This video presents a critical analysis of how religious doctrines evolved through the synthesis of ancient Greek philosophy (particularly Aristotle's metaphysics and Plato's ideas) with Christian teachings, arguing that many Catholic and Orthodox Church doctrines—including concepts like original sin, purgatory, and Marian dogmas—were not originally biblical but rather developed through centuries of philosophical speculation and cultural assimilation. The discussion traces how early Church Fathers like Tertullian and Clement began incorporating Greek philosophical concepts into Christian theology, and how this process continued through figures like Augustine, ultimately leading to doctrines that contradict biblical teachings. The speaker emphasizes that the Bible should be the sole authority for Christian belief, rather than extra-biblical traditions or philosophical reasoning.
Discussion with Underground Publishing - Aliens and EO Vs Protestants本站添加:
All right, everybody. Hope you're doing well. Welcome to another We Read the Documents live stream. Your host, Job Brris. Thank you for being a subscriber.
Today, I have with me back Aaron Fchman.
Um, dear brother in Christ, uh, um, from Underground Publishing. Um, glad to have you here, brother.
Sorry, threw me off my game introducing you. I had I don't know, might be having some internet issues. I guess we'll see.
Uh, we had some we had some explosions earlier that I I thought were artillery from Fort Bragg, but they've never shaked my house from how far away from Fort Bragg I was. And apparently there was like an apartment blew up near the middle school uh that my daughter goes to and that was what I felt the shock waves from. I felt like three shock waves. I don't know if it's what's messing up with my internet. Happened a few hours ago. It should be okay. But you know that that pray for everybody involved. That was crazy.
So >> with this low but that went away so it hopefully hopefully it resolved itself.
>> Yes. Um so uh first um things that we want to discuss. Um every everybody saw I covered it uh last night that the aliens.gov gov um domain that they were talking about was going to be the revealing of aliens turned out to be a illegal illegal alien um kind of information tracker, right?
And we don't really know how actual >> we are we are we are we talking about Mexicans or like flying saucers at this point which also to fact check the statistics. Uh, but it's it's there. It exists.
>> And they're still pushing it with Disclosure Day and Stephen Spielberg and the movie that's coming out and everything like they're still going, you know, >> you know, possession like that's if if you pay attention to this stuff, it's just like, you know, let's just open sort let's let's just externalize demon possession as a cool thing now. Like it's aliens, they're helping us, you know, come on.
And and as the S90 has talked about in the biblical hypno Stephen, you know, you have some of the alien people saying that all aliens are good. Like all like all of them, like all of them, okay? You have some of them that are saying there's good aliens and there's bad aliens. You have like the Nords, like the Aryan Nords, right, which are the good aliens. And you have like the reptilians or the uh uh grays, which are the bad aliens, right?
>> It's interesting that they and I've heard the Nords thing recently, too.
It's it's really interesting cuz those are the Acer gods, right? It's Thor and his it's the Asgardians basically, right? Like it's interesting that those would be the good ones which would be if you want to go Nazi, you want to have you you you want your gods to be Thor and Odin and stuff like that, right?
Like it's like this stuff is like such an obvious script and it's like and let me guess, let me guess. Thanos is coming and we need a suit of armor around the world, right? is that is I'm just saying if we're going to go straight through the Avengers, right? Like Thanos is coming and we need a suit of armor around the world. That's what's next, right? Because >> cuz they're they're literally just following the Avengers as the script, right? From like Captain America: Winter Soldier, right? We need an algorithm that can track everybody and kill people before they do anything wrong, right?
>> And then and then and then well well there's aliens. So we've proven that there's aliens. Okay. Well, what's next?
What's after the aliens? Well, Thanos is coming, right? Thanos is going to come out and he's going to wipe half the world's population. And we we need to stop him by all joining together. And oh, why did they fail Thanos? Oh, cuz they didn't have a suit of armor around the world. So, we need Ultron. We need we need Ultron to take over. And we need to, you know, have a massive drone army just like all the stuff that Tony Stark was building to fight against Thanos.
That way, he can never get here and get the Infinity Stones and wipe out half the people. like this is I think there was like a 7th Day Adventist group that did an analysis of uh you know Avengers back when uh Endgame was out, right? And they just showed this and they're like it's just all just a a Gnostic version of Christ. Everything about it is a Gnostic version of Christ. And of course when you when you got down to Tony Stark in the comics, they're literally admitting that he's really the son of Meisto. So he's the Antichrist.
>> Meisto is their version of Satan, right?
And it's like turns out he's adopted and now they're kind of releasing all that stuff in the Doom stuff that's coming out with Doom Doomsday because he is meant to be like an antichrist. He's against God, right? You know, and of course, you know, who are the heroes of the multiverse? It's Thor, it's Loki, it's Odin, you know, those are the people who are preventing um Thanos from from making his move, right? He waits till Odin is dead to, you know, because Odin was the was one of the one people who was powerful enough to stop him. And so, I mean, you can't make this stuff up, man. It's just like Disney Disney is basically I mean, they were working with the Nazis. We know that.
They're they're basically just like this witchcraft occult like propaganda machine for Satan in our country. And, you know, people don't want to walk away from it. They they like their toys and bells and whistles, man.
>> Yeah. True.
True. Um, and so right now we kind of have this disclosure uh, which I I mean both of both of us on here are not going to believe it.
Neither one of us believe in little green space alien men or uh, gray space aliens or reptilians or Nords or which are also called Pleians or whatever, right? The P the Pleians also have kind of like that asided master aesthetic, right? uh going for them.
>> Which were the ones that were associated with Atlantis? Was that the Plleadians?
>> The Pleadians and the Nords. Yes. They have like that as master. Uh like if you if you go look up Argartha um kind of like the the blonde long blonde hair male with his hand up uh you know as kind of like the uh symbol for the Pleians. Um >> does your audience know that Atlantis is just the Americas?
>> I would assume so. Yes.
>> Okay. I mean, just for anyone that doesn't know, like you go back to Plato and he cites the earliest Atlantan myths that came from the Egyptians to Solon and they literally describe the Americas as a set of islands you can navigate around. Um, and there's just one big ocean that is encircled by one big massive continent. And that's because they're relying on a time when the ice caps were lower. So there'd be one big circular um part of it ice, part of it, you know, land, but one big circular continent around the Atlantic Pacific Ocean and then um there would have been a lot more volcanic activity in the Americas. So it wouldn't have been filled in like between North and South America and they were islands that you could sail through. There's there's evidence of that going all the way back to didn't didn't weren't they able to sail like up into um Baja Mexico for quite a ways and that eventually got filled in >> like that's how the salt great salt lake is the way it is.
>> It's been theorized. Yes.
>> Yeah. And so I mean we know because of the massive amounts of obsidian which were used by the Native Americans which is basically a m a volcanic glass that there used to be way more volcanic activity uh in the Americas and it was referred to in the Bible and to the Egyptians as an island chain. And what the Egyptians believed because of tectonic shifting they believed it eventually sunk into the ocean. You couldn't sail across the Atlantic or you'll get you'll crash into it. um because they uh they seem to have forgotten that the earth was round. They honestly seem to have forgotten and that probably would have been post Babel. So somewhere between the Tower of Babel and 1700 and then rediscovering that the earth was round round probably somewhere around the fourth or fifth century. So you're you're talking about a 1200 year period where arguably if it was known that the earth was round, it would have been known to kind of you know priests and people who were in the know. um your average person didn't know that and so they began to look at the earth as flat and they they they believed that it had not shifted over but it had sunk into the ocean and really what they're describing is a combination of rising sea levels which is shrinking all the continents and then also um you know it there some shift that occurred with a I think it's called the Marinara Trench isn't that the trench in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean >> Mariana Trench yeah >> Mariana Trench yeah and that's basically where the fountains of deep burst forward for the flood waters to shoot up and break what seemed to be >> and it seems to be like I've traced this to a combination of Sumerian myth um and uh myth from Zoroastronism and then the Bible that what was around the earth at that time was an ice bubble that it's described as crystalline. It's described as being clawed at by Obsu which is basically the saltwater god. So it's it's like whatever happens the salt water from the ocean shoots up breaks or melts or a combination or two an ice bubble that's around the earth and then that additional water turns into the ice caps and ice ages on the mountains and that eventually um comes back into you know basically raise the ocean levels between uh the time of Noah and the death of Ham which Ham is Yamir. He's the giant Yamir from Norse legend. Um, and that's why he's described as a giant who when Odin and Thor kill him, his icy blood causes a great flood. Um, and you know, that's one of the few legends that have an ice age. And the reason is is because the original Japetite situ um civilization in Oxus Valley which is basically between Iran and Afghanistan um is is where all the Japites had their main metropolis because they were the main source of tin toward the Middle East so that they could get bronze for all their expansion of farming and tools and stuff like that. So um once the Tower of Babel happened they dispersed from there and become all the basically the Indo-Aryan peoples and the Europeans and the Russians and the Mongols and all those people but they used to be one big congregation which also had Sinites or um they're basically Canaanites that became the Chinese um intermingling among them because they all spoke the same language and that that was their main trading partner. So um all this stuff is very well documented if you understand how to read the combination of like the Aryan Bundesin which is their um their ancient history uh the Chinese uh book of book of documents and then the Rigveda and you you have to use the Bible as a template to kind of map this out and kind of piece it together.
But it's clear that Ham used to be called um Ammon in in Egypt and Assyria.
He used to be called Yam or Hyam among the Canaanites and that that transliterates to Yama when they get to India and then Yamir when that is spread around by the Indo-Arians.
>> Um and then you end up with the giant Yamir because this rising of the sea levels which is the melting of the Himalayas which literally means a boat of ham um seems to correspond with the death of Ham. So the sea levels are rising at this time. It's near this era that that Og, king of Bashan, is actually one of the leading Nephilim that goes back from um Babylonia to uh to Canaan with the Amorites. And so you have among the Greeks the giant Oajis or he's king ogajis which literally means the giant og um associated with the rising uh of sea levels around the Greek islands. So that used to be you used to be able to walk across the Greek islands down to Africa and you used to be able to walk down through Southeast Asia over to Australia and across uh Siberia over to Alaska. And once that stuff's filled in, the sea levels change and then all of a sudden you you you can create myths like Atlantis about a great land that sunk in the sea. And there's one in um India which is probably describing Australia um no longer being accessible.
And then there's one in um in in southern India. And then there's one in Egypt that is describing um the Americas saying you used to be able to see it from the straits of uh Jibralar, which is literally the um the space between Spain and Africa. They're saying from there you used to be able to see it.
Well, the land probably stuck out a lot further back then and America probably was closer and then those, you know, plate tectonics caused it to shift.
because the plate tectonics were a lot more extreme than they are now. The volcanic activity was a lot more extreme than it is right now. And then you what you end up is is a lot of islands that are filling themselves in with basically mol molten molten lava that comes up and then the rains and everything till it into soil eventually. So >> um so we all you need is thousands of years for this. You don't need millions of years for this. This is stuff that, you know, young earth creationists explore and they look at this stuff and go, "Okay, this is feasible." But all your common sense person can do is just look at an island chain and go, "Okay, look at Hawaii. Why is one island big?"
And then they just get smaller and smaller and smaller. And the reason is is because there's a hole in the Earth's crust where lava comes up and forms that island. Um, and the longer it sits in the same place, the bigger the island is. So when you see a common thread of archipelos where you have a small island leading to a bigger to a bigger to a bigger which is common all over the world you know that it was once moving faster and then it slowed down. So it's it's not stuff that you need to be like an advanced geologist or physicist to understand. You just need a little bit of common sense and know some stuff about how the earth works in terms of geology. So um none of that stuff's that impressive. And then the first guy to claim to be reincarnated from um Atlantis was uh um Hermes Tristan justice. Correct. He claimed to be the reincarnation of Thoth. And most people don't realize that reincarnation first just starts getting mixed in with the world's religions around the 7th century BC with Yagnabalkia of the Hindus. Um, before that, the only thing like reincarnation in the whole world was the Egyptians basically doing their mortuary rituals where they would do all kind of magic rights and crap to try to claim that people could get to the place they want to get to in the underworld but come out in the next life like a god or something like that. And you find something similar to that in Hinduism.
And then you find ideas slowly shift to the ideas that gods can re come back and avatars of humans and this is over centuries and by the seventh century you have the first ideas of people being reincarnated but because they believed Yama or Ham was the god of the underworld like it's it's literally in Egypt it's Ammon it's in India it's Yama it's the same person um they believed he lived in the moon and he you would go up there and eventually come back but if you look at the earliest versions of reincarnation both in Hinduism, Buddhism and uh in the Greeks it was literally stuff like you between universes you would reincarnate. So like the in Socrates talks about reincarnations as if it's like thousands and thousands of years between it. Um the Buddha talks about it as it's between universes that are millions of years. So the idea is the idea that anyone would come back as Cleopatra reincarnated would have been absurd to them. It would have been like no no >> you would have been you would come back after the universe is recreated because the universe goes through you know cycles of of rebirth too. And um uh you basically have a versions of it um both among the Greeks and among the Hindus where you you go somewhere and based on how virtuous you are, you get to hang out there for so long and then you get reincarnated again based on how good or bad you were and that that inserts you into the new pecking order in the new world or new universe um in a different place. So the idea is is the better you are, the longer you stay up there and somehow you come out greater. But it doesn't make sense because it's actually inverse that it's it's the ancient older people who end up being the great people. So the people who who it's the worst people who end up the new great ones in the new world, the people with the least karma. So it doesn't make sense in either system. Um and and then you you basically they're all saying it's between universes or between like massive periods of time from like a thousand to 10,000 years or millions of years. So, it's like now now you have this evolution of this idea of, you know, I don't know if you've ever seen that movie where um I forget what it's called, but it's it's like Iris or something like that where it's like someone dies and immediately someone's bored who has their same eyes and you know like within a month or something like that. That was not remotely an ancient reincarnation. And by the time you get to um Hermes Tris and he's claiming to be reincarnated from uh Atlantis, it's because they're dealing with thousands of years and long cycles and the belief that the earth is periodically destroyed or reformed in cataclysms like the flood. And so this guy could come back thousands of years later and say, "I was from before the flood." But nobody was coming back and saying, "Oh yeah, I was reincarnated as this in past lives." Buddha would talk about past lives and stuff like that as in millions of years ago like in past universes. So it's clear that the whole doctrine of reincarnation is evolving over time. The demons are basically trying to get people to believe in the idea of people coming back immediately as an eventual prep for them coming back in robotic bodies being a legitimate thing. Because the idea is is we can bypass, you know, whatever place in the underworld or the moon or wherever they would go between lives and just shortcut it to you being transferred into a robot. Like that that's what they're they're aiming toward.
>> Yeah. So, um, as far as Hermes Trisus, I I know that Edgar Casey was who really pushed him as being a reincarnated person from Atlantis. Um, I remember that from reading Edgar Casey's writings when I was a newager.
>> Um, >> but it's in the Emerald Tablets, too, though. I read that.
>> Yeah. I can't remember. Was the Emerald Tablets book themselves was there was a forgery emerald tablet book that was written by some mechanic if I remember correctly.
>> Yeah. But there's I I believe the Emerald Tablets at least trace back to like the 3rd century CE. So, they're not even like before Christ age- wise. Um, there may have been some lore and stuff about Eermes Trismaes, which is basically like it's in the same age where like the fake Enochian writings are being invented, right? Um, you have that happening in in Egypt. Um, so whatever it is, it's it's it's a novelty in terms of ancient religions. It's it's very novel, right? It's postbible. The Bible's fully written by the time this stuff comes out. It's postupanachads, which are the the Hindu documents. It's post the Greek philosophers. And they're literally taking the known beliefs from the mixture of these religions at Alexandria and creating a proto myth from it. That's basically what Hermes Trisma is doing. And then the main goal of Hermes Trisma Jesus and the church fathers are commenting on him is trying to preserve the Egyptian mysteries. and their rights about transferring people souls into idols and you know the gods and you know their their beliefs in magic and transmutation and he's he's actually saying in his writings how he fears that this stuff is going to go away because it's not just the Jews and the Christians who hate idols the Greeks are starting to reject idols too as being you know basically like lower forms of belief basically.
>> Yeah. So um the modern Emirate tablets was not written by mechanic. I must be missing out on some other book but it was written by uh Maurice Durell who in the 1940s who was a theosophist and formed the brotherhood of the white temple in Denver. Um, >> right. And so you have the theosophist I mean really I think Emanuel Swedenborg predates all this stuff and that's 1700s but it's like 1700s 1800s when Christians or you know nominal Christians are starting to get into philosophy again post Renaissance they're starting to get into um mesmeriism which is just magic right it's just rooted in roacianism and the Egyptian mysteries they're starting to get into spiritism and seances and stuff like that which is basically talking to demons. And from there they start to um I mean Blavoski actually gets into Hindu and Buddhist and Zoroastrian writings.
Um but most of these guys are basically just re um recapitulating the ideas of the ancient Greeks that were just absorbing the occult from their day and then mixing it with rationalizations to come up with philosophy. And that's all these people are doing in the 1700s and 1800s. So all of your philosophies from like Kant and Hegel and Marx and all these guys to the atheists and whoever they are, they're really just um regurgitating the pathway of Greek philosophy in in a modern sense. And then they're calling it science because they have more scientific inquiry, but there's tons of pseudocience in what they're doing like mesmeriism and spiritism and stuff like that. So they claim to channel and expand on these writings, but what they what they don't tell you is that the stuff that they're claim they're always claiming that this was the original ancient stuff, you know, from back in the day before the flood or before the Bible took over. But what they're not telling you and they know is that these ideas that they're telling you are ancient, we can prove evolved in the ancient religions to the time basically between around the era of the destruction of Jerusalem to the time of Christ and even after the time of Christ. Like a lot of the idolatry in Hinduism where they're worshiping, you know, actual idols and stuff like that, that wasn't known before like 300 BC.
They got that from Egypt. like the idea of gods being present in the actual physical idols, they had all kinds of memorized songs and mantras and stuff like that because they didn't believe the gods were in stone and stuff like that. But as those beliefs start to die in the west, what seems to happen is that the Egyptians export them to India to to maintain them basically. And then all of a sudden you see Indians now making all kinds of temples and and then you see the Buddhists making temples to Buddha. None of that was there in the original Buddhism or the vadism or the brahmanism. They they would have scoffed at that because they're like the their whole belief system was actually anti-idolatrous. Like like the Mes were iconic class. They would smash idols and destroy temples and stuff like that. And the Mes represented pretty much the first major japetite power and the Indo-Aryans were an extension of that same um broader culture that descended from the Axus Valley civilization. So you have the Persians, the Zoroastrians and the Indoarians. None of them practiced idolatry. They believed in false gods, but they they they knew them through myths and legends and song, not you know, same thing with the uh the Germanics. It was all myths and legends and songs. They didn't have temples and idols and you know, they had sacrifices, but it would have been closer to at least in its original form like Job doing sacrifices or Abraham doing sacrifices. They believe there was like a high god of the heavens or he was the heaven. It's the same thing in China.
They call him Tienne. They call him Tinguru among the uh uh Mongols and stuff like that. And so they believe there's a transcendent god of the heavens and they might just call him the heavens, but you can literally find this exact terminology in the Bible about God, you know? So they'll say the heavens does this, right? And um you know it it's basically the same as like going is is is Jesus the god of the sun like he's called the son of righteousness. So is he the actual son or is the son a type of him? And you had the same thing going on with them >> with the son related to uh the imminent god and then the uh the heavens related to the transcendent god. So I'm not saying what they were doing was biblical or right. I'm just saying it was much closer to the scriptural and the idea of um idols and transmutation was mostly spread from Egypt and Canaan.
Those are the people who were actually doing that. And most of that those ideas were spread after the Bible was fully written. They evolved afterwards. And so when you get these theosophists and all these people claiming to, you know, get in touch with the ancient stuff and the ancient stuff, but they're these are just people practicing seances and talking to demons and getting new lies.
And >> we have enough of the common knowledge of their ancient religions to know this is bull crap. Now, >> the only the only thing from the ancient world that would be considered um fantastic, I guess, to us is Nephilim because they're actually mating with angels and creating giants. Other than that, magic was known to be trickery because it was it was meant to substantiate the ideas of magic words, right? Like if I say abbercadabra, I make a rabbit come out of my hat, right?
And so they use trickery to substantiate the idea that their magical words come to power because what they're trying to do is they're trying to reverse engineer the power of God. If God spoke the universe into being, we're trying to hack into his power and figure out how to replicate what he's doing. and they taught it to the people through trickery, you know, and that's how the uh you know, it's it's like apocalyptto where you see them sacrificing human hearts to make the eclipse go away. It's all all they managed to accomplish with their beliefs was how to dupe the simple into following after stupidity and, you know, sacrificing their their kids to them and crap like that. So, it's the same thing we see in the modern era.
what are they all they're accomplishing with and this is really obvious when you get to um Margaret Sanger who's a disciple of Ha Blaboski it's like what was her goal in getting uh abortion passed >> to to get the minority race who they want to dominate the blacks to kill their babies right like and this is this is as old as time is you look at the Hanchinese versus the Cantonese right why are there so many more Hans than Cantonese because they got they had practice human sacrifice and they used them to build the Great Wall of China and then killed them all, right? Like or they put them on the front lines of their military to be the first to die, right? Like >> Yeah. I do want to say something real quick to the Marcus Singer thing a lot of people don't know is is, you know, Planned Parenthood and Margaret Singer were going around paying black pastors to push abortion. MLK actually won the Margaret Sanger award for working in working with unification with Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger. and MLK supposedly the paper that he had uh plagiarized or at least one of them I believe and I'll look that up and I know he wrote this paper um that they claimed that he had plagiarized uh to get his doctorate was a um essay that he wrote on mythism and he's one of the early people that you can trace it back to actually in scholast uh uh scholastic uh like like scholastic like um writings that tried to say that Christianity borrowed from mythraism, >> right? And that so mythraism is actually comes way after the Old Testament. It actually Mithra is a god of god of the covenant to the Persians. So it would be their version of Yahweh. Um but the whole idea of the slaying of the bull and all that cult that's like Roman stuff that emerged after Christianity.
If anything of it ties back to anything Persian, it's the idea of Mitra as a sun god and and and he's associated with the covenant. Uh Mit Mitra is also a god of the covenant in Hinduism. So it's a very old god that that god goes back to it's found in the I think it's called the aisada supaimma document which is basically a document between the um matani who are basically the people around Haran where Abraham came out of and then uh the Hittites which are up in Anatolia. So like western Turkey and they mention Veruna, Mitra, Indra and the Acavan twins which are basically Veruna is this god of the heavens to the Hindus and um uh Mitra is basically the god of the sun and he's associated with the covenant. Um Indra is the god of the storm and he's associated you you don't find this god of the storm becoming prominent all over the world until after uh Yahweh appears to Job in the storm.
And then you have the Ovenan twins which are based around uh Shem and Japheth overthrowing Nimrod's empire or Sargon of God. So it's it's it's it's the Gutians or Goths and the Amorites under Shem's command basically overthrowing Nimrod's empire and then Shem allows the Amorites to rule over the other Canaanites in Mesopotamia and and then they die within like 80 years of that I think. So they go down in legend as these aspen twins. everything you you have in the oldest version of the Hindu gods that we find. There's there's five of them basically and it's literally like two versions of Yahweh, one version of God the Father and uh a god a set of gods based on Shem and Japheth because they would have been the world rulers at the time. So it you can explain everything literally like what happened like from what happens in Genesis and Job basically.
>> Yeah. And I do want to mention too that MLK it was his paper. It was a study of Mithraism. Now it was when he wrote it for Croser Theological Seminary, but later it was found out that he did not uh he borrowed a lot of language from secondary sources from you plagiarized pretty much. and they didn't take uh his doctorate from Boston University, but they actually had a panel to rule of whether or not posthumorously they should take away his doctrine after his assassination because of the plagiarism, which they cited they would not do. So, >> yeah, cuz he was basically a liberal Baptist, right? Wasn't that Martin Luther King?
>> I would I would say evangelical or really even even from back then. Um but he >> but the liberal Baptist would have been considered in the evangelical camp but a lot of the OG evangelical mainline denominations went liberal by the 20th century. So they're in I mean you got to remember like the Archbishop of Canterbury was involved in seances and stuff like that in the 1800s. Like the mainline Christian denominations and their seminaries were full of occult.
They were full of misinformation, pseudocience. Like I mean it started with evolution, right? It was the old earth theories. It was the gap theory.
Remember the gap theory where there was like a pre-atomite race and stuff like that. And all these theories are based on um guys who are reading into Darwin and his cousin. I forget what his cousin's name is, but he comes up with the old earth theory. And it's all based on um I mean they're they're they're associated with Freemasonry. They're they're occultists who are trying to make the ancient pagan myths seem more pro scientifically proven. That's what doc that's what Martin Luther King I just want to interrupt you because it's important his second follow-up paper that he built on a study of mythraism the influence of mystery religions on Christianity that's exactly what he wrote about was kind of how the pagan myths prevalent during the Roman Empire was what influenced Christianity you know MLK was not a Christian straight up >> he wasn't he was a Marxist he was I mean like he he he was a he was a propagandist tool basically used for the left you know and it's like he was killed by the FBI, I think. Um, but it's like, was he a good guy? No. Did he accomplish some things for civil rights?
Well, yeah, but those things that he's using are now being used to for trans rights. Like, the actual legal things he accomplished are now being thrown down our face for trans rights because um I mean, certainly, you know, African-American people have a right to equal treatment under the law.
Absolutely. Right. But like the the way they went about establishing the basis for these rights could then be used for gay rights and trans rights and all this other stuff to the point where it's like I mean I just had a guy rent an Airbnb room for me who was trying to get me kicked off Airbnb claiming I was saying homophobic stuff and stuff like this.
Like this is the latigious left. This is what they do. They use your laws against you just like the Muslims use your laws against you, right?
Um, but yeah, I mean this stuff was so heavy from it really starts in the late 1700s because Emanuel Swedenborg is around the time of John Wesley. Um so it's like mid to late 1700s to um Hel Helena Blavski and then from her Margaret Sanger Hitler um what Alice Bailey these people on the externalization of the hierarchy stuff and all they're doing is they're recapitulating the evolution of religion and philosophy from the time the Bible was finished to the time of Christ in the 20 you know the the 1800s to 21st century which is almost like mirror pattern of the second coming of Christ, right? It's like they're they're recapitulating all the same deceptions and delusions in the worlds that had the Jews unable to consider what to expect in the Messiah and when to expect the Messiah, even though they literally had the place of his birth, the year, the year of his uh death, and then they had uh his name all in Zachchariah, Daniel, and Micah.
And so much so that the the Zoroastrian magi knew to come looking for him and ask where he's going to be born. So it's like they had all the information to know when he's coming, where he's coming, and what his name will be.
That's in Zachchariah, right? Like, and the Jews were oblivious to that. They're oblivious to their esquetology. they start to they start to look at esqueologgical ideas with the sederam and you know stuff like post-Christian like within a hundred years of Christianity starting but they're trying to veer the data away from you know Jesus being Messiah on the one hand they're also like incredibly historically ignorant like in the seder it says stuff like uh ge or the the Persians ruled for 14 years after the temple was rebuilt even though it's like 150 you know, like there's massive gaps in their history that it's like if you just read the Greek histories that are available in their time, they would know this stuff's not true. But now we have it archaeologically confirmed that the Greeks were true and the Jews to this day won't change their calendar. So, it's that kind of stuff because they were dealing with, you know, crazy conspiracy theories with the Essen basically uh and then uh Greek philosophizing and basically liberalism with the Sadducees and then stupid stupid Hebrew roots legalism with the Pharisees. It that's why they were so ignorant. And then of course you have the Jewish mstics with Merkoba which eventually become the Cabalis and the Gnostics and all this other stuff. So you have everything wrong with Judaism back then that you have wrong with Christianity today. You have your liberals. You have your people who are all about the rights and rituals but don't get the actual substance of the of of of the scriptures.
>> Yeah.
>> And you have people who are, you know, want to get caught up on every piece of scripture that does not come from the Bible or doesn't conform to the Bible and every little conspiracy theory, but they don't want to learn the Bible and they don't want to learn the prophecies.
And then you have people who want to be mystics and be like, "It's anything but what the Bible's plainly saying.
Everything has to have a secret meaning and you know, we'd rather like listen to demons tell us what it means than actually just read it and use your brain, you know." So, it's like we're just seeing history just recapitulate itself because we're heading towards the Lord's second coming. That's all there is.
>> Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Um, so what are you thinking right now when you're seeing the apologetic so-called war going on right now between the EO and the um Eastern Orthodox versus the Protestants?
What's your what's your thoughts on that?
>> I mean, I I look at that as a mirror of what was going on between, you know, the this the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Jesus calls them Herodians because they weren't called Essenes until Josephus called them that after the death of Christ. They were the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians. And that's who Jesus comments on. And he says when he says in Zechariah, there are three shepherds and I hated them and they hated me. Like he's talking about the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians.
Those are the three pastoral sects, if you will, of the Jews. And so you look at them and you find their mirror kind of in um I mean, you could you could lump big Eva in with Protestantism, but it's basically Christendom. It's, you know, they're going to argue about stuff based on scattered terminology, argue apples to oranges, ignorant of history, ignorant of the scriptures. And I I I I don't think I've I I don't think I've seen one debate, bro, including the older guys that are scholars, that I respect. I I feel like there's some people that are better read than other people, but they they don't understand the difference between an apologetic and a debate. They're not the same thing. An apologetic is literally like, so you hear Andrew Wilson um challenging these guys to have their uh their beliefs interrogated, right? That is what an apologetic is. It literally means defense, right? It's like you're on trial and you have to give an account for what you believe. This is what Paul did when he was attacked for his beliefs. And so when you see him standing up before King Agria and stuff like that, and we can imagine in Rome before Caesar, um he's giving a defense for his beliefs, right?
>> Mhm.
>> He's not there like trying to shout down or argue with Caesar or a Grippa. They they say, "Give a defense for your beliefs." Okay. Boom. And then they ask questions to poke holes in his beliefs.
And this is this was this is normal in all scholarship. It was normal in ancient Greek in terms of a dialectic process, in terms of a logic logical discussion. Is the idea is you profess what you believe and then people challenge it using questions.
It's not this back and forth tip for tat so I can listen to you weasel away from my question or mischaracterize what I said or like literally like oh but you used a bad language word so therefore I win like if you listen to some of these debates they are so stupid and when you listen to Jay Dyer and Andrew Wilson the reason they're drawing so many people towards orthodoxy is because there's a there's a couple of reasons one is Catholicism forbids the priests to marry and orthodox don't forbid the priest to marry. And so they they're able to cast this illusion that they don't they're not caught up in all of the weird celibacy that Rome is. They are just not on the priestly level. They are in the bishop level. Okay. Um but so that's one thing. So they're able to present themselves as a more masculine and more OG v version of Catholicism. But two is they understand the Greeks and they understand logic and they understand the original logic versus rhetoric paradigms from the Greek philosophers because that was always part of their culture all and and they're the ones who brought it into Europe after Bzantium fell. They're the ones who brought Greek. There's the They're the ones who pretty much advanced the university systems from basically being just systems of creating lawyers for Roman Catholic canon law to actually creating theologians who think through um theological problems. So you see some of that in guys like Thomas Aquinas, but that's like 1300s. But the Italians were interacting with the Greeks. So they they had, you know, they had some some back and forth with them.
It's not until after Bzantium falls and these Greeks start to, you know, leaving the these Greek scholars leave and go up into the uh the Germanic and French and English peoples that you start to have the Bibles being written in in their languages. You start to have people um debating theologically and then you start to have reformation, right? So, so that tradition and that culture, these new debate bros coming from evangelicalism and Protestantism, they don't respect it because they don't understand it. They're really ignorant people. And I look at the most of these people honestly as like these are battle rappers who couldn't make it in the rap scene and are now figuring out how to make money in the apologetic scene. I don't respect a one of them. the ones who are more scholarly, they're they're better read, but they're stuck in their denominational traditions. And so they they play the same rhetorical games when their denominational positions are are attacked logically because they punt to mystery and they avoid the question and they use, you know, straw men and different things like you see a lot of Calvinists, for instance, using. Um, but in all of these things, they fail to adequately challenge the Catholics and and the uh the Orthodox because they're going to say, "Oh, you guys pray to Mary." But they're going to stand under the council na and not realize that like the same exact authority that they honor and call legitimate in the council na is the same exact authority that told them if you don't pray to Mary and genulect to icons of Mary and the saints, you're you're an apostate basically. Yeah.
>> So, it's like you you you can't you can't tell people we follow the council of Nika, which is based on a combination of fake um archbishop authority that never existed beforehand and the authority of the emperor emperor who wasn't even a baptized Christian at the time. Like that's who established it.
And then they use the council of Nika which is agreed upon and it uses Gnostic and uh mistransated Hebrew terminology.
So it's like basically the Greek Septuagent. It it confuses wisdom who is the Holy Spirit with Christ calls wisdom begotten and made and created in their in their Bibles >> because it's mistransated Hebrew. And then they used the term homusion which is a term that was derived from the from the gnostics um from arisetilian and platonic philosophy and was used in modalism and um selianism or I'm sorry that is modalism and then adoptionism and then um manachianism.
>> Yeah.
>> So so so we have like this really obvious paper trail that everything from the council I see was a complete mess.
They were trying to push force celibacy on people. There was a secret cult of originists that were basically overtaking the church with ideas that had to do with force celibacy and by the sixth century they were outing basically networks of pedar arrests in in the Orthodox church and that's documented.
So we we know this and this is like around the time that Islam is starting to take over and basically they're like more straight. They they believe in the patriarchal family unit. They don't have celibate priests among them. They smash idols and they basically tell the Christians, "You can worship however you want. You just got to pay the zakat if you're not going to do the call to prayer five times a day." And most people don't realize like they got the call to prayer from Hippo Hippolitus' um uh apostolic tradition because they have like a call to prayer six times including in the middle of the night and the Muslims just knocked it down to five times. And then the actual chants that the Muslim use are based on the Ambrosian chant from the 4th century.
You can literally just listen to them side by side and they sound exactly the same.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, it's like all the Muslims did is they just took the more masculine elements from Christianity and then said, "We, you know, we don't believe Christ is God, but if you want to believe that, here's a tax you have to pay if you're not going to um submit to our religion." Basically, I'm like I'm like, that tax was lower than the combination of tithes and Roman taxes that they had to pay. They can still worship however they want. And most of them were nominal Christians anyways. So the ones who didn't care about the religion that much, they're like, "We're bowing to statues of Mary. We're bowing down to these pedophile priests, these at least suspect priests, right, that are celibate. Um, we're we're paying uh taxes to Rome plus ties to these churches. They're they're literally commanding us to bow down and show respect to these idols whenever they walk by." Um, >> but the Orthod bros have the most masculine religion out there, a form of Christianity. Bro, >> it's so masculine. It's so masculine that the Ukrainians and the Russians are basically killing each other and both each faction is supported by the Orthodox Church, right? It's just so it's so brocode, right? Their beards are so long. Uh except for the fact that you can't be a bishop unless you don't meet the biblical qualifications of being a bishop. Like if you meet the qualifications of being a b bishop in first Timothy, you don't qualify to be a bishop in the Orthodox church. And they don't tell you this. See, the priests are underlings. They they mostly carry out sacrifices and they do um basically governed teaching, liturggical teaching, right? It's the bishops who have the power and they all have to be celibate.
So you can't tell me like all the stuff that was present in Rome is not present among them.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> They're they've got beards. Who cares?
So, they've got beards, >> but what do they do with Peter being married?
That's a question I think I've never been able to figure out.
>> They don't follow the Bible or the apostolic tradition. If you read First Clement, they deny what First Clement said came from the apostles about what they were supposed to do to replace bishops. And he uses bishops and preserves interchangeably. They deny what um what uh Polycarp said uh John taught them about the uh tradition of um when they celebrate Easter, which is they do it the weekend of Passover. They do they just follow the Jewish Passover.
And the Romans wanted to do another calculation based on astrology that the Romans and the Egyptians shared. And uh Anacetus of Rome tries to argue this with Polycarp and Polycarp's like no we were taught this by John the Apostle. So uh we're going to do it this way. And that's one of the first things they changed at the council. Na. So they changed they they they deny Clement who was an eyewitness of the apostles. They deny Polycarp who's an eyewitness of the apostles. Um and what's the third thing they change? Um I mean celibate priest is an obvious one. There's one more thing that oh I mean Ignatius is claiming to be silent in the presence of the bishop and then uh so they basically kick out the spiritual gifts and prophecy and all that but there was one more thing that they changed that I I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but there's like three things that you can prove that the apostles are making the claim or the the the postappostolic fathers are making the claim this was taught to us by the apostles. Oh the third thing is is the millennium. Um, so you have uh Papius who is an eyewitness to uh John and Aristion who are of the 70s. So they would have been apostolic witnesses and they're giving them other things Jesus said about what it would be like in the millennium with the plants being restored and everything basically returning to like a garden of Eden state and uh Jesus is describing it to them and that's an Erenaeus and he gets it from Polycarp and or Polycarp and Papius who get it from the apostles themselves.
So everything that the we have on record from the early church fathers where someone is making the claim this came from the apostles that's not in the Bible they reject and then they come up with stuff from like the fifth century the seventh century the 8th century and then just you know postfacto say oh this was passed down from the apostles when we can prove historically that it wasn't >> but your your debate bros can't stand up to Jay Dyer and Andrew Wilson because they don't know this information they don't know their church fathers they don't know their church history all they know how to do is do these stupid rhetorical rap battle tactics, interrupting, changing the subject, moving the goalpost, straw manning, and all these logical fallacies that anybody who knows anything about logic or is just educated in general goes, "Okay, anybody smart says Andrew Wilson and Jay Dyer wins." So if you have an objective person, whether or not they're born again and is just looking at these debates, they're like, "Andrew Dyer and Andrew Wilson and Jay Dire win every time. Every time." And then the people who are just like, "Well, no, I'm an evangelical, so I side with these guys."
Well, they're going to say the evangelicals win. But it doesn't m they're just saying that because they're in our camp.
>> So the Orthodox church teaches all millennialism from Augustine. Correct.
>> The the Orthodox don't really follow Augustine as a standard. um they don't hold to they it's the Catholics that start to declare um they start to associate amalennialism with Montanism as a rule.
>> Um the Orthodox actually allow for premillennial beliefs because they don't really make a stand on it because it's not nobody makes a stand on it in the ecumenical councils basically.
>> But a lot of them are effectively all millennial right because Jay Dyer is a partial credit all millennial.
>> Yes they are. Yes they are. And and the reason is is because um they still follow origin. They still respect the crap out of Origin even though he was a synchronostic.
>> Yeah.
>> So So I mean the point is is like we know a literal millennium with literal plants growing and literal eating and drinking and all that stuff was testified by Christ outside of the scripture. And we have apostolic sources that say so. Okay. But they deny those sources. Everything. And then you go to Ignatius. They accept Ignatius like he's gospel even though he never makes the claim once that anything that he's teaching came from the apostles. He's claiming that he he's discerning it from his mystical revelations from God basically.
>> Well, I mean the the Orthodox are also praying to the dead.
>> Yeah. Well, so look at the Orthodox like this. Okay. Take the N, the new new apostolic reformation >> and go slap it into the second and third century. And that is the orthodox.
>> That's that's all it is. It's just people claiming extra biblical apostolic authority after the fact based on rules that they're making up based on claims of having mystical experiences and you know logically deducing these things. I mean read the shepherd >> all of that. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Right. Like they believe you can lose your salvation. Well, that's not in the apostles. That's not in the apostles.
That's not in uh Irenaeus. That's not in uh Clement. It's in the shepherd of Hermas.
>> Yep. Yep. Yep.
>> Right. And so it creeps from the shepherd of Hermas eventually. Actually, Irenaeus might say some things that could be construed that way, but he doesn't say it outright. Um, but it comes from the shepherd of Hermes. And that that is actually held as canon by some people because they think just like Clement is mentioned in scripture, Paul mentions a Hermas and they think that's the same Hermas, but that it's it's actually a different Hermas from like almost 100 years after Paul.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, shepherdus is a very weird.
>> It's demonic. It's just demonic inspiration that I mean, literally the it starts out with him basically having a fantasy about a woman and then basically an angel showing up and just calling him a fool and telling him he's not a man and all.
>> One of the first Christian allegorories, right? Would you say that?
>> Well, well, they call it an allegory because if it's not an allegory, it's false prophecy.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That is true. To be fair, yes. You know, if you can allegorize it, it's like, uh, yeah, this guy's literally this demon's showing up and calling him an idiot. And it's it that is the basis for the belief that the Holy Spirit will leave you if you sin too much, >> which is expressly stated there, >> which is crazy because with Dante Algari and Dante's Inferno, which most people think about hell, directly came from the apocalypse of Peter, >> right? And same thing with the Marian doctrines about her perpetual vendor, uh, virginity comes from the Gnostic Gospel of James.
openly embibing gnostic text as their standards and then all they do is they use this massive argument from silence which is like oh do you see where Paul references things that he said by word not just by letter and so they use that as a caveat to say anything they want from an argument from silence even though the all the evidences of the world was there were no infants baptized before the middle of the third it's like Cyprien is being asked if they have to wait 8 days or if they can do it right when a baby's born in the middle of the 3rd century. So it's like okay common sense is the reason people are writing Cyprien who's basically like the most famous bishop in that era is because your average priest doesn't know.
>> Yeah.
>> You know so if they've been practicing this for even 50 years everyone would know when you can baptize a baby. Right.
But they're asking in the middle of third century when Cyprien is first telling them that a Catholic baptism regenerates you no matter what. It's it because of the authority of the church.
If you're baptized in the Catholic Church, it will regenerate you. Period.
And they're using this on the basis of justifying people who were baptized as children, not babies, but children, and then denied Christ when they were under persecution.
>> Yeah.
>> So, it's like we we can trace all this stuff and we can figure it out. But again, do you think Jay Dyer, especially Andrew Wilson, but do you think Jay Dyer even wants to he he doesn't you don't hear him in a debate with anyone who's read the Church Fathers?
>> Not not extensively really.
>> No. Get him in a debate with David vers I mean David >> and Andrew Wilson to be fair doesn't really claim to be knowledgeable in his own church.
>> All he's doing with guys like David Wood and uh who is this guy he was on with this Mhler guy? All they're doing, all he's doing is pointing out the logical inconsistencies in what they're saying.
And any good per legion knows how to do that. All you do is you just listen to the things they say and then you point out the contradiction.
>> Yeah.
>> So, he's got Mer on and he's just sitting here going, um, you're saying, uh, you're saying, you know, we can cast out demons based on this verse right here. U, but it also says you can drink poison and handle serpents and, uh, speak in tongues. Are you saying everybody can do those things? And the obvious biblical answer is no.
>> Mhm.
>> So all Andrew Wilson is doing is going, "So therefore, you can't say everybody can cast out demons based on this verse right here." Which should be an obvious thing. It's like, yes, that's an authority that all Christians have, >> but not every Christian knows when there's a demon present. That's a gift called discerning of spirits, right? So I don't just take somebody who's like having a migraine and start casting a demon out of them. You don't know if it's a demon. They could just like need a glass of water and an aspirin. You know what I mean? Like and and I know charismatics who are like this. I had some people try to cast a demon on me because I had ear wax pushed in.
>> You know this ear wax demons.
>> Well, you know, you got to cast it out.
It's it's blocking your you from the word.
>> So, Erin, I want to get your opinion on something. So, when they talk about that Mary was sinless, right? Mhm.
>> Then when her and Joseph did the the dove and pigeon offering, >> right, >> that was a sin offering.
>> Correct.
>> So what are they? So what are they >> for the mother specifically?
>> Exactly. Yes. And that's because the mother's unclean from pregnancy, right?
So my question is is then I'm a little confused now. Again, being pregnant isn't a sin obviously. Well, obviously if it's within a, you know, a husband and a wife, >> they're not offering up the sin offering for the income. Correct.
>> Correct.
>> What is it? What it is doing, and it's all the way back in the Levitical code, is it it's telling you in advance that the mother, Messiah, will be a sinner.
So, the fact that because you're not offering up a sin offering for the child, there is no such thing as a children need to be redeemed. were still subject to the penalty of Adam's death, right? So, they need to be redeemed, but there's not sin offerings for them in the Old Testament. So, the fact when it's like, you know, they have a different one for if she has a male child child or a female child, right?
For how long they have have to go through their purification, but the the the fact that the parent needs to offer up a sin offering after they have a child is kind of like a baby dedication when you think about it, right? It's like it it's it's a memorial that even though they've given birth to this innocent child, they themselves are a sinner and so they need a sin offering, right? Um and that's why, you know, again, Jesus says the little children, their angels are always in heaven. Like they're not accounted as sinners until they knowingly sin. Like a little child is not considered a sinner because Yeah. Yeah. That have have they been born into sinful flesh? Yes. Are they under the penalty of Adam sin due to being born again? Yes. But until they know they're doing something they shouldn't and they do it, they're not considered a sinner.
>> Yeah.
>> And that guilt corresponds with their sense of feeling naked, just like Adam and Eve. You know, they go from not feeling naked to feeling naked, right?
like there there there's a clear correspondence that the Bible is pointing to and saying yes there is a they don't call that a numerical age of accountability but Paul describes it in Romans 7 where he said what I was alive to God once but then when the law came sin revived and I died so once a little child is able to be taught the ten commandments and it says honor your father and mother and then you disobey your mother and father after that you're a sinner because you know honor your mother and father came from God, not your mom and dad, right? And so you're sinning against God by disobeying your parents.
But if you're a little kid and just wandering around doing what you're doing and you're just trying to do what you do and you testing them at age two saying no, right? What are you learning? What are you doing? You're just you're figuring out who's more powerful because that's the only thing you operate on, right? Your parents say no and they can take it away from you, but if I can get it, why should they be in charge? Right?
But once you're old enough to understand, oh, honor your mother and father. There's something bigger here, you know, now all of a sudden you're dealing with God and you're hearing from God, honor your mother and father and then disobeying your parents. Now you're sinning. And so Paul uses the example of covetousness. I didn't know what cuz because the Jews were all they trained their kids to honor their mother and fathers, right?
But once he got to a place where he understood what coveting was and then realized even when I try not to, I covet, right? Oh man, that guy's got that girl. I want that girl. Oh man, that guy's got that donkey or car, right? I want that. You know, and then I you you start to feel jealous. You start to feel desirous of what belongs to him, right? Then you realize not only am I sinning, I have a nature that compels me towards sin even when I don't want to.
And so Paul describes this very clearly.
This is not something you need to try to reconcile to your Calvinism or your Catholicism. He's describing going from being innocent to being guilty. Yeah. In the eyes of God. Right. And then he says when sin revived, then I died.
>> So I was alive and then I died once I realized what sin was and sinned. So um there's nothing there to understand except for the fact that Mary was a sinner. Christ was not. Just just like all children, Christ was born into Adam's flesh.
Born under the penalty of the law. Born under the law. Born under the penalty of dying naturally. Like if if Christ had just lived into his old age, he would not have just lived forever because he was Jesus and hadn't committed any sins.
He his body was still Adam's flesh.
>> And what the Catholics try to do, the reason they do this is very simple. You see, you have the uh the Greeks uh count the soul. So do the Buddhists, but the Greeks and the Buddhists, they count the soul as being part of the body. They believe it's material. And so the early church fathers, and I know Tertullan taught this, I think Clement taught this or somebody else before Tertullan, but I forget who. Um they taught that your soul was basically a facet of your body.
And so therefore, your soul is automatically corrupt with Adam's corruption. And that's where the Augustinian idea of original sin comes in. And so they believe that Jesus had to have had um uh like like his his soul actually was created like his spirit pre-existed but his soul was created with his body. Um and then um because they believed because because they believed that they couldn't read uh Ezekiel uh 18 for what it plainly says which is that you know he says in the new covenant it's the soul that sins that must die. So so we we can get eternal life because of Christ's sacrifice if we're a little kid who's never sinned um in in God's economy of sinning or if we're adult who's been born again in our soul. Right. So, so how are we born again in our soul? By receiving a new heart with new desires, by being forgiven by Christ and being basically renewed by the Holy Spirit, right? So, um because they believe the soul was attached to the body, they had all this underlying dogma about like for instance, Churchillan said the soul still goes to sh after it dies and that's where purgatory comes in.
>> They literally invent it from that. Um origin taught it as based in reincarnation and they just merged the ideas of origin and tertuling together to come up with purgatory. Um, and then they they came up with ideas about how because his soul and his body would have been um a creature, then Mary had to be somehow uh purified before Jesus was born. Otherwise, the bodily substance of Jesus and the soul of Jesus um would have been uh corrupt.
And so they initially come up with the idea that Mary is purified by God. Um uh the original idea was in Tertullan was that basically Jesus sanctified his flesh in in the incarnation. That's Tertullian's idea. And then it eventually evolves to um no Mary had to be sanctified before that. You know the umbilical cord, the connection between the mother and the child, blah blah blah. And then it eventually evolves to Mary being born sinless. But I mean, this is an evolution that takes place over hundreds of years. There's no biblical authority for it. There's no logical authority for it. They're mixing Greek, pagan, and Christian ideas of the body and the soul and the spirit. And eventually, they come up with some reason that Mary has to. And then it's after that by about the sixth century, it's it's the same guy who first writes about the Muslims. Uh John of um I think it's John of Damascus.
He's the first person to preach that Mary was assumed bodily. Even though he's literally preaching it from her grave in Jerusalem.
>> Well, we know that Jesus aged, right? He aged, >> right?
>> He slept.
>> The Bible didn't never say he was incorruptible. It says he wouldn't God wouldn't allow him to taste corruption.
So we know that Lazarus started his body started to corrupt on the fourth day.
That's why it says he stinkketh. Jesus was raised on the third day. So he never was allowed to taste corruption. And then in the resurrection, his body was transformed to be a spiritual body which Paul describes in 1 Corinthians. So Christ's body went through the exact process that our bodies are going to go through in the resurrection. It's not like it was just different cuz he's God.
The the the the God, remember, Christ did not have a body before he was born, right? He can manifest a body like an angel can, but he's spirit, right?
>> So, his spirit was incarnated. That literally means put in meat, right, in in in the womb of Mary. And his body was fully human. His body was fully human.
His spirit was divine, you know? And then in the resurrection his body was um made incorruptible, immortal and divine.
>> Mhm.
>> And so what we have is we have a new thing in the earth called divine physics. That that that's translated divine nature. Okay. It's physical.
That's what physics means. It's physical. It's it's its nature. It it has a a nature, but it's also divine. So it's divine and physical. And so in in the Bible it says we become partakers of the divine nature in Christ because in the resurrection Christ now has a body that is both physical and immortal and eternal.
>> Agreed.
>> Right. But he didn't have that before the resurrection.
>> Agreed. Yes.
>> And so we can talk about partaking of the divine nature, but it's only in reference in Peter as related to our union with Christ. God himself in terms of who he was before Christ's incarnation is never described in terms of divine nature because nature has to do with it. The literal world is physics and it has to do with how a thing is created to be.
So God's not created so that he's not created to be a certain way. And all these ideas about divine nature what where they get them from is um Aristotle's metaphysics because he's deducing how God must be backwards from the physical universe.
And so he comes up with basically metaphysics which is basically super physical. It's still physical and all the attributes are physical and he'll say well the universe is moving so therefore God must be unmoving and immovable.
That's not even rational. God God could literally be dancing around the mountaintop like what's her name on Sound of Music, right? And then the Earth is just like something he's holding in his hand. There's nothing about the motion of the universe that says God must be an unmoved mover, right? Like there's just nothing there.
And they start building all these attributes about how God must be on the basis of the physical universe. And it's literally a complete physical um belief system about God.
>> But isn't God greater than the physical universe? Obviously. So why would >> God's not physical THE GOSPEL?
>> WELL, I KNOW THAT. I KNOW. BUT why would you?
>> But to the Greeks, he was.
>> But why would you build it from this universe up? You understand what I'm saying? Like that's >> Well, that's the thing. It's like saying it's like saying I can deduce how God must be from studying physical science.
And that's not true. You can deduce that God is that there is a logical powerful authority controlling the universe, but you can't deduce what God's attributes are from the physical universe.
>> Agreed. Yes. And so because they have this single use of the term divine physics or divine nature in the Bible in reference to us being united to Christ's now divine flesh, right? They use that as an excuse to go take Aristotle's metaphysical categories and Platonic ideas about God and make those the standard for Christianity. And that's exactly what they do. And they it's in all that mess of Mexican Greek philosophy that they come up with the Maran doctrines. They come up with purgatory. They come up with the basically the Egyptian um transmutation versions of uh the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist and the baptism.
That's all it is. It's the Egyptian transmutation. Um and then they they eventually codify that stuff into the cannons about um the nature of for instance that's how Mary is called Theotocos. That's how um Homolucion becomes a standard term for God and all this stuff. It's like if you just read Plato and and Aristotle uncritically, you can see where they get to it. But if you if you're smart enough to know the difference between what the Bible says and what the Greek philosophers said and that the Bible comes from God >> and that these guys stuff comes from pagan mixed with their own speculation.
So it's basically pseudocience. Um you know it's like they can't possib God by digging in the dirt and through phil philosophy. Why is Paul saying in first Corinthians these wise by the world could not know God? Like he's just saying he's telling you they're and so they're you literally can read Clement where he really first starts using the Greek philosophers a lot and he's arguing and rebutting Christians who are telling him hey Paul said don't do this and Clement is literally like well Paul just meant bad philosophy and it's like no no no it's all rooted in paganism. It's like Clement first starts embibing stoicism and you you remember that when uh Alex Jones was on uh Joe Rogan and he starts talking about how he saw God as like a giant comet flying space.
>> That is literally the logos of stoicism.
That's literally what he's describing.
The universe in in Pltonism and Aristoilianism and Stoicism and Thales and and Axamander and all the prescratic philosophers, they believe that the universe, the at least the primordial substance of the universe was eternal because they're getting it from the Egyptian mysteries that think everything was created from primordial waters. Yep.
>> And then they um they say that God is like a divine mind or logos or nouse or whatever that orders up these things by compressing it into different forms of matter.
>> And I'll even go straight forward. Alex Jones disgustedly enough in reset wars in a saposexual way was pretty much saying that you could mate with the mind of God and absorb that knowledge and become God.
>> Which is exactly what the Stoics believed. They believed in reincarnation on that basis. They believe that if we're good, we get unified to the logos, and then we eventually come back. But it's it's the exact same belief that the Hindus had with Yama and the moon. It's just that they believe it's happening with this logos, which is a godlike, mindlike being that is within the created universe. But they believe the universe is is large and finite and eternal. And you're going to find again some version of that in Plato. when Plato's going to have a um an idealized metaphysical realm of forms, but it's still an eternal universe. It's just super material. So, it'd be like it'd be like as if like the temple that is described in heaven in the book of Revelations was was not um created. It was like that that eternally existed alongside God, which is not true. Like nothing that's in the third heaven is eternal. God created that too, right?
So, so their belief system is that both God and a either either this material universe or a supermaterial or metaphysical universe always existed and God is more building within it using his you know logical powers if you will um than uh actually creating like none of them I mean none of them believe that God created the universe Xnelo. The closest thing of the pagan religions that would say that God created something exilo would be Brahmanism and potentially Dowoism because Brahmanism basically taught that like God just Brahman just existed and then he manifested a body for himself. So that would be closer to the idea, you know, and then out of that universe over over time, right? But the point is is they still hold a god that's subject to time but they don't hold a god that um pre existed alongside the material world basically. So they believe that the material world came later. Um the plonist kind of believed that the material world came later but the metaphysical which is basically just physical but perfect right always existed. So when there's nothing compatible about these philosophies with Christianity and when you realize the entire basis for the authority of the Orthodox and Catholic Church is based in a mixture with these philosophies as if they're authoritative and then a a merger with the Roman state which started with an emperor that wasn't even Christian.
It's it's an abomination. And what most people don't know historically is when the Muslims took over the Byzantine Empire at the end, what they did is they they took the archbishop of Bzantium or I think they I I think he was an existing theologian who said basically that uh the the the the Byzantine um church would rather submit to Islam than to the the Roman pope because they had had the great schism by this time.
um he found out about that and when he took Bzantium, he made that guy the archbishop and said, "If you submit to me, um you can continue worshiping your way um as as the Orthodox standard."
>> Mhm.
>> And he called himself Caesar. So that's the same office of authority that Constantine has, which made the Orthodox church in the first place. And he basically said, "You are the authority over the Orthodox tradition." this is the archbishop of Bzantium as long as you submit to me as Caesar. And he did.
And so lit when when people talk about like, oh man, these guys are siding with Islam against Christians. It's like, yes, but not because they're agreeing with a point of fact, because that's their literal tradition.
But these guys don't know that. They don't know their history. And literally, I'm like, I know this stuff's on Wikipedia. You can literally find this stuff on chat GGBT. It's so well known.
But these guys don't read. They just they're rap battle artists, man. They're they're rap battle artists with minimal evangelical biblical knowledge. They're not qualified to be debating anyone, which is why they just play rhetorical games instead of actually engaging.
>> Well, Andrew Wilson said he was the greatest conservator conservative debater, at least in the modern era. He said that.
>> No, he's not. He said that with I think it was with Mhler and JP if I remember correctly and then that nobody could defeat him and it'd be like yeah okay well hey Andrew >> duck because because they'll duck any real logician right they're going to duck anyone who knows church history anyone who's read the church fathers anyone who knows logic and and evidence as well as they did I mean I went to law school on a full scholarship like that's all logic and evidence right literally law boils down to logic evidence and providence right there's a historical providence of of um legal cases. So that's what precedent is. Okay. So so you have to know what the law means logically. You have to know a case logically. You have to know the evidence supported on the what is and what isn't in the case. And then you have to know the historical precedent of the law going back to its legal foundations to say why the law is judged the way it is.
And that's why we have Supreme Court justices and all that stuff. M >> any good legal student could handle I mean what what court proceedings are is literally like debate with a ref that makes sure you don't play games. I mean that's literally what goes on between lawyers, right?
>> What these guys engage in is debate with no ref and everybody plays games, right?
So Andrew Wilson doesn't play as many games cuz he doesn't have to because the people he goes up I mean he the guy will argue with like a sophomore in college or like an only fans model. Like most the people he argues with he knows are much less intelligent and much less educated than he is. even when he argues with someone who's like fairly intelligent in terms of um just just you know whatever their IQ, they're much less mature, much less read than he is.
And Jay Dyer's the same way. Like it's not hard to trap a Protestant if you're a Catholic or Orthodox to say, "We gave you the Bible. We gave you the Nying creed. So you basically are a runaway sect of our church. You're you're a kid. You're a runaway kid. Come back home, right? And these guys don't ha they they can be like, "Oh, we we can argue about this later council and that later council and point to logical inconsistencies in what they're saying, but they don't know how to take the authority away altogether and just go, "No, no, wait, wait, wait. The apostles are authority. You broke with the apostles. We can prove it in the second century. Therefore, you're the runaway kid. We're the ones who are still sticking with the apostles.
>> You can't just be like, "But our buildings are older." It doesn't matter.
The buildings have no bearing on what the true church is said Christ before he destroyed the temple of Jerusalem. It doesn't matter if you're like, "Oh, apostolic succession. Christ established before his death and resurrection. This guy is not with us," said the apostles.
And he said, "Let him be. He who's not against us is for us." So all these things we can testify by the mouth of Christ, by the mouth of the apostles, by the earliest witnesses to the church fathers that we follow Christ and the apostles and they do not. It's that simple. And nobody knows how to just break it down for them because it's not them you need to convince. It's their audiences. It's these stupid nominal Christian nationalists who are just being sucked into Catholic and Orthodox because they don't know how to evangelize. They haven't succeeded in evangelizing anyone since the Spanish um conquest of Latin America.
That's how they evangelize.
>> The Catholic and the Orthodox Church are not known for evangelicism.
>> No, they're not. I mean, >> they're known for killing born again believers.
>> The Orthodox are and the and the Orthodox are the worst of all of them, right? Like, how come the Protestants and the Catholics are able to evangelize Africa and Southeast Asia and Latin America and North America, but they aren't?
they've, oh, we've got Russia. And it's like, no, no, no. Russia was politics.
They they united because they their plan was to take over the Mongol Empire. And so they positioned themselves as the defenders of orthodoxy among the Slavs while basically being the uh tribute gatherers for the Mongols and then once they were powerful enough took it over.
So their political base is based on them being the defender of orthodoxy. And then they um they basically inherit the uh right to the throne of Bzantium.
>> Mhm.
>> Through marriage. Right. So it's like everything about Russian orthodoxy is based in politics. The other orthodoxy you could say yeah once upon a time the orthodox used to evangelize people. But you know who uh evangelized the most people from the Orthodox um tradition?
The um Aryans.
The Aryans evangelized the Goths. The uh Orthodox after that evangelized the Slavs somewhat, but a lot of it was politically driven. And St. just just like the Roman Catholics were with the uh the Franks. And basically between those the Slavs and the Franks, they eventually absorbed the previously Aryan territories of Europe um to become basically the Eastern and Western block of Europe. So yeah, they once upon a time they did some evangelism, but it was the heretical sex. I mean the notorians who they kicked out and the Catholics have since said no actually they were orthodox um the notorians evangelized uh all the way over to India to Mongolia to the Turkish countries and to China. The Orthodox didn't every everywhere the Orthodox have been prominent has been taken over by communism or or Islam. And what exists now is nominal Christianity at best. And in every land where they exist, you will find an evangelical church that believes in the gifts of the spirit, believes in believers baptism, believes in an authentic born again experience, and rejects the Orthodox church as legitimate. You'll find that in Eastern Europe, you'll find it in Russia. You'll find it in Ukraine. You'll find it in the Middle East. And they all know that's the dead old church from Rome.
>> It's it's based in Roman politics and it's based in their authority. And the Muslims have taken over that authority.
They're they're the remnant of it just like the Roman Catholic Church is the remnant of it where the uh secular Europe is pretty much taken over.
There's no difference. And so because they don't know how to evangelize, just like the Calvinists largely don't know how to evangelize, right? What do they do?
>> They use Christian nationalism and then they use their claims of being historically >> by force.
>> Right. Exactly. Historically more authoritative to say we're the true church. church and it's like, well, if you're the true church, how come nobody wants to convert to to to your version of Christianity?
It doesn't make sense. I thought the gospel was persuasive. And they'll claim things having to do with election and predestination and all this crap and then claim, you know, well, we'll eventually get them all after thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of years, right? That's their claim. And it's like, well, wait a minute. You once had all of Europe and North Africa and the Middle East. You once had churches spread to Persia and India. What happened? You failed because you you failed because you corrupted the gospel and you turned it into a pedo club full of idols >> and they mock the evangelicals.
>> They mock true born again Christians for 2,000 years and persecuted them. Yes.
>> Right. And it's no different than the Galatians who came around and followed Paul's evangelized disciples and said, "Oh, now you got to be circumcised if you really want to be in." Right.
They're doing the exact same thing.
They're following around the real Christians who are backed by the power of the Holy Spirit and are actually leading people to Christ and they're saying, "Oh, but now you got to jump through these other hoops to and and what does Paul say about them?" He says, "They want you to be zealous for them."
>> Did Philip tell the Ethiopian unic that he had to wait a year before being baptized?
>> No. No. Three. It's three years, I think, isn't it?
>> A year. You know, >> you know where they get that from?
>> Pythagoras. Pythagoras's cult. You had to be a hearer for three years before you could even speak.
>> Let's see.
>> So they have So they have to be a hearer for three years before they can confess.
And that isn't that interesting.
>> Let's see how long it actually is.
>> Pythagoras also came up with the trinity.
>> See here. Uh roughly about 6 months to a year.
>> Oh, okay. Um it was in the um apostolic tradition that Hippolitus wrote that it was three years. Um so once upon a time >> so they instantly baptized children but if you're a born again believer you got to wait 6 months to a year >> right because they just hate faith.
They they just hate faith. Like everything they do is about saying it's not about faith. It's about our power over you.
It's the same thing that the Galatians were, you know, the the the Pharisees or the uh circumcisers were doing in Paul's day. It's not about your faith. It's about our power over you.
But you have this in other religions, too. I mean, you have this in Brahminism. And I mean, it's not it's not strange to to understand that there's a class of people who believe that religion should be about a a class of people having power over you because that's how all the ancient pagan priesthoods were. And they all practice a version of everything practiced in the Catholic Orthodox Church. They just called it ancestor worship and knew what they were doing. And these guys just call it reverence to the saints and do the exact same thing.
>> I I know you got to go. So it's the custom that they wait 40 days for children, but they can do it at any time. Adults, depending on the individual uh, you know, Orthodox church and individual parish, it could be six months, it could be a year. Um, >> but wait, wait, wait. They in Cyprien wrote that you could do it immediately when they're born. They would even do it with like babies that were born.
>> They say tradition for 40 years. I mean 40 months. I mean 40 weeks days.
>> Um, >> yeah. Then that has to be a later tradition then.
>> And then Hans Juker in the chat says, "I don't know, man. American Protestants have watered down Christianity down to that it's meaningless. American churches are a religion. What McDonald's is to food?"
Well, they say that because what they're doing is they're taking the worst examples of evangelicals, which is like Big Eva and the Charismatics for the most part, or like independent fundamentalist Baptists who think the King James Bible was around from John the Baptist, right? Like they're they're taking the most ignorant examples of evangelicals and because these guys can get online and call themselves an apologist, they're saying, "Well, look, that's how all of you are." And in reality is like no, the people who are qualified to be apologists for this are either hemmed in by denominational um basically strongholds that handicap them from adequately debating them or they're not well read enough because they're more focused on pastoral council and um you know homalytics basically.
>> But many of them are still preaching the gospel and still doing more missionary work than Orthodox Church. Yeah, they're still preaching the gospel accurately.
They're still leading people to Christ.
Their their baptisms are authentic. Um, but they're not equipped to really debate these guys down to the foundational standards they claim to be based on. I mean, you have to have read the Church Fathers if you can really stand up to these guys. And I don't know anybody in the debate sphere, including the scholars that I hear on like Standing for Truth and whatever these different debate spheres, I don't know any of them that have read the Church Fathers. The one guy that I know who read the church fathers who who got involved in that debate spheres was that Brian guy who I was going on with for a little bit and but he was into weird like postmillennial weird arguments and he didn't believe like second Peter was rude by Peter or written by Peter. So he was I would consider him more of a modern liberal than a you know than a solid Christian.
>> I'm sure there are debaters who have read the church early church history and stuff like that. I just I don't listen to every debate person, nor do I follow every um apologist, and I know you don't either. So, >> no, but I'm just saying like probably those people exist, but they're too um sophisticated or, you know, would not get in the mud.
>> They don't want the blood sports. They don't want the blood sports, Aaron.
>> Well, that's the thing because they they look down at this as like, why would I want to why would I want all my education reduced down to a a rap battle? Cuz that's all this is. It's just a crap talking contest, right? Like it they're they're not really like you look at guys like Gavin Ortland and Trent Horn, right? Now, there's a lot of stuff I disagree with about them. Um I do think sometimes they're too polite for toward one another for what they actually believe.
But I but I respect the fact that they appeal to legitimate logical sources.
They appealed to sources and evidence.
And if you listen to like for instance, I think it was Gavin Ortland's most recent um discussion with Trent Horn and it's not even really a debate. It's really them both expressing their bases of authority and belief. And if you listen to them, it's just like, okay, it's clear that Trent Horn believes stuff that comes from the fifth and sixth century based on arguments from silence and loose, you know, attempts to prove, oh, Mary ascended and stuff like that. and Gavin Ortland is saying, "No, we should use scholarship. We should look at the church fathers and look at everything critically and take the best stuff from him." So, I have a lot more respect for how he reasons. But the point is is there's two guys talking back and forth and actually giving logic and evidence and reasons. That that's apologetics. And even though they disagree on each other, it doesn't have to be a fight about one guy calling another guy chicken for not using the n-word. Like, oh my gosh, that is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard in a debate. So, Hans Juker says, "Jay Dyer will debate you." Okay, then set it up.
Have we I'm trying to work on getting Aaron in.
>> Don't you You don't need a setup. Just Just don't you don't need a setup. Just go live. Just say, "Jay, Dire, listen.
It take an hour for me to explain why I do not think the Orthodox Church is at all authoritative." And you can answer questions to the to the contrary if you want to put that forward.
>> But I'll say this, Dyer will not debate me on the CMP versus the CFR. He has ran twice and flat out refused like a chicken. So I mean and it is what it is.
So >> yeah, that's that's that's your realm. I don't know that well enough to debate.
>> I know. I know. I know. I just he won't he won't >> at least somebody will at least hear in front of Jay Dyer that these guys are claiming original apostolic authority while denying actual claims of things the apostles said and taught outside of the Bible. Okay. So they claim it's scripture plus tradition and that's their argument from silence. And at least we can display those evidences because most of what Jay Dyer trumps people on is is the fact that they claim to abide by Nika and that lets them into a whole bunch of argumentations and reasonings and authorities that have nothing to do with anything that I stand under.
>> Agreed.
>> I just take that all away from them.
Forget that. We're going to go to the earliest apostolic witnesses and we're going to go to you can hold up the shepherd of Hermas and Ignatius and I'll hold up Polycarp and Clement and we'll see who's actually listening.
I know you got to go, brother. Tell everybody where they can find you.
>> Uh, Underground Publishing. Um, Batman.
Look for Batman. Underground Publishing.
Um, I'm teaching through the New Testament and still doing research on Serpent, by the way. So, ancient history stuff. And then also, I just dropped a couple videos on uh Christian Zionism u from a what I believe is a balanced biblical perspective. So check those out if you want to avoid the anti-semitismitism while also not feeling the need to support Israel in order to be blessed by God.
>> Yeah. Uh all right everybody take care.
God bless. Gotta go and see you soon.
Bye.
>> Thanks. Just so you know I'm not Hold on. Hold on.
相关推荐
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
