Jay Dyer (6:49)

What's up, Josie? Glad to finally talk to you sort of in person.

Josie (6:53)

Yeah, absolutely. We've been trying to schedule this for some time, and just the universe was not having it. It tried to stop us again today, but you know what? We. We overcame. We overcame.

Jay Dyer (7:04)

Yeah. I'm excited. I know you had Joel Berry on and, you know, try to get him to come have discussions. He doesn't seem very willing to do that. So I'm glad to have these kinds of discussions secondhand, at least proxy wise.

Josie (7:17)

Yes. I like these long form, these long form interviews. You kind of, you kind of get more answers than you would with just, just a post, you know, and a little more information and we can delve into some things. So last week I talked to Joel Berry about Zionism and Christian Zionism. He's a Christian Zionist. And I told him straight up, I'm like, I'm not, I'm. I'm not a Zionist. I'm. I believe that the, that the covenant was fulfilled with the coming of Christ. And that's. As a Christian is what I believe. And, you know, I'd asked him straight up, does that make me anti Semitic? And he said he didn't know how to answer that, but probably not. So, um, anyway, we're going to get into kind of the, the other side of, of that discussion that I had with Joel today. So some of you, I see some of you, I recognize some of you that were in there last week. So you're gonna be able to hear kind of the other side of that. So I actually had invited you guys to. Or invited him to come speak on your show and he wouldn't, so. Oh, wow. Okay. Yeah, we have.

Jay Dyer (8:14)

That's like a double, double turnout. I'm getting ghosted and dissed left and right.

Josie (8:19)

Yes, absolutely. All right, so I guess to start off, who are you and what do you do?

Jay Dyer (8:25)

I'm Jay Dyer. I do a lot of geopolitical analysis. I do a lot of film analysis. I've written four books now, three on Hollywood and one on philosophy and theology. I do a lot of debates with atheists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Protestants, you name it. I've done a lot of debates with feminists, whatever podcast. I've been on Tim Castle multiple times, maybe five times now for some debates as well. So, yeah, I host the fourth hour of the Alex Jones show and I write for the Sam Hyde show. So I do quite a bit of different things.

Josie (8:59)

Very cool. You are a jack of all trades, it sounds like, and you're very knowledgeable. So I'm very happy to finally get you on my show. All right, so I guess to start off, what is Zionism? So how would you define Zionism? Political versus Christian? And why is Christian Zionism incompatible with orthodox theology?

Jay Dyer (9:20)

So Christian? Well, Zionism is a political movement. Some of the founders were religious to a degree, particularly figures in the mid to late 1800s like Heim Weitzman, Theodore Herzl, and Moses Hess, Moses Hess, for example, is the founder of modern utopian socialism. So he also shares a lot of the founders, share a lot of similarities, more so with communism, Marxism and socialism than they do with anything based in capitalism. But even though it's primarily a political movement, it does have a quasi religious association due to the idea that the Jews have a promised homeland, Allah, Genesis 12, 15, 17, etc. With Abraham. And as I said, like some of them also had quasi, maybe you could say agnostic types of views. Moses has, for example in his book Revival of Israel, seems to have kind of Hegelian process theology views. So nothing close to even what we would call Orthodox Judaism. More so he says he's influenced by people like Spinoza, who was a pantheist, and philosophers like Hegel. So that's why it becomes very closely associated again with Marxism and socialism. A lot of the kibbutzes that were established were communal living type situations. But it's incompatible, first of all with Christianity on in any flavor, because Christianity, as you noted, believes that Christ is the fulfillment of all of these Old Testament prophecies and types. So number one, they're obviously going to be split on the notion of the Messiah. Many Zionists don't actually believe necessarily in a Messiah. Some of them actually believe that it's the nation state of Israel or the Jewish race that will become somehow the salvation of mankind in general. So they have a, a kind of a supremacy among some of them, not all of them. There's Orthodox Jews that believe that the Zionist position is actually incorrect and that Jews shouldn't be in the land until the Messiah comes. So there's a variance of opinions amongst religious Jews and even not so religious Jews. But the other element that's really important, historically speaking, is if you read books like the History of the Rothschild Family from authorized biographies, you learn that the political motivations of Zionism are much earlier than 1917 or the early 20th century. It's actually goes back to the 1860s where you had members of the political faction of Moses Hess asking the Rothschild family for, and then Heim Weizmann asking them for money to actually help purchase the land in the Middle East. And this happened pretty early on. All the way back in the 1860s, 70s and 80s, there were movements and actions. The Rothschild family, for example, to purchase large swaths of land from the Turkish Sultan. And originally they wanted to purchase the Wailing Wall as well. But that didn't go through. But it was an earlier project than people typically tend to admit. And a lot of propaganda says things like, oh, the Rothschild family had nothing to do with it. That is patently false. They brag about it in the authorized biographies that they had a huge role. They even brag about the Balfour Declaration as well, even though that didn't really amount to much until many years later. So that's the political side of it. And it's, as I said, probably the most incompatible element would be the socialist tendencies, but also the sort of reading of the religious mythology in a, you could say atheistic way for Christianity, for orthodox Christianity, which I think we would agree with Catholicism, generally speaking on this principle. Christ is the fulfillment of all those Old Testament things. And so the nation state of Israel during the Old Testament period had a very important role in being a type or a foreshadowing of the realities that would come, namely the Christian church. And so, for example, in Daniel 9 you have a famous prophecy in 24 to 27 that when the Messiah comes, the nation state of Israel and its temple administrations would be done away with. This echoes Matthew 21:43, where Jesus says to the Pharisees and the Jews and scribes of his day that the kingdom of God will be taken from you, the vine dressers, and given to another group, namely the Gentiles.

Podcast Sponsor (13:34)

Support for this podcast is brought to you by Walden University. Ever catch yourself thinking, what if I could go after what I actually want and really make a difference? You're not alone. And that's exactly why I want to tell you about Walden University. For over 50 years, Walden has helped working adults like you get the W with the knowledge and skills to build the future you want and make a difference where it matters most. If you've been waiting for the right moment, this is it. Head to waldenu. Edu and take that first step. Walden University set a course for change. Certified to operate by Shev because of.

Jay Dyer (14:10)

The unfaithfulness of Israel and so many other texts. Galatians 6:16. Paul calls the New Testament church the Israel of God, the spiritual Israel. In Galatians 3, Paul says that the only way to be a fulfillment of the promise in Genesis 12 of the seed of Abraham is to be in Christ the King capital S seed. So there's only one seed who is Christ fulfilling all those predictions and promises. And that means that anyone baptized into Christ is the Abrahamic seed. So faith in Christ is what makes you truly spiritually circumcised. And that was also a fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies throughout Isaiah, the Psalms, etc that say that the Gentile nations would convert and worship the Messiah. So that's the basic boiled down case as to why for Christianity it would be a violation of Galatians or the book of Hebrews especially, which is all about the symbology of the Jewish ceremonies being fulfilled in the work of Christ. And then Christianity sort of being the fulfillment of Judaism. So that's why we could never go back to, you know, admitting these points religiously speaking or theologically speaking. And also from a geopolitical perspective, it puts the west and it puts, you know, the Christian so called nations of Christendom in a weird position because the purpose of the nation state of Israel was originally a British imperial project that kind of ended up kind of taking on a life of its own. And then we get into more modern, you know, political foreign policy problems with the nation state of Israel as it is today. So it's a really nuanced, difficult topic, but that's my quickest possible breakdown.

Josie (15:50)

Thank you. What is dispensationalism?

Jay Dyer (15:53)

Dispensationalism is a theology that emerged in the late 1800s out of a sect called the Plymouth Brethren. And this was run by a guy or kind of headed up by a guy named John Nelson Darby. And he came up with this speculation about how history was not unified under an overall redemptive covenant theology, but instead it was divided up into these arbitrary sections where God dealt with man according to a plan A, a plan B, B, a plan C, a plan D, et cetera. And this seven chopped up, you know, sort of schizophrenic view of history where God keeps changing what he wants to do, ends up putting a severance between God's relationship to the nation state of Israel and God's relationship to the church. And so the church kind of ends up being in many dispensationalists, a plan B. And there's still these promises that are completely separate to the nation state of Israel in history. And so it really divides up and Judaizes what was already, as we said in the first five minutes, kind of a fulfillment. The nefarious part of that is that you have people in the, in the west, particularly in America, who fell under the spell of Darby's student C.I. scofield, who was a famous con man he got involved with. He was a Presbyterian minister originally, and then he fell in with some people called the Wintermeyer Club. Samuel Untermyer had a club and that was one of the first prominent Zionists in America, Samuel Untermyer. And they got the idea that if they could put together a study Bible and promote that, then they could probably help sway American evangelical and Bible Belt opinion towards, in my view, some of the geopolitical designs of the British Empire. And so it's not accidental that you have the Scofield Study Bible coming out of Oxford Press being promoted heavily in America. And then that's right around the time when you get, you know, the push for the Balfour decoration. So dispensationalism has a two pronged problem approach, both with Christian Zionism in America with all this weird sort of speculation about end time stuff. And, you know, you've got John Hagee and the seven blood moons and the blood pot, blood moon pies or whatever he's eating. That really muddies up the water, right? And gets it all confused. Because eschatology for Christian theology before Ford Schofield was nothing like this. It's a new kind of heretical, heterodox movement. So that then is also used by, if you go back to the Cold War, there's a lot of evidence for evangelical groups and movements being used by the CIA during the Cold War to really picture anybody who's against the US or against America as Gog and Magog and all this prophetic imagery. But a lot of that had to do with foreign policy and nothing to do with theology. So again, we have a huge laundry list of problems that result from dispensationalism.

Josie (18:40)

Do you think that the Scofield Bible has influenced our foreign policy towards Israel?

Jay Dyer (18:47)

Oh, absolutely. There's no question. Because many of the important people who work even with Trump, you know, you have Paula White and these spiritual counselors, many, many presidents, all the way back to Billy Graham. You know, Billy Graham was a rabid dispensationalist, you know, premillennial rapture teacher as well. And, you know, if you read big historical geopolitical accounts like David Linhoff's book on the history of the CIA's involvement in religion, it's called the Doctrinal Warfare Program. It's declassified in 2013 as a real project. The CIA was very interested in using both Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism as a form of American soft power. And so that that was very crucial to have people especially like Billy Graham, pushing an idea that they believed was effective against the Soviets and atheism. So Billy Graham was also kind of a mouthpie in a lesser degree for the CIA in terms of soft power. I'm not saying he was a CIA agent or operative. I'm just saying he was used. So I'm being very precise. In my terminology, because people are going to say I'm crazy and it's good. So. No, it's not. You can actually find this in the documentation, the PDFs and the FOIA request materials. But yeah, so all the way up to people like Pete Hegseth who, you know, does good things. But a lot of these people, a lot of the big organizations, TPUSA included, they're very influenced by these types of, you know, pro Israel, APAC, pro end times, Zionists, you know, NGOs, think tanks and groups. Kufi is an example of this. John Hagee is involved in Christians United for Israel, which is another one of these operations. Ted Cruz openly talks about, you know, supporting Israel at all costs because it's, you know, God's chosen people. But really none of that is accurate in Christian theology.

Josie (20:28)

So I guess the overall question is why? Why are they pushing Israel? Why are they using religion in this? I know when it came to the founding fathers, for instance, the, the British would push the Church of England and they do horrible things in the name of faith. And we see that happening. But why? Why are they doing this? Is it political? Is it abusing Christianity? Why?

Jay Dyer (20:56)

Well, if you're the state and as a libertarian, I'm sure you, you would know this and you would vibe with this like the state has a desire for power.

Josie (21:05)

Yes.

Jay Dyer (21:05)

And it will use whatever means are at its disposal to achieve that power. And it really has no limits necessarily, or any qualms doing immoral things. And so the state has always understood, going back to the ancient world, the power of religion. And you know, in the ancient world, the state was worshiped. Right. Caesar was God, the state is God on earth, etc. And even though we're in a modern, you know, secular post enlightenment world where we don't think that way, the state still operates as if it's divine, you could say, in general. And so it wants to utilize any possible means. And that could be Hollywood, it could also be religion. And so if you read there's a famous essay by Joseph Nye, who is the, I think he's the Kennedy School, you know, government policy writer that's pretty well known, he wrote a paper called Soft Power a long time ago. And Soft Power is really just the use of American ideology in this case for extending your power through non kinetic means. And so that would be anything that's not warfare but culture. That could be economics. You know, we're pushing free markets, we're pushing total sexual freedom in other countries, we're pushing gay rights like NATO does as a free form of soft power warfare. So the, the, another angle or, or tentacle, you could say is religion. Religion is very useful for soft power and at many, at many levels. For example, there's many books that have been written on how missionaries have been used as spies. They're very, it's a very classic espionage cover for the CIA to use, or as you said, even British intelligence with Anglican missionaries being spies. And even corporations can use missionaries for, for those types of purposes. So evangelical mega churches have a long history of also being used for money laundering. We've had so many cases of big, you know, mega church pastors being involved in all these scandals that are pretty well known. But it's no different with, you know, end times eschatology views. Right. Especially during the Cold War, for example, it was very useful to promote things like, well, you got to be into, you know, how Lindsay's End times books or whatever, because the Soviets are going to nuke us at any moment. And so the power of the nuclear threat combined with eschatology and especially the dispensational theology was a very powerful motivator to especially a lot of evangelical boomers. I mean, my family is a bunch of evangelical boomers. And you know, they still believe that, oh, Putin can nuke us at any moment and it will be the end Times. And Russia is Gog and Magog and they're going to come down and this is predicted in the Book of Ezekiel. And it's all just nonsense, but it's very useful for the average, you know, Middle America person.

Josie (23:43)

Yeah.

Jay Dyer (23:44)

For the purpose of the state.

Josie (23:45)

If you keep people afraid, then they're willing to give up their security. Absolutely. Yep.

Jay Dyer (23:53)

What are you, what's more, you know, like, that's like the, like the most powerful fear is like the end of the world is coming and we're getting nuked. Right. So absolutely.

Josie (24:01)

Yeah. So, so that makes sense. And I know I was trying to read up on the, on the Wailing Wall. Why, why do they kiss the wall? And I'm going, and I'm down a rabbit hole looking at why they kissed the Wailing Wall and what it means. And for them it's, it's a fulfillment of prophecy that we believe has already been fulfilled. Right. And, and they believe and it's gonna like usher in the second Coming. A second, essentially, is what they believe. So it's really anti Christian for a Christian to kiss this wall.

Jay Dyer (24:32)

Yeah, unfortunately. I mean, I think, you know, if you go back to the Middle Ages, if the, the, you know, Kingdom of Jerusalem had maintained its position as a Christian kingdom, which it was at one time. Perhaps you could argue that it could be a form of Christian relic. Because, of course, if, you know, Christians go to Israel, we go and we visit the prop, you know, the tombs of Daniel or Amos. So we would, yeah, we would honor some of that. But the problem is that the motivations, as you said, behind why many politicians do it today and why that's sort of expected is that it's sort of a sign of deference. Right. That you're, you're, you're on board with this program here. And it's, it's nothing really to do with, again, the, the real theology. It's more so to do with, you know, geopolitical subservience. And that's the problem. Absolutely. But it would also be a form, I think, of Judaizing, too, because it's not being interpreted in the context of, you know, this is an Old Testament relic pointing to Christ. You know, if, for example, the Ark of the Covenant was found, you know, and like Indiana Jones found the Ark of the Covenant or something, and he opened it up, right. And the angels came out or what? I'm joking. But if they found it, like, yeah, I'm sure we could say, you know, that's a holy object, just like anything else from the Old Testament. But it would need to be interpreted in the Christian context that, well, the Ark of the Covenant is a type of Mary and a type of Jesus. So it's like the type has been fulfilled. But that's not the way the wall. The wall is understood. It's understood as, as you said, the, the sign of the gentile nation submitting to the atheist nation, state of Israel, and then that being a sign of a coming new Messiah who's not the Messiah. So, absolutely.

Josie (26:13)

Yeah. To us, I guess it would be like an Antichrist. It's not somebody we want to usher in. And it's anti Christian to think that you have any control over that, too. So when I was just down this, I was like, this is, this is alarming to me. But Ted Cruz, when he was on the show with Tucker, he had quoted the Bible and he said something that wasn't even in the Bible. He said, if you bless Israel, you'll be blessed. If you curse Israel, you'll be cursed. What is he referring to? Because we know that nowhere in Scripture, nowhere in Genesis, it doesn't say that anywhere. So what was he actually referring to?

Jay Dyer (26:49)

The statement is said to Abraham, I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you. And so the promise again is to Abraham in Genesis. And that's, there's, there's key chapters that are really important. It's 12, 15, 17 and 22. And those are all the areas where God explicitly makes the covenant with Abraham. And in the Old Testament period, it is true that that was a promise to the church of the Old testament, which Galatians 3 and Hebrews 4 says was the nation state of Israel, just like at the time of Noah, Noah's family was the church of that era. So when we have the establishment of the New Testament fulfillment of that which is the church of Christ Jesus, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but the Christian Church, when that's established, that becomes the new Israel, and that's the fulfillment. And so thus those promises and the warnings of those who attack and try to persecute the church are transferred to the church. So it's correct that the, the blessings and the cursing still apply, but the covenant is no longer with the flesh nation state of Israel, as Paul says in Galatians 4, because that represents the Old Testament. That's the Old Covenant. The new covenant is the fulfillment of those things. And for example, if you look at Revelations 2 and 3, where Jesus speaks through John to the seven churches of Asia Minor, John specifically says, Jesus is now going to bless or curse you seven churches based on whether you are faithful or unfaithful. And Jesus uses that covenant sanction terminology of blessings and cursings. And that lets us know that that warning that was given to Abraham and his descendants and that promise that I will bless those that bless you and curse those that curse you, that's actually now applicable to the church. It is not applicable to those, as Paul says, who are merely fleshly circumcised.

Josie (28:39)

What they always go back to is God would never break a promise. God would never break a promise. But in Numbers 14:32, he actually says, and ye shall know my breach of my promise. He says that he breaks a promise in the Bible saying, if you scorn me, then I'm going to scorn you. And he says this. So a lot of what they use to defend Zionism is kind of picking and choosing scripture. They'll often point to Scripture about God keeping the covenant, but they're going to ignore the Scripture where he breaks the covenant. Deuteronomy 4:26 the Lord shall scatter you among the nations. So it's so we saw Israel be scattered among the nations because of something God did, you know. So When Ted Cruz will come out and say, hey, you know, or Randy Fine will come out and say, we don't have a homeland, we've been scattered amongst the nations. It's like, well, according to scripture, God did that. So what do you think of that?

Jay Dyer (29:43)

Yeah, that's actually a really important, profound point because you have what appears on the surface to be a contradictory position throughout the Old Testament, whether it's Deuteronomy where you have the covenant sanctions, I forget Deuteronomy 26:28, where you have this list of if you are faithful, I will bless you, but if you're unfaithful, I will spew you out of the land and you will be dispersed amongst the nations. You'll be in a diaspora. But there's also promises that God will divorce Israel if they do certain things. So how is God going to be faithful and have an everlasting covenant with Israel at the same time as he's going to divorce her? And predicts that he will in Hosea, for example, and other Old Testament passages, Jeremiah, for example, for unfaithfulness, I will give you a writ of divorce because of your unfaithfulness. He says, well, the reconciliation is explained in the New Testament many times over when the Israel that's always been spoken of is the Israel of faith. And so Paul says In again, Galatians 3 and 4, Hebrews says in Hebrews 4 that at any point in history, the only way that you were really part of Israel, whether it's Abraham or whether it's Noah before the the nation state of Israel is if you had faith in the coming Messiahs. And they were, and they were the Messiah, they were saved in the same way as us, through grace. So the Israel, the only one, is the church at all times, even back to Genesis. So that's the only Israel that even counts. The Old Testament nation state of Israel was a public national covenant of which there were true and false believers amongst them. So the true Israel in the Old Testament was those who had faith in the coming Messiah. So in other words, Isaiah believed in Jesus, Abraham believed in Jesus. And Paul makes this very explicit. Jesus says in John 5, 9, in these debates of the Pharisees, he says, abraham rejoiced to see my day. And he saw it and was glad. Abraham believed in me. I am before Abraham, right? So he's saying all these things the Pharisees say. How could Abraham believe in you? You were, you weren't there. You're a young man. It's because Jesus is the son of God and he created the world. And so he was always the one who was interacting in the Old Testament as that angel of the Lord. He's the one that made the covenant and had that meal with Abraham in Genesis. So that's important to understand how on the one hand, God does keep his faithfulness to the covenant of Israel, which is the true Israel, the church, from Genesis all the way to the end of the world. But he also divorced Israel and kept that promise when in 70 A.D. israel's destroyed by Titus Vespasian, fulfilling what Jesus predicted in Luke 21 and Matthew 24, that on this generation, he says in Matthew 23, all of the vengeance of the things written in the prophets will come upon this time in that. In that time of Christ, because they had rejected the Messiah. So the culmination of Israel's sins happens in the first century with the crucifixion of Christ and It culminates in 70 AD, which I think many New Testament passages, especially Luke 21. Jesus says, you standing in front of me, you're going to live to see Jerusalem surrounded by enemies and its destruction, and then you flee into the wilderness. That has nothing really to do with people living today. It makes a lot of sense to people living in the first century who would in their lifetime see the destruction of Israel, which happened in 70 AD. Josephus, the famous historian, was an eyewitness to this. He wrote about it in his books wars of the Jews, wrote a paper on that in grad school. So you have an explicit, you know, not just biblical reference, but historical, non Christian reference with Josephus attesting to this really pivotal event of the Jews going into diaspora in 70 AD. So that's how you have a actual divorce which happens in the first century when the Jews reject the Messiah. Jesus says, you're going to be the king of God is taken from you. That's the divorce. Matthew 21:43. And then it's opened up to the Gentiles, which fulfills all of those promises, but the Gentile nations will be brought in to worship the God of Israel.

Josie (33:42)

Now what scripture would you say that is? Is that the scripture about the vineyard? Or is that when Jesus has the Last Supper and breaks bread, when, when do you determine it to be the New Covenant is established?

Jay Dyer (33:56)

Well, yeah, I mean, for, I think for most theologians in the Orthodox or Catholic tradition, there's not like one specific instance because really all of Christ's first coming is kind of subsumed under one big thing that is kind of the transition period. So you have from the birth of the Messiah all the way to 70 A.D. this kind transition period. And many, many, you know, New Testament books kind of work through this period. Book of Acts is, of course, describing the history of the church being primarily Jewish for the first 10 chapters of Acts, and then the Jews kind of more and more so on the whole, rejecting it. And it becomes more and more so majority Gentile convert church, even though it's always believing Jews. And According to Romans 9:11, Paul says that God always in every generation still has Jewish descendants that still believe in the Messiah. And so in that sense, there's a remnant that always believes. So God has maintained all of those promises. And whether it's the birth of Christ, his ministry, his establishment, you know, the Eucharist, or whether it's his Death row, resurrection, etc. Ascension, or all the way to 70 A.D. all of those. That's all kind of one redemptive act.

Josie (35:10)

You could say, would you say one where he says, the covenant is now with the Christians? So if there's one passage that you had to point to where anybody listening could say, actually, no, the covenant's no longer with you, it's with us now. And this is my scripture to prove that.

Jay Dyer (35:29)

Yeah, I think the, the Last Supper is a strong one because this is, you know, the blood of the new covenant of my flesh. I mean, that covenant reference is a reference. If you look at the Masoretic text of Jeremiah 31 and 33, that's a reference to those two chapters of Jeremiah, because Jeremiah had said that when we come to this new era of the Messiah, it will be a new covenant, not like the covenant that I made with your forefathers. So not like the Mosaic covenant, but something surpassing it and superseding it. And although the Orthodox Church normatively uses a Septuagint for the Old Testament because the apostles did sometimes there's really interesting insights in the Masoretic text, which is what Protestants and Jews use, because even within those Masoretic texts, there's some really powerful statements that were kind of left in that still point to the superiority of where we are now. And if you read Jeremiah 31 and chapter 33, you get this idea that when the branch, when the Messiah, the Davidic branch comes, this new covenant will be superior. And if you understand that new covenant language that Jesus is saying with the Eucharist, you're spot on.

Josie (36:34)

Excellent. If anybody in the audience has a question that you have for Jay or for myself, you can go ahead and request to be a speaker down there. At the bottom. And I will make you one. Be brave. Be brave. A lot of times I don't get any questions. Sometimes I get a slew of questions. So we'll see. What?

Jay Dyer (36:52)

Well, I always open it up to. People debate me all the time, so I welcome opposition. Feel free.

Josie (36:57)

Yeah, absolutely. All right, Got one.

James (37:08)

So I just posted in the purple pill down there Leviticus, where he says he will remember the covenant with Israel. And also when you go into like, things in Genesis where he establishes the covenant, he basically establishes a covenant between the people and the land. And I do think you're correct. This is a very convoluted topic because it's been twisted and edited over 2000 years.

Jay Dyer (37:33)

Right.

James (37:34)

But with the, the Darby stuff and the Schofield stuff. Yes, they're incorrect. There's no rapture, pre tribulation rapture, any of that stuff. But when you go back and you look at the ancient church, like, what's his name? Irenaeus, he goes over dispensationalism in the historic manner, the way they used to believe it, where it's not that God changes his mind, becomes schizophrenic, so to speak, over the dispensations is that God laid out what was going to happen over each dispensation or each period of time. That's why the disciples ask, you know, what's going to be the sign of your coming in the end of this age?

Jay Dyer (38:14)

Right. So the end of the age is. What I'm referring to was 70 AD. In 70 AD, the age of the Old era, the entire old covenant ended. That's why many passages in the New Testament talk about the destruction of the temple as the end of the old age. The Book of Hebrews is about the destruction of the temple and the rolling up of this, the heaven and the earth, which was symbolized by the temple. The temple is a little miniature of the entire universe. It has that stellar symbology in it. So when the temple is destroyed, that's the sign of this whole Old Testament and fallen world being done away with. Everything in Adam is now recapitulated in Christ and will be restored in Christ. So to go back to Leviticus, though, as the New Testament makes very clear, many, many times over, Paul says in every one of these passages in Leviticus, that's referring to the typology fulfilled in the church. Irenaeus is not teaching dispensationalism. This is a word concept fallacy that you're mixing up the dispensation, which is just God's way of dealing with people at different times in history. That is not dispensationalism. That's a much later mistake. So two different things have nothing to do with each other. And Irenaeus is not teaching anything like this.

James (39:24)

I agree. He's not teaching anything like modern day dispensationalism. He is. He is. Does say though that Israel will come back into the land. And he does state very clearly that and the Antichrist, the final Antichrist, will come and set the church to flight. So when Jesus says, yeah, I believe.

Jay Dyer (39:44)

That too, then that has anything to do with dispensationalism.

James (39:46)

But when, when Jesus says that he would come back at the the end of the age, which would be the church age as the dispensationalists call it, apparently. You know, he says that he would gather his elect and then establish his millennial kingdom, right?

Jay Dyer (40:04)

No, the kingdom is the church. He set the kingdom up in Matthew 16, in the first advent, but he.

James (40:11)

Said he would gather his elect. And then if you go back now, if you're counting what we are now as the is the millennium, the kingdom of Christ, then Jeremiah is a liar.

Jay Dyer (40:23)

How's that?

James (40:24)

Because Jeremiah said that during the millennial reign of Christ that your baby will stick his hand in a viper's nest and be fine and your kids away with lions and the lion's gonna eat grass and everything. The world's gonna be a piece.

Jay Dyer (40:35)

You're reading, you're judaized as a heretic. Reading that literally. It's not talking about babies literally putting their hands, it's in viper's nest is talking about the peace of the Messiah brings in his church and his kingdom. That's why the New Testament always interprets these things in a spiritual way. Jesus comes back. Yes, there's a bodily resurrection, but those passages are not taking what it to mean what you think.

James (40:56)

How much peace has the church brought?

Jay Dyer (40:59)

The peace is within the church. Jesus says the kingdom of God is within you. In the book of Luke, the kingdom of God is the church. Matthew 16 Peter says you are a chosen nation, a royal priesthood. First Peter 2. The church is the kingdom. So your pre millennial heresy is the root problem of this. Which means that you're a judaizer.

Josie (41:25)

Are you there, James?

James (41:27)

Yeah, I'm here. Sorry, I'm having a laugh.

Jay Dyer (41:32)

So every time the New Testament cites Psalm 110, it says that when the Messiah ascended, he sat at the right hand of the Father. Okay, That's a reference to the ascension. So every time the New Testament site Psalm 110. It is not about the end times or a future premillennial kingdom. It's about the ascension, which happened in the Book of Acts. That means that his reign began at his first advent and he reigns in the church. And that's the key component that you're missing, which is that the historic church isn't Protestantism, it's the Orthodox Christian church. Irenaeus that you mentioned was a bishop of the Orthodox Church. He teaches what we teach.

James (42:09)

So when, when Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies, did he literally and physically fulfill them as they were written, or did he just symbolically and spiritually fulfill them?

Jay Dyer (42:18)

No, it's both. And so in Luke 21, he says, you standing in front of me will see the temple destroyed. I will come in judgment on the clouds. If you read Isaiah 19, and if you read the Book of Ezekiel, when God comes to destroy enemies and places the kingdoms, the judgment is the other nations that come in and destroy them. Did he literally fly into Egypt on the clouds or did he come in judgment with another nation to judge them? Is prophetic language in Luke 21 and Matthew 24 talking about Titus Vespasian destroying Jerusalem in 70 A.D. so evangelicals unwittingly take away one of the strongest prophecies in the New Testament that the New Testament documents are accurate by not understanding that Luke 21 is historically about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So he did come in judgment in 70 AD on Jerusalem through Titus Vespasian, which is exactly what he did throughout the Old Testament. Likewise, he will come again bodily at the end of the world. So it's a. Both and it's not another or.

James (43:14)

Yeah, so. And that's, that's what I'm getting at. It's a. Both ends. So the, the destruction of the Temple was fulfilling what Jesus was talking about when he said that no stone will be left. But, and so yes, the destruction that came. But you also got to look back at the prophets. They said Israel will be dispersed three times into the nations, the third time into all the nations, first into Assyrian, then Babylonian. Now, if you want to look at the Balfour Declaration as being something of man, then you must also look at the declaration to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem as something of man.

Jay Dyer (43:47)

You know why.

Josie (43:50)

Why don't, why don't.

Jay Dyer (43:51)

Because in, because in the promises that we mentioned earlier in Deuteronomy and the covenant promises, God says that when you are righteous, I will then restore you to the land. And so if you want to interpret Balfour Declaration, all that as a righteous movement back into the land. The problem is that according to the Orthodox Jews, they shouldn't be there because they were not actually righteous and brought back into the land. So can you demonstrate that in the early 20th century, the Jews were suddenly righteous when they went back into the land?

James (44:20)

Oh no, they're definitely not righteous. And they're going to be judged for that.

Jay Dyer (44:23)

Two thirds of Israel is going to die back in the land.

James (44:26)

According to you, 2/3 of Israel is going to die.

Jay Dyer (44:30)

What does that have to do with this point?

James (44:32)

Well, that's what I'm saying. They're being re gathered into the land for the final judgment.

Jay Dyer (44:37)

In the covenant promises, you're not able to come back to the land until you're righteous. So you're arguing that? Well, I guess they must have been righteous. Well, when I go, if you look at Tel Aviv, it's giant, the world's gay capital. Is that righteous Israel?

James (44:50)

Well, they're. They're not restored to the fullness of the land yet.

Jay Dyer (44:54)

They're just in a post now. It's fullness of the land.

James (44:59)

Well, that is what he promised, right? The fullness of the land. No, the Balfour Declaration is the beginning of the fulfillment. It's the regathering of Israel back to the land.

Jay Dyer (45:10)

Judgment. Then at the time of the Balfour decoration to go back.

James (45:14)

Do what?

Jay Dyer (45:15)

When were they righteous? How do you demonstrate that at the time of the Balfour decoration to have the right to go back?

James (45:22)

Well, they're not righteous. But he also says they would regather them to the land without being righteous for judgment because they're going to be judged.

Jay Dyer (45:30)

You just contradicted yourself. You said that they're not righteous at that time. You said a minute ago that they were partially so. Which one is it?

James (45:36)

So when Christ comes back, Israel, which is the believing Jews and the Christians.

Jay Dyer (45:41)

Again, it has nothing to do with the end times. It's about 1914. Were they righteous at that time?

James (45:46)

No, they're still not righteous. And neither are.

Jay Dyer (45:48)

We don't have a right to go back to the land according to the covenant, which you're referring to. Are you familiar with the covenant promises and curses?

James (45:58)

Yes, I just posted one.

Jay Dyer (45:59)

Okay, so it says when you repent, then you can come back to the land. You just admitted that they didn't. So you contradicted yourself.

James (46:11)

I guess you'll see because it's about to happen. You're watching.

Jay Dyer (46:14)

You're a prophet. Okay, sure you're.

James (46:16)

Well, no, I'm just following prophecy. I'm not a prophet.

Jay Dyer (46:19)

I am following what the Bible insane interpretation. Which is exactly why this Protestant evangelical nonsense puts us in this idiotic position.

James (46:27)

I'm not a Protestant or evangelical. That's the problem.

Jay Dyer (46:30)

What are you?

James (46:32)

A follower of Christ?

Jay Dyer (46:35)

Well then you're Protestant or evangelical because that's the only thing that's not orthodox or Catholic. You have to be one of those.

James (46:41)

I don't have to be anything. I can just be a follower of Christ.

Jay Dyer (46:44)

You're a cult leader making up your own religion.

James (46:46)

No, I go to a church that's non denominational. It's not Protestant or evangelical evangelicals.

Jay Dyer (46:51)

Now you lied because you said you're not evangelical when you are.

James (46:54)

Just because I go to a church for fellowship does not mean that I ascribe to every, everything that they say.

Jay Dyer (47:00)

Well, you're dishonest because you go to an evangelical church and you just said I'm not evangelical. So that's.

James (47:05)

No, the evangelicals are like the holy rollers rolling around on the floor.

Jay Dyer (47:09)

And it's any, it describes anything that's like a Protestant, not classical, Reformation church. So you're just ignorant.

James (47:17)

Sure, if I don't understand all the terms. Because I don't really care about the terms. I care about what the scripture actually says.

Jay Dyer (47:23)

So you're, you're proud of your ignorance. Good job.

James (47:26)

Well, the Lord says he'll make you a fool.

Jay Dyer (47:31)

And you think that literally means being a fool. Okay, well, thank you.

James (47:35)

And as a man. Yeah. A lot of people think, a lot of people think you're crazy when you, when you say what the Bible actually says.

Jay Dyer (47:41)

But you can see it, you think that you're spiritually appointed to things and you have no idea what you're talking about. Is there anyone else?

Josie (47:53)

James, do you have any follow up questions?

James (47:57)

Well, all I'd say is why is Israel the center of the topic right now? Why have they become so significant in this day and age at this time?

Josie (48:09)

That's a good question. Why would you say Jay?

Jay Dyer (48:13)

Because for many years people have criticized Israeli involvement in American foreign policy and they were censored and they were defamed and they were mistreated and called every name in the book. And now that has sort of broken through the, the, the control. And so now people are figuring out that our foreign policy is not for American interests, but is for foreign interests. That's why.

James (48:37)

And why do you think it waited till just now as Israel really starts coming back into the land and making aliyah and specifically from the north more abundantly than the rest?

Jay Dyer (48:49)

They just start Coming into the land. They've been going back to the land according to you in 1914, but they were going into the land in the 1860s, which. Did you even know that?

James (48:57)

Yeah, no, they, they had people there during that time.

Jay Dyer (49:01)

Huh.

James (49:02)

It's been, it's been a slow roll, that's for sure. They've been gathered in slowly. But do you not also admit that there's a, an increased focus on Israel and the topic of, of discourse in the world? There's an increased hatred towards Jewish people.

Jay Dyer (49:21)

I just stated one.

James (49:24)

Okay, but you're looking at it from the physical point of view, look at it from a spiritual point.

Jay Dyer (49:32)

We just spent 20 minutes arguing the spiritual point of view. So you're just fundamentally a slow person, man. I don't know what to tell you.

James (49:40)

You'd be surprised. Anyways, I'd keep an eye on Israel and I'd keep an eye on those two aircraft carriers that are gonna be there.

Josie (49:48)

Thank you, James. Does anybody else have any questions? You go ahead and request via speaker down there at the bottom and I will make you one. That's good. I do like these long form interviews and I like it when people can come up and debate. And that was, that was very brave of you, James. So how do you think? Okay, so how should anti Zionist Orthodox Christians approach US Aid to Israel, regional peace, and the Jewish Christian dialogue in general?

Jay Dyer (50:21)

Well, it's funny you said that because we just had the patriarchs and heads of the Orthodox Church in Jerusalem yesterday issued a statement that Christian Zionism is absolutely destructive as a heresy in the Christian sense and by the way, never existed until, you know, the last hundred years. So this should tell people who have any interest in being associated with or connected to the historic church which actually put the Bible together that this recent heresy should, that should alone be an indicator that this is a bunch of baloney. But I mean, it's just destructive like, because again, it's not that Jews shouldn't have a homeland. I think that they should, but. And not. It's not their own faults that at least the Jews living today that the British Empire and the Rothschilds and these people decided on putting that homeland in the Middle east on purpose to create a powder keg. There were other places that were discussed. There were, there was discussion of Austria, New Zealand, all kinds of different places were considered for a Jewish homeland. And it was actually a tiny mustache man that supported the exportation of those people. And through the Havara agreement, the tiny mustache men followers supported it being in the Middle east. And so you really couldn't have where we are, at least post 1948 with the United nations recognizing the nation state of Israel without tiny mustache man and his persecutions. So my view, I believe that the banking elite, the power structure in the west, funded that war. They wanted that war. So I don't blame Jewish people for wanting a homeland or for where they are. It's, that's why there's no easy answers to the solution. But the problem is that Americans are forced into, and I agree that I don't care whether it's Qatari or whether it's anything, we shouldn't have our tax money, you know, trucked off to all these foreign countries, Ukraine or any of them, because it's the maintenance of this ridiculous empire, which is what this is all about. And so the money is all for corporate scammers and political elite. It's all stolen, it's all used for blackmail, it's all funneled into just nonsense. And that's why our country is being destroyed.

Josie (52:36)

So do you think that they landed on Israel because of the holy sites and the history as opposed to Austria or opposed to somewhere else?

Jay Dyer (52:44)

I think that if you read quickly on it, he goes into quite a bit of depth about this. They, they felt like that would just resonate better with the people. And so, you know, Jewish people would have a natural affinity with the land of their ancestors and Abraham than if it was some other place like New Zealand. So I mean, I think that was one component of it also. This is, you know, going back to the great game. And at that time, the British Empire really wanted to establish outposts that would be strategic against the Ottomans. You know, prior to that, when it's in the 1860s, the, you know, when the Rothschilds are buying the land from the Sultan. The Ottoman Empire was a big threat to the British Empire. This is also why the British radicalized and made alliances with a lot of Sunni groups and Wahhabi groups to fund or to fight against the Ottomans. And so that's why Turkish Islam, the Turks and the, the Sunnis have always fought. The British want to control, for example, Muslim holy sites. They wanted to control Mecca because they felt like they could control Islam. So likewise, if they could control the Middle east through a proxy like Israel, that's why they wanted it to be there. So there was a lot of reasons why Great game battling Russia, it's not just Ottomans, they were also part of the great game against Russia. So they wanted all the outposts that they could have and also oil. There's a great book on this by a French intelligence analyst named Gilbert Munier and he has a book called Black Gold Spies, which is the history of the British Empire. They were split amongst their intelligentsia and the Royal Society leads. There were the Arabophiles like Kim Philby and Gertrude Bell and St. John Philby and not kill him. Phil. Excuse St. John Philby, his dad, Gertrude Bell and T.E. lawrence. They were obsessed with and loved Arabic culture and them loved Islam, but you also had the Rothschild side of it. They were obsessed with and loved Zionism eventually. And, and the Israeli, they were Israelophiles. So the British power structure was struggling with this. They were split. And for example, a lot of those British spies, they didn't want the nation state of Israel. They were absolutely opposed to it. And these are really prominent, important people too. So if you look at. There's actually a. It's not that great of a movie, but all of this plays into the film. It's. Nicole Kidman played Gertrude Bell in a movie. I forget the name of it, but she played this famous British spy. Of course, Peter O' Toole played T.E. lawrence famously in Lawrence of Arabia. And so if you watch those films, you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. So I'm sorry, that's a long answer to your question, but it's all the above.

Josie (55:24)

That's a good answer. J.R. are you there?

Jay Dyer (55:29)

Yes, I am.

Josie (55:30)

Hi, do you have a question for Jay?

Jay Dyer (55:34)

No, I just wanted to back up what he was saying in regards to. Me and Jay are friends, by the way, but.

James (55:44)

A lot of.

Jay Dyer (55:50)

A lot of American Protestantism, separately from Israeli Zionism had developed an idea of Christian Zionism in its own theology because of, you know, the way that they particularly read the Bible. And so that's, that's another thing why the actual world of Palestine would be the proper place for it and why it would fit in with American zionism in the 20th century. Because there was already a misreading by American Protestants that moved in that direction already as well, corresponding with, with, you know, like Israeli Zionism, like Theodore Herzl, parallel to that. Yeah. And John's correct, to be. To be precise, even before Scofield and Darby, you had Anglican ministers that were sort of proto. They weren't dispensationalists, but they were, were British Israelite theory proponents. And they had come up with this idea that the nation, the, the lost tribes in the Old Testament were actually somehow perhaps the British Isles tribes. And so they kind of felt like England and So forth, were sort of this, you know, directly associated quasi Zionist Jewish heritage group. And so that prepared the way, I think, for the rise of Scofieldism through the. Because the Plymouth Brethren were not like a huge movement. You know, they were kind of a small sort of, of, you know, decentralized split out of Anglicanism. They didn't have a huge influence, but they, There was this tendency which, which exists even amongst the British royalty to this day, where they kind of believe this weird mythology that they have a descent from Jesus. Some of them do. This is why they will reference Joseph of Arimathea. And supposedly they descend from, from this biblical heritage. It's. I mean, it's all ridiculous, but it's useful again for, for geopolitical purposes. Right. So if you're, if you're a medieval king and you can say, well, I'm actually descended from the House of David. So like, you could see how that might be useful.

Josie (58:01)

Absolutely. Do you have a hard stop at 8?

Jay Dyer (58:04)

I. I'm down for whatever.

Josie (58:06)

Okay, cool. There's more questions. I just, I didn't. I wanted to be respectful of your time.

Jay Dyer (58:10)

No, it's cool.

Josie (58:10)

All right, great. Well, James, who was asking you questions earlier, has a follow up. So James, what's your follow up?

James (58:17)

That I'm. I'm curious. What, what is your understanding of the geopolitical landscape that must be in place before the Antichrist rises and the Messiah returns?

Jay Dyer (58:30)

As the Orthodox Church teaches, that there will be a falling away at the end of the world by the Church, there will be some mass apostasy, there will be an Antichrist figure. He will probably arise out of the nation state of Israel. Hence he would be able to dupe those. Like Jesus said, if one comes, you know, in his own name, him you will believe. Jesus says in John. So we believe that there will be a worldwide persecution. There will be, you know, some form of total global economic control. So we believe those things. We do believe there will be a mass conversion of the Jews. Most of the church fathers teach that, especially the Eastern church fathers because of Romans 11. But none of that has anything to do with dispensationalism or the modern Protestant Judaized heresy. So.

James (59:15)

Well, I was more specifically asking about the world governance. What is the government stance supposed to be during this time?

Jay Dyer (59:24)

The government stance? I don't understand the question.

James (59:27)

Like, so what, what form? Okay, the ten Kings also. Hey, Lewis, how's it going? The ten. The ten kings. Do you guys believe or ascribe to the fact that the ten kings will Arise, and then the Antichrist will take out three of them.

Jay Dyer (59:41)

So I believe that if you read books like Days of Vengeance by David Chiltern or Chilton, or if you read Peter Leihard's commentary on Revelation, that most of what's happening in the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD with Nero. So I don't have any direct copy paste analog for every one of the elements of the book. Revelation to the end of the world. The Orthodox Church has a humility approach to it. We believe that as the end of the world approaches, we will have the mind of Christ and we will know how to interpret those things. But as at this stage, we do not know.

James (60:13)

I would just like to point out that within six months we went from no king protest to Long live the king in Iran.

Jay Dyer (60:20)

You got to understand, a lot, a lot of. A lot of Protestant eschatology is 20th century, late 19th century. That's it. Like, there isn't any, like, interpretation of the, you know, of tribulation or the end times. That's all developed in the 20th century. It's not any older than that. I don't think he cares. He's doing it. He's a lone gunner for Jesus.

James (60:49)

So, no, Irenaeus specifically states that to.

Jay Dyer (60:53)

Not be worried anything like what you teach.

James (60:55)

Irenaeus specifically states to not be worried until the ten kings arise.

Jay Dyer (61:01)

Irenaeus has nothing to do with what you believe at all. Why are you studying Irenaeus?

James (61:05)

Because that's part of where I got my understanding from. It's from Irenaeus.

Jay Dyer (61:08)

But Irenaeus is a bishop of Leon. Huh. Does your church have bishops?

James (61:15)

Does what?

Jay Dyer (61:17)

Does your church have bishops?

James (61:18)

We have elders.

Jay Dyer (61:20)

That's not a bishop. That's not an episcopate. Right. So if you read book three of Against Heresies, or if you read books four, he talks about the tradition of apostolic succession. Does your church have that?

James (61:31)

Well, no, because.

Jay Dyer (61:33)

Right.

James (61:33)

All the churches have a very incorrect understanding of what's about to happen.

Jay Dyer (61:37)

Right. And you've got to figure out. No. So that's why I'm saying you're in pre last and you have nothing to do with Irenaeus.

James (61:42)

And so like I said, you. You'll find out.

Jay Dyer (61:44)

DIY dude.

James (61:45)

You'll find out. Keep an eye on Israel on those two aircraft carriers.

Jay Dyer (61:50)

Okay? Are those the scorpions in the book of Revelation? Is that the aircraft carriers? Is that what John was prophesying? The aircraft carriers?

James (62:00)

No, that's in Daniel.

Jay Dyer (62:05)

You're just an idiot. Yeah, no talking about aircraft carriers.

James (62:09)

Dude just. Yeah, he was the wings of the eagle what's on an aircraft carrier.

Jay Dyer (62:15)

So actually you're schizo. I thought we were actually into like product. This is just schizo level stuff.

James (62:20)

Keep an eye out, you'll find out.

Josie (62:23)

Thank you, James. Does anybody else have any questions? There was somebody in here with a question, but I think they got booted out. So if they come back, I'll add them back in again. Anybody else has any questions? I have some. Are the Jews of today the Israelites?

Jay Dyer (62:40)

I do agree with the way that most of the church fathers of the later post, you know, patristic era, like they continually speak of the Jews as Jews. And so there is Judaism, there are Jews. And for the Jews to convert there has to be the existence of Jews. So I do believe that Jews exist. They are actually Jews. I don't believe what the people think, that there's no such thing as Jews anymore. That's kind of a crazy position. Jesus says salvation is of the Jews. In John 4, the book of Zechariah talks about Jews. So Jews are a thing. They do exist. They are real. But it is true that Rabbinic Judaism went off in its own direction in the second and third century as it gradually moved away from Christianity. So they parted ways and they have very different worldviews, a very different ethos. There really isn't such a thing as Judeo Christian civilization because they're diametrically opposed at the root. But that doesn't mean that there's no Jews and they don't exist. There is Judaism and as Romans 11 says, St. Cyril of Alexandria says the Jews at the end of the world will convert. John Damascus says this in on the Orthodox faith, one of the signs of the end of the world is the conversion of the Jews.

Josie (63:48)

Excellent. I'm going to go through, read the comments. All right. ICE says Paul's faith never wavered for the sake of Christ. Then I am content with weakness, insults, hardship, prosecutions and calamities. For when I am weak, I am strong. Corinthians 12:10. Thank you. I All right. Dude said, this is from Alexandria. Dude said, and neither are we righteous, even though the Bible calls us righteous a bajillion times and he doesn't know he's an evangelical. He his opinion on biblical interpretation should be rejected. Okay, I'm guessing that was about James or okay, we are hearing the gospel of progress. Are we hearing the gospel of progressive Christianity? I just heard about or was warned about this in church today. So. So that's a Question, are we hearing about the gospel of progressive Christianity? He was warned about it in church.

Jay Dyer (64:52)

Who is. Are we hearing about it, like with me talking about it or like in.

Josie (64:56)

It sounds like it sounds like a question that he has in general. Like Jay, are we learning about the gospel? Gospel Christianity? I just heard about that today in church.

Jay Dyer (65:06)

Yeah, I mean these kinds of things pop up all the time. Like, you know, back in the 2000s, there was the emergent church movement which was, you know, this weird kind of evangelical NGO creation to try to remake non nominational churches with kind of a little bit of tradition. And so I think there's always these kind of new trends that spring up. But in my view, you know, the only church that has all the same views as the church of the first thousand years is the Orthodox church. So if you want to guard yourself from that, the best place to guard yourself from that is the Orthodox church, in my view.

Josie (65:40)

Okay. Gotex says on a side note, Jay kind of sounds like John Goodman. Well, Jay doesn't look like John Goodman, but.

Jay Dyer (65:49)

Well, thank you. I mean I could put on an. Actually he lost a lot of weight. So I was going to say like maybe, maybe. Is it John Goodman in, you know, like in the 90s or like John Goodman as King Ralph? Hopefully not.

Josie (66:00)

Like he's a good voice.

Jay Dyer (66:03)

Maybe he means I'm Eli Gemstone. Right. It's like the righteous Gemstone Sully from.

Josie (66:07)

Monsters Inc. Alright, what makes Jay Dyer an expert? What makes you an expert, Jay?

Jay Dyer (66:17)

Well, I didn't claim to be an expert.

Josie (66:18)

But you interpreted as one then.

Jay Dyer (66:24)

I mean, I would say there's certain fields that I'm proficient in. I would say there's a couple of areas that I might qualify as an expert in, but I wouldn't give myself that title. I think it's a little pretentious. But I mean, I know philosophy and worldviews very well. I would say I know debate very well. But in these other areas, they're just areas that I've spent, I don't know, 25, 30 years studying diligently.

Josie (66:46)

I think that that's enough. I mean, we saw the experts during COVID weren't experts at all. So, you know, I think that it's, it's fine that you don't claim to be one. I think that that's admirable.

Jay Dyer (66:58)

I mean, my grad work focused on philosophy and psychological warfare, so I could say I'm proficient in those areas.

Josie (67:04)

What's your, what's your, your degree in?

Jay Dyer (67:08)

Well, I left in the midst of my grad thesis. So I did peer review, publish it. I like to say that just because people, well, they used to, I think, view peer review more highly than they do now.

Josie (67:20)

Yeah.

Jay Dyer (67:21)

So I always like to debunk peer review by saying, well, if you think I'm crazy, you realize I am peer reviewed. Right. Like, I can point you to my peer review paper, but no, my studies. Well, I went two years of grad school and as I was working on my master's thesis, had a huge falling out with the advisor. But I studied English and philosophy.

Josie (67:38)

Very cool.

Jay Dyer (67:39)

My grad work was on James Bond, actually.

Josie (67:43)

Really? Like who.

Jay Dyer (67:47)

Who. Like the way that Bond was used in the Cold War as a form of propaganda.

Josie (67:51)

Oh, okay. I see. Interesting.

Jay Dyer (67:53)

If you find, if you can find my, my grad paper, at least the first chunk of it. It's. It's like the Journal of American Sociology and Economics and it's. It's called the many layers of 007. Was my grad paper how they were using James Bond as a form of soft power propaganda during the Cold War.

Josie (68:13)

Interesting. I'm seeing people use. I mean, I, I study revolutionary history. I'm seeing people bring that up at every term with everything going on. And it's all very. A very feeble understanding of what actually happened and saying, oh, it's just like the Boston Tea Party and it's no dude. So, yeah, that's. That can be kind of rough sometimes.

Jay Dyer (68:35)

Did you study that academically or is it just a personal interest?

Josie (68:38)

That's a personal interest of mine. I'm an autodidact, so. And I try to do my best, but I mean, I gone to school.

Jay Dyer (68:46)

I did.

Josie (68:46)

I have an associate's degree and all that, but I took some courses, but I'm like, this isn't. I was in Massachusetts, so I guess that, that, you know, was a lot of rewritten stuff. And I knew it was. And so I was like, I don't need a degree, I can just teach myself. And so I did. I studied for like eight years of. That's why I am the way.

Jay Dyer (69:07)

Yeah, I think that's definitely acceptable. I'm not that I judge your studies or whatever, but my assessment, you know, most of what I learned in undergrad and grad school, what the best part of it was, just that it forces you to read a lot of people that you normally wouldn't have read. It forces you to engage with and, you know, interact with ideas that you disagree with that you probably would have just dismissed. And then it forces you to write hundreds and hundreds of papers. And so the writing was, I think, the best thing for me because that led to, you know, writing books. So I probably wouldn't be able to do that if I had not done all those stupid college papers.

Josie (69:38)

Absolutely. And that's how I learned, too. I'm not sure how you learn, but I have to write so I can. I can read and read and read, but it's. As soon as I write it down, it's committed. It's committed to my memory.

Jay Dyer (69:49)

Well, I mean, I mark up. My books have to be all marked up. So that's the only way that, like.

Josie (69:54)

Oh, yeah, notes in the margins, for sure. All right, this question is question for all the listeners. In your opinion, has Christian Zionism been a net benefit or a net liability to Christianity's moral witness and continued presence in the Holy Land, and why? You can answer that.

Jay Dyer (70:13)

Well, I mean, anything that is a heresy or anything that's heterodox cannot produce good results or good fruit. So I would say there has to be overall assessed as something that is. Is bad fruit. For example, you know, in Palestine, you do have Hamas, which was set up by Israel originally as a counterbalance against the PLO that's in Victor Swapsky's books. But you have, the same time a small minority of Orthodox Christians there. So to support the, you know, removal and deletion of those people amounts ultimately to persecuting the, you know, the Christian church. So, you know, evangelicals are completely ignorant of that, but they would have to be in this position. Like Ted Cruz kind of is of like, you know, well, you have to support whoever. Anybody that's an enemy of Israel is an enemy of, you know, God. So that's a net negative.

Josie (71:04)

Yes. All right, this last question, all right, it looks like it's referencing when James had mentioned Israel was in the news a lot. But it says question Iran is in the news a lot and it has been. Does that mean Shia Islam is true?

Jay Dyer (71:22)

Of course not. I've debated most of the top Muslims out there, had some pretty serious engagements and chats with one of the foremost Shia scholars. We argued on several open live streams and X basis. So of course not. Shia Islam is an insane cult. It's basically just Neoplatonism. And no, it's not any more true than rabbinic philosophy is.

Josie (71:52)

James, you have a question?

James (71:54)

No, I was just gonna make a statement on that question because it seems like it was a little misunderstood. The fact that Israel is targeted in that or is primary in the news is part of what the prophecy says that Israel will be the focal point of all the things that are going to happen.

Jay Dyer (72:09)

The news has nothing to do with your.

James (72:11)

Can, can I finish my statement, please? I thought you were well versed in debates, but the thing that was going. The thing that's going on in Iran. The thing that's going on in Iran. Okay, well, are you well versed in conversation? Can I finish my thought?

Josie (72:26)

Finish your thought, James.

James (72:27)

Thank you. So the thing that's going on in Iran is the first of the ten Kings rising. That is why you're seeing the king and that's why the United States is pushing the prince, the exiled prince of Iran to come back in and take over Iran. That is the first king rising.

Jay Dyer (72:48)

Brilliant.

Josie (72:49)

Thank you, James. Alright. Okay, well, I'm done with my questions. There don't seem to be any more questions from the audience. So you mentioned books, you wrote books. Where can people find your books?

Jay Dyer (73:02)

Books? Yeah, if you go to jasonalysis.com which is my website. I have a vast archive there of stuff. But I also have three books on Hollywood, esoteric Hollywood. One, two and three. And this is over a thousand pages of symbolic analysis of film. And then I have my red book which is about 600 pages of apologetics, theology, philosophy. You can go watch all my debates with all the top Muslims. If you think that this makes me feel some sort of weird Muslim apologist. Totally not true. You can watch all the debates I have with atheists and yeah, it's all at Jason else's.

Josie (73:36)

Jason.

Jay Dyer (73:36)

What?

Josie (73:37)

Jsanalysis.com jsanalysis.com okay, perfect. All right, great. So jsanalysis.com if you like this interview and you're interested in what Jay has to say and go find more information there and his books there. Thank you again. How can people find you and support your work?

Jay Dyer (73:54)

Yeah, you can also follow me here on X. Just Jay Dyer. You can find me on Instagram. I'm usually hosting the fourth hour of the Ox Jones show on Fridays. I've done that for the last six years. You can find me at the Sam Hyde show if you watch the first season. I co wrote most of those, so yeah, that's where I'm at. And I'm on YouTube. J D on YouTube and I'm happy we do, we do almost daily live streams so you can find me usually live streaming on YouTube.

Josie (74:19)

Very cool. And I'm happy to have you debate somebody on my show.

Jay Dyer (74:25)

Oh, anytime, absolutely.

Josie (74:27)

Love to host debates and I so hard to find people who want to debate at this point.

Jay Dyer (74:31)

Exactly. I know.

Josie (74:33)

Yeah. I'm going to keep you. Keep you in the wings for that. All right, so when I log out, I'm going to have you hang out with here with me for a little bit. But we're going to let these guys go now. Thank you, everybody, for coming. Take care of yourselves, take care of each other, and stay free.

Jay Dyer (74:54)

Sam.