaker 1: to more Orthodox worship. I'm not sure if you call
Speaker 1: it worship music, but it's very militaristic warlike chance marching,
Speaker 1: you know, and you can see that it's a cosmic battle.
Speaker 1: To the Orthodox, it's something very enticely. I'm a very
Speaker 1: passionate student of Mark, and you know, it's just cosmic
Speaker 1: apocalyptic battle, you know, casting out demons, fighting with the spirit,
Speaker 1: not with a man. You know, it's just it's great.
Speaker 1: So yeah, no, very cool stuff. So this will be
Speaker 1: I guess a great opportunity segue into this idea of Israel.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons I want to do this
Speaker 1: today is that within American evangelicalism, this idea of the
Speaker 1: supporting of political Israel influencing policy foreign policy because they
Speaker 1: want to bring about end times prophecy. So let's just
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of it. What is the orthodox
Speaker 1: position of the political state of Israel and it's and
Speaker 1: its position in terms of eschatological fulfillment eschatology in general,
Speaker 1: what position does it actually play within the end times?
Speaker 1: If any.
Speaker 3: I believe that many Church fathers, whether it's Saint Cyril
Speaker 3: of Alexandria, Saint John Damasca, you know, some of our
Speaker 3: most important theologians, they do interpret Romans eleven in a
Speaker 3: future eschatological conversion sense, and so they say that one
Speaker 3: of the signs of the last last days is the
Speaker 3: mass conversion of the Jews.
Speaker 2: How exactly that will happen and to what degree.
Speaker 3: Is it eighty percent, one hundred percent, we don't know,
Speaker 3: but we do interpret typical or you do see the
Speaker 3: Church father typically interpreting Romans eleven in that way, and
Speaker 3: even other passages like they will look upon him whom
Speaker 3: they whom they appears from Zachariah. I think even Saint
Speaker 3: Cyril Alexandria says this is even a rture either future
Speaker 3: prophecy of the Jews converting to.
Speaker 2: So you know, that's kind of in our our mindset
Speaker 2: going back, you know, way back, way back.
Speaker 3: But whether that necessarily pertains to the secular, atheistic Zionist
Speaker 3: nation state, I don't think those two are necessarily connect.
Speaker 3: They could be, and we just don't really know where
Speaker 3: it's going. It could be, you know, Antichrist sets up
Speaker 3: a new temple or something like that. We do have
Speaker 3: many saints and church fathers that warn that when you
Speaker 3: do see a new temple in the sense of the
Speaker 3: animal sacrifices and all that, that would be a sign
Speaker 3: of the final end times in anti country.
Speaker 1: That is there. Yeah, that idea is there, but that's
Speaker 1: a historic that's a historical church position.
Speaker 2: That's pretty universal in the church fathers. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Interesting, that's why the premiumage discussed.
Speaker 2: Not every church mother does discuss it.
Speaker 1: But no, no, yeah, I understand that. But that's just
Speaker 1: interesting that it is there, and that would be I mean,
Speaker 1: if you look at what Jesus says, you will not
Speaker 1: see me again until you say, bless us he comes
Speaker 1: in the name of the Lord when you're speaking to Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: Matthew twenty three, would you tie that in with that
Speaker 1: as well?
Speaker 2: It's possible. I mean, I think you there's a possibility
Speaker 2: of some of these passages.
Speaker 1: You know, like.
Speaker 3: If another comes in his own name him, you will
Speaker 3: receive right, suggesting that the Jews would only believe in
Speaker 3: a Antichrist who was Jewish, right, So there's there's possibility
Speaker 3: of some of these texts suggesting aschatological fulfillment as well.
Speaker 3: But just simply put, that's the theological perspective. However, the
Speaker 3: reality of the situation right now, the Orthodox Church owns
Speaker 3: it's like the third largest landowner I think in Israel.
Speaker 3: So the present situation is very difficult, complex and nuanced
Speaker 3: because you have the Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Orthodox Church, you
Speaker 3: have you know, the Greeks have a section of the
Speaker 3: Holy Sepulcure, and the you know, Coptics have a section,
Speaker 3: the Romancaloics have a section, and so it's kind of
Speaker 3: like there's difficulty there. And then you have Palestinian Orthodox
Speaker 3: Christians as well that make up a minority of Palestine.
Speaker 3: So the present state of Israel is nuance because the
Speaker 3: church that exists in Jerusalem and in Israel has to
Speaker 3: be very careful about how it goes.
Speaker 2: About, you know, not offending the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: Have you heard about the Radi government making it like
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if they're doing they're taking back land
Speaker 1: or releasing it back to the church.
Speaker 2: I heard I think one one church, one of the
Speaker 2: big famous church properties. I forget which one it was, though,
Speaker 2: but I did hear that recently.
Speaker 1: Yeah, have you been to the Old Time?
Speaker 2: I think they bomb like they bombed a couple of
Speaker 2: the big the old you know, Orthodox churches too.
Speaker 1: Have you been to the Old City? No, would you
Speaker 1: like to come to give me a quote?
Speaker 2: Douglas Murray actually been that. I have not actually been
Speaker 2: the Can you talk about it been?
Speaker 1: The That's how arguments is just absolutely futile throughout. It's ridiculous, dude, man,
Speaker 1: Like that is that mogument made no sense. You can't
Speaker 1: talk about it. I mean, he's talked about heats a
Speaker 1: place that he hasn't been to.
Speaker 3: It's ridiculous, all right, So we can't never talk about
Speaker 3: anything in the past like we can't go to the past.
Speaker 1: I mean I would like to. I would like to
Speaker 1: invite you to to Israel. I'd like to offer to
Speaker 1: take you there been to Old City next year if
Speaker 1: you ever want to come, would you like to?
Speaker 3: I think you know my priest has talked, my priest
Speaker 3: has done pilgrimage.
Speaker 2: Is there.
Speaker 3: We did a pilgrimage last year in Italy. We did
Speaker 3: an Orthodox Italy pilgrimage. We went to all the old
Speaker 3: priest schism you know sites in Italy, and he's talked
Speaker 3: about a Jerusalem as well.
Speaker 2: But of course we thought that, you know, now is
Speaker 2: probably not the best time. But you know, I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't coach on the spot. You're coming, yes or no?
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty six.
Speaker 2: Again, if I went, I would probably go with my
Speaker 2: priest doing progrimage. I appreciate the offer. But yeah, if
Speaker 2: you ever do come to the US, we can definitely
Speaker 2: hang out.
Speaker 1: Oh brother, Yeah, I'd let you know. I've got a
Speaker 1: few friends there now, just with all the Instagram stuff
Speaker 1: that everyone's asking to come over, me to come over,
Speaker 1: But I'm trying to plan for next year. But Israel.
Speaker 1: I went there in six weeks before the war. Dude,
Speaker 1: there's something about the place. I have to tell you
Speaker 1: something happened to me there that you mean you told
Speaker 1: me last time that you know you believe in the
Speaker 1: gifts of the spirit and the church's position. I don't
Speaker 1: you know, I actually didn't know about that in terms
Speaker 1: terms of miracles and things like that.
Speaker 2: Man.
Speaker 1: I went to Capernaum and I went to the city
Speaker 1: with my wife and the kids there and it was
Speaker 1: a really really hot day. And as we're walking, I
Speaker 1: said to my wife, I was like, it's way too
Speaker 1: off for the kids. You know, kids life a by
Speaker 1: that stage. They were like, what four and seven? And
Speaker 1: so let's get back to the car. As we're walking
Speaker 1: to the car, on the water about one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty meters out there, you know, when a fish swim
Speaker 1: close to the water, it moves the water right like
Speaker 1: it bubbles up the water. I saw this moving on
Speaker 1: the water about one hundred and fifty meters out and
Speaker 1: I saw a gold cloud, a gold mist moving the
Speaker 1: water like this, back and forth, back and forth. And
Speaker 1: I'm looking at it, going I'm severely dehydrated, right, I
Speaker 1: need to get some water. I look up at the sky,
Speaker 1: I think it's a trick of the light. My wife
Speaker 1: ends up seeing it as well, and it just rushed
Speaker 1: towards us and moved the water. And no, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm a skeptic, but like really, I came into this
Speaker 1: faith as a skeptic. You know, I try to reason
Speaker 1: my way there, and I realized the failings of doing
Speaker 1: that as well. But I don't take things at face value.
Speaker 1: We saw this crazy thing that happened to us, and
Speaker 1: it was one of the most mystical, amazing experiences. This
Speaker 1: myst and gold cloud just came right through us and
Speaker 1: it was like a it was just like an unbelievable
Speaker 1: moment in prayer. It was just beautiful. It was amazing.
Speaker 1: Still trying to reconcile what exactly happened, but there is
Speaker 1: something special about the place, and you know, it's funny
Speaker 1: my sense going there. My support of Israel, I mean
Speaker 1: the political Israel, and much of it would come to
Speaker 1: the idea what I wouldn't want Israel to fall under
Speaker 1: ISLAMI cans like, I just wouldn't want it to fall
Speaker 1: under where I can see that. You know, I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if we'll be able to visit all these places.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if that's a I haven't really reconciled
Speaker 1: that idea in my head completely. But I don't look
Speaker 1: at the support of the political state of Israel from
Speaker 1: a I guess a biblical perspective per se, but the
Speaker 1: idea of an archaeological perspective, just the area, the freedom
Speaker 1: to go visit and all these places. I want to
Speaker 1: protect that because there's something something amazing about that place.
Speaker 1: And apparently now they've just got full access to Mount Hermon.
Speaker 1: It's now full Israel's so you can actually go to
Speaker 1: the top now and above cesarea PHILIPI and all that.
Speaker 1: I reckon that's where the transfiguration happened. Well, it's interesting
Speaker 1: to hear about that whole thing. Sorry, man, I digress
Speaker 1: a little bit. It must be something with my with that.
Speaker 2: I mean, I agree with you that, you know, it's
Speaker 2: a complex situation. I'm not necessarily.
Speaker 3: You know, there's not any easy answer to any of
Speaker 3: the situations in the Middle East. I just diod a
Speaker 3: big long lecture on the whole history of CIA operations
Speaker 3: in the Middle East, with Lebanon and Syria and Jordan
Speaker 3: and Egypt, and uh, you know, I've read a lot
Speaker 3: on the modern geopolitical stuff. And uh, you know, a
Speaker 3: lot of the Jews that are there today, you know,
Speaker 3: they're there a few generations in it's not their fault
Speaker 3: that the British Mandate moved Jews to Palestine.
Speaker 2: You know what I mean.
Speaker 3: So it's a very complex, nuanced situation. And uh no,
Speaker 3: of course I would not prefer want an Islamic state
Speaker 3: there or something like that.
Speaker 1: That'd be terrible at least. I mean, it's what, you know,
Speaker 1: this whole what blew me away about the place. There's
Speaker 1: like two million Muslims that live there, most of its secular,
Speaker 1: huge LGBTQ population, especially in Tel Aviv. Then they're just
Speaker 1: it's like the Las Vegas Man of the Middle East.
Speaker 1: You know, in many they're not religious at all. I
Speaker 1: mean in the North there are you got some of
Speaker 1: the Orthodox, you know, Jews who aren't fan of Christians
Speaker 1: in many ways. But anyway, it's a fascinating place. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's definitely something that every Christian should go
Speaker 1: and check out.
Speaker 2: Like, yeah, I'd love to go sometimes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Well We've gone through a bit here and
Speaker 1: I think it's quite interesting to hear the Orthodox view
Speaker 1: on eschatology so much information to digest here, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to leave these all in the descriptions and links below.
Speaker 1: But also the idea of what the Orthodox position is
Speaker 1: on the I guess you could say the ethnic Jewish
Speaker 1: position the future and a future revival, and the early
Speaker 1: Church father's reference of that. That's super intriguing and super
Speaker 1: interesting because the reason I brought it up was there
Speaker 1: was this debate with doctor Michael Brown, Messianic jew scholar,
Speaker 1: and he did this debate with this guy Gabriel Pinocchio
Speaker 1: and Ruslan and in he really accused him of this
Speaker 1: Jewel Covenant theology idea, and Michael Brown saying, I'm not
Speaker 1: only through Jesus only salvation through Jews. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that there's but he's just talking about this revolal election
Speaker 1: right for the Jewish people, And that's what you're really
Speaker 1: speaking into. Given clarity, I thought it was really slack
Speaker 1: what he did, you know, smash him with this Jewell
Speaker 1: Covenant idea. But it's good interesting here that's the historic
Speaker 1: position as well.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that it's pretty clear universally in the
Speaker 3: Church Fathers. Every time I've seen this reference, whether it's
Speaker 3: Western or Eastern Church fathers say for the first thousand years,
Speaker 3: they always continue to view Jews as Jews. Right, Jews
Speaker 3: don't cease to exist or cease to be Jews. Even
Speaker 3: when you get in the fourth and fifth century, the
Speaker 3: rise of Rabbinic Judaism.
Speaker 2: It's still Jews. There's still there's still.
Speaker 3: Judaic proponents and believers, And for there to be a
Speaker 3: future conversion of the.
Speaker 2: Jews, there would still have to be Jews. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I think it's a kind of a silly posi.
Speaker 3: But I also believe too that God's providential preservation of
Speaker 3: the Jewish people regardless of the secular nation state of Israel. Like,
Speaker 3: the preservation of that people group is it's self a
Speaker 3: testament to the reality of the Bible, you know what
Speaker 3: I mean, Just aside from the issue of future conversion, Like,
Speaker 3: the continued existence of that people group is a testament
Speaker 3: to the reality of the Torah and the prophets.
Speaker 1: Right, that's a great point.
Speaker 3: And then at the end of you know, whenever that
Speaker 3: conversion is or however that happens, I don't know. But yeah,
Speaker 3: there's a little book that's that covers us from the
Speaker 3: Orthodox you It's called Apostacy in Antichrist, and the book begins.
Speaker 2: It's a little like fifty page book.
Speaker 3: The book begins with preterism and it just basically goes
Speaker 3: through citing all the church fathers and saints.
Speaker 1: I want to put that in the description as well.
Speaker 1: And Antichrist, Apostasy and Antichrist and all this stuff is
Speaker 1: on Amazon for people to purchase.
Speaker 2: All of them.
Speaker 3: The last one you might have to buy from the monastery.
Speaker 3: It's put out by Jordanville Monastery. Okay, it may be
Speaker 3: on Amazon. I haven't looked in a while, but it
Speaker 3: is available.
Speaker 1: Awesome. Well, we've covered a lot today, man, and it's
Speaker 1: been a thoroughly enjoyable episode, and I think a lot
Speaker 1: for people to digest. What I really like about doing
Speaker 1: these podcasts with you is you really eliminate a lot
Speaker 1: of misconceptions in the historic position and what people's perception
Speaker 1: of Orthodox he is. You're making it increasingly more difficult
Speaker 1: for me to stay within the Protestant tradition. I must
Speaker 1: tell you that I'm actually I.
Speaker 3: Don't you might have to buy that from Jordanville Monastery
Speaker 3: directly because it looks like it's not presently for sale.
Speaker 3: But I do think the last time I looked like
Speaker 3: if you go to Jordan mil Monastery, it's still there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, cool, cool.
Speaker 2: But I'm listening to you. I appreciate it. I appreciate
Speaker 2: your comments there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, it's good. I'm looking. I told you before.
Speaker 1: I'm looking way to do my master's next and my
Speaker 1: Greek Orthodox priest in Townsville. You've got the shits at
Speaker 1: me for studying at a Protestant university. It's mathiew mathiea.
Speaker 1: We have Greek Orthodox University in Brisbane, sant Andrews. What
Speaker 1: are you doing?
Speaker 2: So?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's funny. I'd love to talk to you about
Speaker 1: this idea of you know, in another episode about if
Speaker 1: the spirit of God is moving in the Protestant tradition
Speaker 1: and what's happening in the culture. That's a total another episode.
Speaker 1: Love to have your take on that, just to hear,
Speaker 1: to see, you know, to explore a couple ideas there.
Speaker 1: But regardless of that, thank you so much for coming
Speaker 1: on providing a lot of clarity and insight. And I
Speaker 1: a guys if you I mean in many ways, if
Speaker 1: you follow me on YouTube, forget about me because I'm
Speaker 1: small there you're obviously following Jay on YouTube but on Instagram. Guys,
Speaker 1: if you're watching this, just give it a give it
Speaker 1: a follow, give a click. You're going to find a
Speaker 1: lot of interesting things, a lot of comedy, a lot
Speaker 1: of interesting things about political, religious. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: whole broad spectrum page for people to check out, and
Speaker 1: it's worth giving it a follow. Anyway, brother, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for for coming on today. Really appreciated.
Speaker 3: I got four books now. My fourth book is about
Speaker 3: to come out in a couple of months, and you
Speaker 3: can use the pre orders on my website so you
Speaker 3: can get Est Hollywood one, two and three. I got
Speaker 3: a philosophy book, and then I got a read book,
Speaker 3: which is like all of my theological apologetic essays, so
Speaker 3: you can get those at my website.
Speaker 1: You don't want to get that. I don't even know
Speaker 1: that you had that. That's mad. We'll definitely put those in.
Speaker 2: It's a six hundred page book.
Speaker 1: So that's awesome. Okay, Yeah, because I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1: I did a debate with that Gabriel Pinocchio the other
Speaker 1: the other day, and and you came up into discussion
Speaker 1: and the thing I was like, Yeah, that's the one
Speaker 1: guy that like seems to have philosophy and theology such
Speaker 1: a very well grasp where you debate with the transidental
Speaker 1: argument and theology and history, you seem to merge that together,
Speaker 1: which obviously I'd like to talk about that another time.
Speaker 1: And all the time you've invested in study, which would
Speaker 1: be really really cool.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Gabriel, who's he? What's he doing?
Speaker 1: Finocchio bro is a bit of a douche, to be
Speaker 1: honest with you. And I know the position I was
Speaker 1: arguing for in that debate you wouldn't agree with, But
Speaker 1: I was coming from a perspective of which is about
Speaker 1: females in ministry and trying to reconcole Paul's female co
Speaker 1: workers and how to reconcile that with first timpathy to
Speaker 1: mint Grinthian's fourteen and all these positions. And we did
Speaker 1: a debate in the idea of women keeping silent in
Speaker 1: the church, and he he basically agreed that they can
Speaker 1: speak in the church, but then he became a debate
Speaker 1: about submission, so he totally changed it, put it on
Speaker 1: its head. So anyway, I mean, it was my first
Speaker 1: public debate, is like a Kalamnist guy or what no, no, no,
Speaker 1: he's well, he this is the other thing. He just
Speaker 1: changed between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism. He just picks and
Speaker 1: identifies a word of a argument. It was so yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a very good interesting learning curve for me.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless it was it was an interesting, interesting topic
Speaker 1: we did on Jake's channel, you know, Jake Rattlesnack TV. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: so yeah it was on there. But anyway, God bless
Speaker 1: you brother, thank you so much for coming on. And
Speaker 1: I'm going to make a couple of clips of this
Speaker 1: and tag him into It'll be great.