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