Know More News - Adam Green - Blotting Out Abrahamic Myths with MythVision

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 23, 2021 - Know More News - Adam Green

01:30:12

Blotting Out Abrahamic Myths with MythVision | Know More News LIVE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to No More News Live.
	Thank you all so much for joining me today.
	Wednesday, September 22nd, 2021.
	Joining me today to discuss the myths, to expose some myths, is the host of the Myth Vision Podcast.
	It is a show on YouTube that I have watched a ton of in the last year.
	It is essentially the go-to spot for scholars, academics, and authors, and content creators to discuss religion.
	He discussed all types of myths, but mostly I would say the Abrahamic faiths.
	I have learned a ton from all of his guests, and I have always wanted to have a conversation with him.
	The host of Myth Vision Podcast is here, Mr. Derek Lambert.
	Thanks for being here, buddy.
	Thanks for inviting me, man.
	How are you?
	I am excellent.
	Been wanting to talk to you for a long time, get your take on some of the things.
	I feel like I know you.
	So this is a pleasure, yeah.
	So you are a former Christian, a Calvinist Christian, and now you are running basically one of the most popular debunking Christianity websites.
	I mean, not that that's your focus to debunk Christianity, but you are essentially YouTube channels.
	How did you get from there to here?
	What was that process like, the experience of leaving Christianity?
	What made you change your mind and actually break the chains of Yahweh?
	Well, that was well put.
	Thanks for inviting me on the show, by the way.
	And I would have to say, first off, I was many versions of Christianity.
	And then finally, at the end, I became a Calvinist.
	Before I left Christendom, though, one of the big hiccups I ran into was eschatology.
	The study of last things for those who aren't aware is what's going to happen in the end.
	And so I started exploring amillennialism, post-millennialism, the ideas that the world's going to get better, or some say it's going to get worse.
	And there's all these ideas that were floating around.
	And I wanted to be biblical.
	Were you an end times fanatic, would you say?
	Huh?
	Were you an end times like apocalyptic enthusiast?
	I took it seriously.
	I had dreams about the end.
	Fire on the heavens coming down.
	And then I had another one where lightning bolts struck me and I was floating up, being raptured, things like that.
	So I kind of would say I took it serious enough that it impacted how I viewed like my gospel preaching to others, trying to convince them to come to this religion before that end happened.
	My wife had nightmares that she got left behind with my brother and I got taken because I was so fanatical about this stuff.
	And then at the end, what happened is I found out about this movement called Full Preterism.
	Now, this is extremely fringe.
	I mean, like 0001, 0.0001% of Christendom would even know what this is.
	It's the idea that Jesus predicted he would return in that generation in the first century.
	Now, scholars know this.
	Like, this is unanimous among scholarship.
	Even some scholars who still remain Christian recognize that it didn't happen.
	It failed.
	The end didn't happen.
	So it had to happen or it didn't happen.
	And as a Christian, I couldn't live with that.
	So I had to accept that it happened.
	And I said, okay, Jesus came back.
	Everyone else is wrong about this.
	I'm going to go with the words of Christ before I go with any words of any man preaching from a pulpit, especially when they can't ever agree with each other.
	So I ended up coming to this position that what was expected happened, but I had to find out how.
	And I wanted to reinterpret everything through the lens of 70 AD, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.
	So everything became centralized on that.
	I'm still in Christianity, though, even though I'm ostracized by many Christians.
	I got excommunicated from the Presbyterian church for this whole idea.
	And they really shunned me to a point where I didn't want to go back.
	So then I get a letter in the mail saying you're excommunicated.
	Wow.
	An official excommunication.
	Wow.
	First time I've ever seen anything this legit.
	Yeah.
	Because most churches just say, you know, look, look, you're not A member or whatever, it's not even that serious.
	It's like you could become a member of the church, but it's not like legal document.
	They sent me a legal document.
	It was legit.
	And I was really shocked.
	My wife got one as well.
	We were like, well, we don't want to come back anyway.
	So long.
	So you and your wife both left the faith together?
	Well, she never took it so serious.
	It was always me.
	And how long ago was this?
	How long ago were you like a believer that Jesus died for your sins?
	I would say probably seven years, six and a half, seven years ago.
	Before I, right, before I was really bad off on heroin, actually.
	So there's, I've got a lot going on in my life.
	I was addicted to drugs and alcohol.
	I struggled with that for many years.
	But I'd say about six, seven years ago.
	And then you got clean and walked away from the faith, or you walked away from the faith and got clean.
	As I was deconverting from my idea of Christianity, it didn't happen overnight.
	I was getting clean off drugs.
	And I honestly owe it to critical thinking and where I'm at and the way I think now to why I'm clean today.
	I honestly think that freedom actually of being able to use my faculties without the cognitive dissonance that comes with particular practices of faith to why I'm still clean today.
	And it's six years would be October the 25th of heroin.
	That's awesome.
	Yeah, bro.
	So you'd say that like the thing that mostly changed your mind to got you stopped believing was that like the early Christians and Jesus made prophecies that the end would come in their lifetime.
	Paul mostly said that, right?
	That the end of the world would come in their generation.
	Right.
	That actually didn't make me leave.
	I just started to be concluding that that's what it meant.
	So I believed still.
	What got me out of it was actually starting to see comparative religion.
	Once I saw the similar motifs, not identical, no one's saying that it's a Xerox except maybe Zeitgeist.
	And even that movie was interesting.
	Don't get me wrong.
	But they did like an over-comparison, it seems.
	And like Horace had 12 disciples and die or was born on December the 25th.
	They do stuff that's not actually accurate in the source material.
	But there are motifs, Osiris dying and rising from the dead, and them drinking the beer and the cornbread as part of a communal to eat and digest the God in order to ascend and have eternal life into the heavens so they could traverse the underworld and go to become divine and all that good stuff.
	That motif and similarities to what I saw with Jesus, Dionysus, you know, looking at this similarity to this God named Dionysus.
	When I started to do that, I said, hold up.
	I still was a theist.
	I still believed in a God.
	I just let go of Jesus is the only way and this is the true religion.
	And I said, well, maybe God's just showing a reflection through all of the religious worldviews, through all cultures, if you will.
	Like the six wise men of Hindustan that were all blind and they went to see the elephant and they all are touching it, but they're just defining it similar, but also different.
	And that was the way I looked at God.
	Eventually, critical thinking and looking into science and things like that started leading me out of it altogether.
	And I started going, whoa, what are we, what is this ancient superstition that we've been like holding on to for so long?
	And I was duped into this whole thing.
	I think most of us are on planet Earth.
	But you've had people on your show that have all different types of theories about what Christianity really is, how it originated, who was behind it.
	And I find the debate kind of about if it was the Romans with the Caesar's Messiah and Joseph Atwell did it, or even the David Scurbina and kind of the camp that I'm on, that it was created more so for the benefit of the Israelites or the Jews.
	And I was wondering what side, what camp you kind of lean towards, who you think was behind it.
	Or was it just an organic thing that spontaneously happened and there was no like nefarious lie behind it?
	That's a good question, right?
	I'm always still exploring this one because the data is so it's not as solid as I'd like it to be to be able to be so it's funny.
	Let me give you one example why I'm going to answer your question here where I personally am at right now.
	If someone can come to the conclusion that Rome invented it based on their interpretation of certain data, you know, render under Caesar and Paul saying, obey the laws of the land and yada, yada, yada, okay.
	All of these things.
	And then someone can come to the exact opposite interpretation out of the same data.
	It should tell you, well, maybe the data is a little faulty.
	Maybe the data is all over the place.
	Maybe there are various views within this one thing and it's not homogenous.
	That's pretty much what I'm at now.
	Is like, I wouldn't say what Mark all the way to Revelation, or if we start with Matthew as the first in the New Testament, which we don't say chronologically, it's not first, but I would say that it's not homogenous.
	And also, I right now am considering that it may be organic, but not completely organic as if nothing else had any interference.
	I do think the destruction of the Jerusalem temple really catapulted this movement in, it definitely made major impact.
	I honestly think that it wouldn't have been such a successful movement potentially.
	Do you see, like, when you watch rabbis, they say that it was God that destroyed the temple and they say that that was the prophecy.
	Like, I watched Dr. Michael Brown say that because of Daniel 9, the Messiah had to come before the temple was destroyed.
	And then the exile was part of the prophecy and then the return and restoration to the land.
	What do you think about that?
	I'm going to be blunt here.
	Okay.
	I think that they're just piggybacking off failed prophecies over and over here.
	I think Daniel flops on its face, it belly flops, and it hurt because they thought they were going to land in water and they didn't.
	Face plant.
	Next thing you know, they pick up a failed prophecy to reuse this fell prophecy.
	And anyone can do this.
	Like if you want to, there's 490 years for these things to take place.
	I honestly think that that's what they're doing is they're either, which in that case, their failed prophecy, but I've also considered these people were so zealous about this belief of prophecy that it wouldn't shock me if some of the things that are written in the New Testament are kind of a self-fulfilling type of thing.
	No divine necessity here.
	You don't have to say God is involved for someone to believe this is what something's supposed to happen.
	So I'm going to make it happen.
	It's like, it's like the, I'm going to get a little bit here into contemporary times when, okay, before what we had in the establishment of 1948 with the Israel, okay, we had Zionist presidents that were ready to go over there to fulfill the end.
	You don't even have to say a God exists to say a fanatical religious Christian is involved in the concept of trying to fulfill prophecy.
	That takes no divine power whatsoever.
	It just takes political and people convinced of a superstition to be actively involved in creating something like that to happen.
	So it's simple as that to me.
	I think the rejection of the Jews of the first suffering Messiah, that's what the prophecy in Isaiah and elsewhere says, is that they would be blinded, they would be hardened.
	This is even what the New Testament says.
	So it almost seems like rejecting the first Messiah is part of the prophecy.
	And that Messiah goes to the Gentiles.
	And then now the Gentiles spread the Torah and the belief that salvation is from the Jews, worshiping a Jewish Messiah, that that is fulfillment.
	I mean, that's what the Messianic Jews and Christians believe.
	I think it's interesting what you're saying here because if we look at Rabbi Akiva, for example, many Jews thought he was the Messiah.
	He would be the guy.
	Some still view him in some status like this in some way.
	I mean, it's not everyone across the board, but there were plenty of people who rejected the guy.
	Now, in the Jesus movement, this happened in just the right time in which a temple's destruction is taking place that we can really fault the Jews for this particular thing in the New Testament.
	Now, I watched your debate or discussion debate with Michael Brown earlier today, just to kind of rehash, because I knew we were going to go into the field of some of this topic.
	And it wouldn't be fair to go outside of that.
	I already know you want to go into this.
	So it's like, okay, let's talk.
	And what I mean is we're talking about Judaism and Christianity and the whole Abrahamic faiths and such.
	Zionism, end times, prophecy.
	Yeah, that's like one of my big focuses.
	That debate was more so kind of focused on Noahide laws.
	And it was a few years ago.
	I've read so many books and learned so much.
	I didn't even know about myth vision back when I had that debate.
	No, no, no, I got it.
	I'm just making the point that Michael Brown was trying to get away from John having anti-Semitic or at least blaming all of the Jews.
	Oh, no, no, no, it's this is always the leadership.
	No, scholars come across the board, they don't have an axe to grind to sit here and say it's anti-Semitic.
	I mean, why do you think the church fathers did what they did and viewed Jews in such a manner?
	They're reading their text.
	You just go to the manual book, and the manual book tells them how to, oh, these assholes.
	And that's how they looked at it.
	There's a verse of Paul that, like, they are the enemies for the sake of the gospels, but that their covenant or their something is can't, you can't take it away.
	Say that again?
	Sorry.
	Paul says in the Gospels, I think it's Romans, that they are your enemy for the sake of the gospels.
	Like they wanted them to be the villains in a new religion.
	It kind of elevates them to like the center of the Gentile world as being God's chosen.
	I think it's right now.
	I just recently interviewed, and I always kind of shift my ideas as I go.
	I want to say this up front for the audience.
	I have very close friends that are Jews.
	Totally disagree with their worldview.
	At the end of the day, Rabbi Tobia Singer interviewed him on really good friend of mine.
	We would disagree.
	He, like, I don't have him on the show to jab at the Old Testament, but I do have him on the show to point out things in the New Testament that might be ignored by most people.
	And I have fun doing that.
	But Paul, if you, it depends on what scholar you're asking.
	This is the confusing thing about Paul because in Paul's letters, if you take Paul and place him within a form of Judaism and don't make him anti-Torah, Paul seems to be saying the Jews are rejecting his message.
	He's trying to give his gospel, his gospel, meaning this is my message I'm giving you of Christ.
	They've rejected him.
	Now he's saying, look, God has put a blind on Israel.
	They're blind right now.
	This is the way the scholar I just recently interviewed, Matthew Thiessen, said, and they're blind.
	So right now, I'm going to go and I'm going to vacuum clean up all the Gentiles I can.
	Then, once that happens.
	Now, I know some people would reinterpret this differently, like Jason Staples.
	He has a different interpretation of Roman 11:25.
	That's what I'm talking about.
	That's what I was referring to, or 28, basically.
	Romans 11:28.
	All Israel shall be saved.
	Go ahead.
	I don't want to interrupt.
	Oh, no.
	I was just, it's funny that I was looking for that and you brought it up.
	As the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake.
	But as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.
	Right.
	Continue.
	Were you making a point, though?
	Did I interrupt?
	Yeah, just simply put, right here, this interpreting these things.
	I have some serious guys that I've had on who totally take opposite positions.
	It's not so clear, is the point.
	And I mean, they're like, no, this is the way I see this.
	Some people want to say, even in this passage, that the Gentiles are apostate Israelites.
	They interpret the Gentiles here as apostate Israelites.
	Now, I'm giving you a fringe concept, right?
	This is not a majority, but there's a group called Israel Only, and they consider all the ethne, the ethnos that are utilized in Greek, you know, the goi goiim, if you will, in Hebrew.
	These people that Paul's scooping up, they want to argue are actual apostate Israelites in some sense.
	Whether you want to call them non-Jews, they still call them Israelites, but they apostasized.
	Now, personally, I don't take that conclusion.
	I just want to draw that to make the point.
	There's like four or five different positions on how they interpret this particular passage, and no one can agree with each other on it.
	I don't even know what, I don't even know how to conclude it right now.
	I'm like, okay, I'm picking up this information and studying it and wondering what does this actually mean in Paul's mind.
	We're trying to read his damn mind, and we don't have enough information, I don't think.
	So, let's talk the gospels and or actually like the select the idea carrier's thesis, basically, that Jesus started in outer space as a celestial entity.
	Why is that not convincing enough to you to the archetype of the Christ that you Still think that, like, that there's a kernel of truth there, that there was an actual person.
	There could have been.
	Could have been.
	I don't want to come off dogmatic in any way on either side.
	When I was a mythicist, you know, at first, I'm like, there's no way this guy existed.
	There was no way.
	Because it's obvious what you're reading is not historiography in the sense that we think of it today.
	And even if you go and read ancient historians, there's, I'm reading right now M. David Litwa, and he's talking about how the gospels became history.
	And he's explaining how they had manual books.
	They told you how to write fictional history to convince and entertain your audience, but also to give them some nuggets, if you will, of historical verisimilitude.
	Just simply saying, there's some truth to this, but overall, it's a story.
	And I think the gospels are that.
	So at first, I went all full mythicist from believing Jesus was God in the flesh to, okay, hold on, does this guy even exist?
	And that seemed very convincing, and it's still plausible to me.
	Now I'm like, okay, if we had more information, Richard Carrier is using the ascension of Isaiah as one of his texts to point out a celestial concept of a dissension of the Christ from the seventh heaven sliding through each layer of heaven, getting down to earth, without the archons noticing, which are simply the demonic powers.
	In his position, everything, in a sense, in Paul's mind, is all spiritual.
	So the archons of this age or the God of this age, you know, Ephesians 2, etc., like every single passage you see this is always a spiritual in nature.
	It's never human.
	And the historicists are saying, no, no, no.
	There's some human activity here.
	There's some stuff on earth.
	The way that Elaine Pagels interpreted this, she said, look, the Jews became demonized by the Christian text.
	And what we have is the Archons oftentimes are either the Romans, depending on who's interpreting the text and how they understand this, the Romans who are doing the persecuting.
	In Revelation, I do think Rome is the problem here.
	That's who Paul says.
	That's who Paul says is the, and that's who the enemy is.
	Rome is the enemy of Paul.
	And he says it was the Archons that crucified Christ.
	And that's all that's in his letters.
	Yeah, and like, how do you interpret that?
	Because the gospels are blaming the Jews and making the Romans innocent.
	But then in Paul, Paul, unless you interpret it as an interpolation in Colossians and other places, he says that the Jews are to blame.
	And you have this idea: is it the Jews?
	Well, punishment's coming on Jews.
	Or is it Romans?
	This is why you have like the Roman side of people that say that Romans were involved.
	You have the guys who are against that and take the opposite position.
	And then you have others who are saying, look, the people who are involved in rejecting Christ are Jews and the Romans.
	Both of them are a problem here.
	And you have the archons of the age, the demons, the demonic powers, the daemons, if you will, that are in control of these people.
	So it's not either they're all heavenly, therefore Jesus is in heaven this whole time.
	He gets crucified in heaven.
	He dies in heaven.
	He was born a Jew in heaven.
	To me, it's a little ad hoc to say.
	It's actually not even born in heaven.
	It's like molded or created in heaven, is the word in Greek that they use.
	So the Greek word there, and I have a show coming out with Dennis and Richard on that specific verse in Galatians.
	And that word can mean manufacture.
	Right.
	And it can mean born.
	Like Adam was manufactured.
	Well, I remember from Fitzgerald's books, he says that everywhere else there's it, Paul uses a different word for born and that it actually means manufactured.
	That might be true.
	That might be true.
	Either way, if he's man, I mean, even if he's descending in Philippians, you have the dissension idea that he's some type of celestial being who did come down and take on flesh.
	He lowered himself.
	Whatnot.
	Huh?
	The logos, like the intermediary.
	Right.
	So let's change gears here a minute.
	Like, I just wanted to get your thoughts on like the influence that religion has had on the last 2,000 years and like the threats and the dangers of modern day religion and like the end times apocalyptic Armageddon fanatics.
	What's your thoughts on all of that?
	It's poisonous.
	it's extremely doomsday cults are extremely poisonous.
	I mean, for many reasons.
	Obviously, they're neglecting the here and now, focused on the hereafter.
	They're trying to accomplish things that honestly divide us more.
	You know, I'm a guy who does think we evolved, okay?
	Some people might disagree who watch you.
	That's fine.
	I don't care.
	At the end of the day, I think we're very tribalistic.
	We're still coming from a hunter-gatherer concept and trying to apply it to a scientific age where this is only causing us more division.
	I think the world would be a much better place if we didn't have these ideologies out there.
	That's my honest opinion, bro.
	I don't need religion to be a great person.
	I didn't need religion to get clean.
	Now, someone else might go, that's your subjective experience, Derek.
	You're just coming out with your own opinion, and therefore, this and that.
	Well, there's tons of people who've had this similar subjective experience.
	And I don't know.
	I don't feel like burning people at the stake because they believe Muhammad is the prophet.
	I don't want to behead you because you think Jesus is Lord.
	Personally, at the end of the day, I think you're just either misguided, okay, ignorant like I was.
	So that means you just aren't aware.
	Cognitive dissonance may play a role as to why you're rejecting anything that might go against your beliefs.
	And I understand that.
	I try to empathize as a human.
	I love people.
	I helped a Muslim three months ago, had him move into my house, which will be the last time I move anyone into my house again for a whole month.
	I helped him get off fentanyl.
	He was dying on the streets of New York.
	I didn't care about his faith at the end of the day.
	I didn't care about his eschatology.
	I didn't care about where he came from.
	I cared about him as a human being.
	And I think these faiths often are trying to sell you something in order for you, like, like they'll help you as long as you somehow acknowledge their particular belief system.
	And a lot of times they're negative in dooms.
	It's just like doomsday cults.
	The three, yeah, they are.
	They're death cults.
	Like the, I've been watching rapture, people that believe in the rapture on YouTube.
	And seeing that, like, a video has got 300,000 views in a week and 15,000 thumbs up, and the guy is just praying for the end of the world the whole time.
	It's so incredibly dangerous.
	These people are self-fulfilling, working towards these ideas of the end of the world.
	It is a death cult.
	Obsessed about the afterlife also instead of this life.
	I see the three Abrahamic religions as kind of the three legs of a chair holding each other up.
	Like they're codependent and enabling one another, and it's just all so destructive.
	You've been doing some videos.
	Mostly you usually see you focusing on Christianity, and now I see you're doing some videos with Islam, having debates and stuff.
	How's that going for you with the comments and the firestorm that you're getting from that?
	Look, I'm like, it is definitely worse than what I've experienced from Christians.
	They can be pretty harsh too, though.
	Yeah, they can, but like, to me, I can just kind of giggle it off.
	Like, it's like, ah, you know, you're just, you want your warm and fuzzies.
	You want your Jesus juice.
	And I get it.
	But like with the Muslims, I could see it being there's potential threat, right?
	Where some people are like, watch it if you want to keep your head on your shoulders.
	Why?
	Because I don't believe he's the prophet because I think this book is man-made.
	That I think there's a way to naturally explain its development using Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, as well as the pre-Islamic, you know, Arabic pagan cults of the era that had the Kaaba and all that kind of stuff.
	I'm going to be beheaded because of that.
	Like people making threats like that in a free country where I have the right to bear arms, bring it.
	I've said this.
	Like, I'm not afraid of any threats like that.
	So the bottom line is those kind of people need to be blocked, ignore.
	Okay, they're idiots.
	Now, there's some people that I feel like you can reason with that might consider some of this information.
	My duty, as far as I feel, is to try and educate people and to realize these are outdated.
	2,000 years ago, I wouldn't have cringed at the beheading of that lamb that he's squeezing the blood out of its neck.
	Okay.
	This today, I watched that and I just thought to myself, really?
	Like, that's disgusting, right?
	We would not be okay with that kind of thing, right?
	Well, now you're talking about a human sacrifice.
	Whoa.
	I looked this up the other day because I was talking to my friend and I was like, there's probably this many Christians.
	It's 205 million Christians in the United States.
	It's like two-thirds.
	of the country is Christian.
	Just imagine all of the ridiculous things that a Christian must tacitly believe and endorse in order to be a Christian.
	The long list of crazy stories in the Bible and miracles and stuff and fictitious fables and immoral lessons and stuff, 205 million.
	It's declining, but it's also incredibly pervasive.
	Like, have you seen any of the QAnon stuff?
	QAnon has morphed into like an apocalyptic Christian cult as well.
	It's going to be biblical, dark to light, which is a Kabbalist term.
	These people thinking Trump is like their Messiah, the decoding and the secrecy, it's everywhere.
	It's taken over like the whole Republican Party almost, Christian Zionist, and QAnon.
	Yeah, it's ridiculous.
	And here's the thing.
	I used to believe in this stuff.
	QA probably jumped on the bandwagon if I was still in this.
	So like, I can giggle about it because I know exactly what is going on in their brains.
	It's sad.
	So I'm doing my due diligence to try and help people like have all the tools that are needed to look through this.
	Adam, were you, how long ago was it when you were a Christian?
	You know, I never really considered myself to really have been a Christian.
	I grew up.
	I was forced to go.
	They tried to indoctrinate me until I was about 16.
	So that's, you know, maybe 20 years ago.
	But just even at the youngest age, I was like, this doesn't seem right.
	I kind of always knew that I was being indoctrinated into a cult.
	And the peer pressure and the fear tactics.
	And I did believe, like, I was scared I was going to go to hell.
	I believed in demons.
	And I thought, you know, I was scared to say I didn't believe in God, although I would question it.
	I thought, oh, I'm going to go to hell, like to get over that fear, the fear-based mind control.
	So, but just, you know, the internet and doing a lot of research and then just getting into this Christian Zionist cult.
	It really is like a Judeo-Christian temple cult that I see as ruling the world, basically.
	Religion has been dominating the world for the last 2,000 years, and it's all based upon the Torah and blood magic and covenants and a jealous God.
	I see it as just like I'm in the twilight zone.
	That's why I'm doing what I'm doing, bro.
	I mean, it's working.
	I can't tell you how many messages I get every single week, every single day of every single week that are just like, dude, your show, what you're doing.
	I did not know this.
	I was never told this.
	And you know, the most interesting, subtle things that really blow people's minds that were Christians is the small stuff, bro.
	They won't accept the whole Jesus is a dying and rising God like other dying rising God motifs and such.
	They won't accept that stuff at first.
	What really got them was, well, in my church, they never told me that the ending of Mark was not original.
	That the earliest gospel we have doesn't even have Jesus appear and show up to the other apostles.
	Like, it's, you know, there's no for the Pentecostals, right?
	They're snake handling churches and all that.
	That passage is not originally there.
	Or the woman caught in adultery.
	Was that really there?
	The Trinitarian verse in 1 John, like, there's so many things they didn't know.
	And then they're like, but it's perfect the way we have it.
	King James Onliest and such.
	If you just crack, you know, you find that one piece of the lizard's skin missing and you can pierce it, all of the skin starts to fall off.
	And that's what happened to me.
	I started to actually investigate.
	And when you do that, you really run into, okay, this is obviously a narrative that really got out of hand.
	I mean, we're talking, if they're writing literature like Dennis McDonald thinks that they are, Matthew, or Mark really at first, Matthew's using Mark.
	Luke's using Matthew and Mark.
	John's just its own breed of things.
	If you're looking at Mark, Mark's not only using the Hebrew Bible, Mark is mimetically using the Hebrew Bible as well as the Odyssey and the Iliad.
	I am really convinced of this at this point.
	This whole week I was there with Dennis and Richard, Richard's convinced of this.
	And Richard is the last guy who wants to agree with other scholars.
	He usually comes to all these conclusions himself.
	And he's like, Dennis is onto something here.
	They were using other great narratives and epics from both the Greek world as well as the Jewish world to create this narrative.
	Yeah, Carrier writes a lot about how the passion story, he believes, comes from Romulus, the passion of the fictional story of the founder of Rome.
	What are some of the reasons you think that, what was it, the Odyssey and the Iliad?
	That it comes from that.
	What's some examples?
	Yeah, let me give you a couple.
	So, and some of them aren't like, oh my God, you got me.
	There's the thumbprint.
	We know he murdered her.
	That kind of example, right?
	There's no like gotcha moment in some of these.
	But once you see the clear connection of some of the more obvious, then the other more subtle ones become clear.
	And this is what he's written in all his books, which I have two of them here.
	So Luke and Virgil here, all right?
	And this is pretty much imitating Luke and Virgil.
	Luke's using Virgil and the Aeneid, of course, plus he wrote Acts from using the Euripides, the Bacchae.
	This one right here is Dionysus.
	Half the face is Dionysus.
	This is Jesus, right?
	It's just an image, but it's really good.
	Let me just give you one story.
	You remember the woman who was a, I guess you'd say, an adulterer or a sinning woman?
	She comes to Jesus and she anoints him, breaking the alabaster jar, anoints his feet, and washes his feet with her hair.
	The Pharisees say amongst themselves in their hearts, now, you know, in antiquity, they thought that you think in your heart.
	They didn't know that the brain is where thinking happens.
	So they thought in their hearts, if he knew what woman this was, he would never let her even touch him and all that kind of stuff.
	Well, she does this, and Jesus stands up and says, wherever my gospel is preached, wherever my story is told, let this story of this woman be told far and wide.
	Now, when you go over to the Odyssey, you know, Penelope is Odysseus' wife.
	Odysseus is coming back.
	One of the gods had to cloak him and make him look like a beggar.
	So he comes back.
	One of the maid women of Penelope comes out and starts to say, Hey, get out of here, beggar.
	Now, in antiquity, you would take care of your poor and your homeless, and you try to be decent at least.
	Penelope goes to take care of him.
	She says, I'll give you one of my beautiful young maidens.
	No, I want someone who's walked a hard life like me.
	So he gets the older woman who actually raised Odysseus when he was a little child.
	She was the midwife that had him suckle from her breast.
	Long story short, she's washing his feet and she notices a scar on his ankle in the Odyssey.
	Now, this is 700, you know, ish BCE.
	And when she sees it, she recognizes this old beggar that's in disguise, that's really Odysseus, is her master, her lord, Odysseus.
	And she goes, Master, it's you.
	And he tells her, shh, it's not my time.
	Tell no one.
	We'll get killed.
	I'm not ready yet.
	Long story short, her name is Eucalaus, or something like that in Greek.
	The name means far and wide.
	The woman's washing her master's feet.
	Jesus is washing, or she's washing Jesus' feet.
	And he says, wherever my gospel is preached, let the story of this woman be told far and wide, Eucalaus.
	Okay.
	When you start to do that, and then you realize when he was baptized by John the Baptist and the Holy Spirit descended like a bird, a dove, to him and said, this is my son.
	All you got to do is go to the Odyssey and the Iliad.
	But the Odyssey, Telemachus, which is Odysseus' son, he is starting to doubt that he's even the child of Odysseus.
	And all the suitors want to kill him so they could take over the town of Ithaca and marry his mom Penelope.
	Well, she's holding out for Odysseus, hoping he'll come back.
	Telemachus is on his walk by himself doubting.
	And it says Athena flew in Greek, flew down to Telemachus.
	And she empowered him and said, you are Odysseus' son, encouraged him.
	Next thing you know, he goes back and starts to Tell the suitors, here's the deal.
	You know, I'm not backing down.
	They said, What got into Telemachus?
	He's empowered.
	Well, remember when Jesus went to his town, they go, We know his brother and his mother and his sister.
	What the heck?
	What happened to this guy?
	Like, we knew this guy.
	It's a mimetic myth borrowing from Greek epic and Jewish Old Testament literature to create its own fiction.
	So, not only does in David Litwa think this, but so does Dennis MacDonald.
	I highly recommend checking out the upcoming videos that I'm going to do on the channel, but also maybe his books.
	If you really want the depth, it goes on and on.
	Everything, the death of Jesus and the death of Hector.
	I mean, I can go on and on.
	Hector was dragged by a chariot by Achilles for three days, and his body never broke apart.
	Now, remember, they're not supposed to break the bone in Jesus, but he dies for because it's because it's the Yom Kippur goat that's not supposed to be broken bones.
	But there's no reason that it can't be eclectic.
	Here's my point: it doesn't have to be one or the other.
	These men knew Greek, they had to know the story of Homer, the Iliad, the Odyssey, in order to even learn Greek.
	That's how they were taught in antiquity, which Dennis goes in depth on the whole thing.
	You're right, though.
	Hector gets killed.
	Achilles drags him around for three days.
	Then the father of Hector, who Hector's the hero of the city, goes to retrieve the body like Joseph of Arimathea.
	Arimathea.
	Right.
	These are so clearly connected to me.
	I think scholars are blind.
	I don't think that they're accepting the reality of the myth here.
	Talk about scholars that are blind.
	This is one that I've learned from my friend Christopher John Bjorkness.
	Have you heard of Phanes from the Orphic Greek myths?
	I've heard of it, but I don't know much about it.
	So Phanes is like a prototype or a predecessor to Dionysus.
	See, it's connected to Dionysus and Dionysus Protagonos, Phanes, the dying and rising God.
	So this is Phanes.
	It's the Orphic egg wrapped in the serpent and listen to this character to bring light to shine, just like Jesus.
	Firstborn God of light to emerge from a void of watery abyss, gives birth to the universe.
	This is exactly how they write of Jesus.
	And I've never seen Carrier or anybody, I think, on your shows mention this Phanes-Dionysus connection.
	I'm going to write that down because that is, you know, there's probably so many gods as well that like no one's actually spent the time showing.
	I mean, Justin Martyr and some of the early church fathers recognize this problem.
	And they're like, well, it's nothing different from your gods.
	I mean, come on.
	So it's definitely there.
	It's just, have we really mined exhaustively all the nuggets that would expose what it is?
	And really, that automatically debunks the narrative of the whole institution.
	The whole New Testament, yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, period.
	The whole thing, man.
	Because even if you go into the Old Testament, you're going to find out Genesis is using the Mesopotamian flood stories, creating its own myth.
	And it's not just there.
	Moses' birth narrative.
	Like, you name it, man.
	It's myth.
	A lot from the Canaanite.
	They get the gods from the Canaanites, I believe.
	El and Asherah.
	Yep.
	Absolutely.
	Have you heard the one?
	This is from one of Fitzgerald's books also.
	That Paul's conversion story is basically copied completely from the Bake, that ancient Greek play that was everywhere, right?
	You mentioned it a second ago.
	And that they know it's copy because they use the same idiom or term in both.
	And it doesn't make any sense in the New Testament, but it's in the Greek play.
	So you know that that's hard to kick against the goads.
	Kick against the goads.
	You do know about it.
	Yeah.
	So this is really cool.
	You might want me to zero in on this for just one second.
	I really love this stuff, man.
	This is what made me feel freedom from all the bull.
	And I'm not even, I'm trying not to cuss because I'm just me, man.
	I'm just me.
	So forgive me.
	I apologize, audience.
	I love this stuff.
	Once you know what it is, you want everyone else to see it.
	Right.
	Because it's like, what are you guys doing?
	You're hurting people.
	You're saying they're going to go to hell forever.
	Don't you know that that's fiction?
	That's not true.
	And it's to control your mind.
	And I mean, look, I don't want to get too lost in all this, but the point is, Paul is on the road to Damascus.
	And sure enough, Jesus knocks him to the ground with the blinding light.
	And he says, Saul saw, not Paul.
	His name ain't even Paul.
	Get that out of your head.
	I did a show called Better Call Paul Saul or Better Call Saul Paul, something like that.
	I had a Michael Koshinosh, PhD.
	He was a student of Dennis R. MacDonald.
	He wrote an entire article on this, why scholars miss this.
	Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?
	Go to 1 Samuel, I think it is, where David is being chased by Saul.
	And he, like, for the third time, pretty much trying to say to Saul, Saul, I could have killed you, man.
	Your life was in my hands many times, but you're the Lord's anointed.
	I'm not going to do nothing.
	And what does he say?
	Saul, Saul, why do you pursue me?
	And in Greek, the word for pursue is identical to persecute.
	It's the same thing.
	All they did was lift the narrative from Saul and David, put it on to Saul or Paul, and then they use the Euripides the Bacchae narrative where Dionysus blinds.
	I can't remember the man's name, but he's going out there toward the Minads in the woods that are having orgies, and he's watching them in the trees.
	And they see him.
	He blinds him with light.
	The Minads, which is like his family member, rip him into parts and put his head on a pike and take his head back into the city.
	Well, the difference is this.
	You got to pay attention to the differences.
	These authors say that's the point.
	It's not the similarities, the differences.
	And what's the difference?
	Well, Jesus is more mercy.
	He shows more mercy to his enemies.
	Whereas Dionysus did not show mercy and he did not acknowledge him as a son of God.
	Paul or Saul finally realizes Dionysus was a son of God, by the way, of Zeus.
	Jesus, he acknowledges, was a son of God, and he shows him mercy instead of killing him.
	Benes is the firstborn and even the begotten son, like the Adam-Cadmon character, the Logos that Philo.
	Like, no, no scholars will disagree.
	What does that say?
	This is the one, bro.
	It goes into everything you're talking about.
	The Dionysian gospel.
	The gospel of John is exactly what you're talking about.
	Isn't the Lord's Supper also pulled from that too?
	They had a very similar and Melchizedek also had a sort of Lord's Supper, which Jesus is the retelling of the high priest of Melchizedek.
	So, like, no scholars will disagree.
	It's a syncretic religion.
	It's a blend of Judaism mixed with Hellenistic pagan religions.
	Do you think that this is just, I mean, it's inevitable that there's going to be blending of stories.
	People are together over time.
	But my theory is that they wanted to create a New Testament for the non-Jews to follow so that they would abandon their pagan gods.
	So, in order to entice them, they kind of blended them with their own ancient stories so that the pagan world would be more likely to adopt it.
	Because to the ancient Jews, don't you think they'd rather have their enemies be Christians than all of the other pagan gods?
	I mean, you're not, it doesn't sound ridiculous.
	Let me put it that way.
	What you're saying makes a lot of sense.
	I mean, if you wanted to get non-Jews to join a hybrided version of yours, at least come somewhere closer, you would do what you would see in much of the New Testament.
	Absolutely.
	It's like an antithetical religion that they set up, where the villains of Christianity are the Jews, and then the villains in Judaism are the Gentiles, essentially.
	Here's the reason I don't really like, I don't jump on any theory at first, right?
	I try to let it saturate, let the sauce saturate, and then I'll go to cook it on the grill.
	Here's what I let me throw out some possible other hypotheticals for you at the same time.
	Yours could be just as plausible or even more plausible.
	But what if during the first century you have Hellenistic Judaism, Jews that were very influenced by the pagan world?
	I mean, Dr. Price talks about this all the time, that they would even go so far as to act like their far ancestors somehow descend from the same gods.
	And like, there's really out there fringe Hellenistic Jews that are probably not in the mainstream, of course.
	Um, but they're starting to come up with wild Different types of versions, and they're making a hybrid type version that they're already somehow being convinced of, if you will.
	There's already something in the air.
	They're already, hey, my pagan neighbor, I can't even eat with the guy.
	This kosher thing's got to go.
	It's not working out very well.
	They're trying to find a way to politically, if you will, break down those walls and connect the two groups.
	I wonder.
	I just don't, I don't know.
	There's different ways to look at this, if that makes sense.
	But the ancient Jews are all about being kept separate and not mixing with the non-Jews.
	That's like the, you know, assimilation is their biggest threat.
	They always talk about.
	But how about like, you've seen Carrier and others talk about Philo's logos and how that's the beginning of John says basically Jesus is the Logos.
	That's the Phanes first begotten Adam-Cadmon character.
	And also, have you seen the stuff about how Philo even says the man called rising, Joshua, the man called rising?
	Like, I've seen a lot of your guests say that Paul basically got his celestial Christ from Philo.
	Yeah, there's definitely that hypothesis.
	And it isn't like, I talked to Richard Carrier recently.
	So a lot of these videos that I did over the past, when did I go?
	Two weeks ago.
	I was in California for a whole week with both Richard and Dennis.
	Rich, he posits this in his book on the historicity, and that thing's massive if you ever get into it.
	I've read it.
	I've listened to it a bunch of times.
	Yeah, he's a definite smart cookie.
	I mean, you can see the Lego blocks, if you will, for what you see a lot in the New Testament.
	Some things just, and I probably can't think of all of them right now, but I've thought about them over time.
	Some things don't quite make sense.
	This is where a lot of scholars go, what happened when if there was a guy and he died, like what cognitive dissonance kicked in that they're searching the scriptures to kind of place these things on him?
	And Richard Carrier is saying, well, you don't need all that.
	What you have is they're already searching the scriptures.
	They're already finding their heavenly Christ logos, if you will, and they're applying it.
	And then they create a euhemerized narrative.
	They brought this Christ to earth and gave him a historical scenery, if that makes sense.
	For me, I lean the other way.
	I lean that there was a guy at the bottom and they mythologized him just like they would, you know, Julius Caesar or some other potential person.
	But I'm going to argue there, like Carrier says, if you remove everything that they can prove is allegorical or that they pulled directly from the Old Testament or from some Greco-Roman myths, there's like nothing left to even point anything down.
	Well, even in person, when we talked about this, he says, okay, and you bring up a good point.
	He says, okay, it depends on how you interpret these specific things.
	We talked about Galatians.
	Was he born of a woman?
	Or was he manufactured of a woman?
	So therefore, that woman isn't really a woman.
	It's actually, as the allegory goes, the mother above, right?
	So this is not a literal woman he's being born of or manufactured from, but he also is a Jew.
	So he had to be circumcised according to this idea.
	Was he circumcised in heaven?
	Who did this circumcision?
	Did he die on a cross in heaven?
	A lot of these things, when you look at Paul says he was crucified, if we accept that those are his words, 1 Corinthians 15, he also says he was buried.
	Now, he doesn't say in a tomb.
	The gospels do that.
	But he says he was buried in 1 Corinthians 15.
	But so is Adam.
	Adam's buried in heaven too, right?
	That's what Carrier says.
	Jesus was buried supposedly.
	And then there's other theories, and angels buried him, supposedly.
	But then there's other theories that he never died.
	So when you go to the witnesses in Revelation, one guy was like, I know who they are.
	There's this historical guy and that historical guy in Revelation.
	I said, bro, why wouldn't you look at like the transfiguration in Matthew?
	The law and the prophets appear side the side of the Christ.
	Why wouldn't you look at the two witnesses that are supposedly dying at the end?
	Because every man should be at least die once.
	Here you have Elijah and you have Moses.
	Or you could say Enoch.
	Either way, these guys never died.
	Why aren't they the two witnesses in Revelation?
	So it just depends on who you ask.
	The more I learn, the more I realize no one really knows these answers.
	It's all hypothetical based on how you interpret the evidence and where you're coming down on it.
	I wouldn't be dogmatic either way, though.
	I saw Bart Ehrman, who you've had on, who is like basically has a feud going on with Richard Carrier, and he was on Michael Shermer's podcast.
	He says that the evidence that Jesus was, there's a historical Jesus is that one, he had a brother named James, and two, the Q document.
	And then he said something interesting.
	He said, after the temple was destroyed, they started looking for verses in the Old Testament to kind of explain away.
	And they created a suffering Messiah, not the kingly Messiah, but Carrier argues that in Judaism, there's always been two Messiahs.
	The idea of the two Messiahs actually is a pre-Christian concept.
	So I see the suffering.
	They must have been noticing Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53 and saw that suffering Messiah.
	I think that was the whole point, that they would have a first Messiah that they would reject.
	And then that would kind of entice the Gentiles, even their opposition, the anti-Semitic Gentiles, to adopt this.
	That's why, and they baited them with some superficial pro-Roman rhetoric in there.
	And they baited them by having it be, you know, supposedly on the surface opposing Judaism.
	And then that's how they eventually, and then it evolved and they innovated and they worked it because it's hard to get people that are just a few decades after something supposedly happened to adopt it.
	And then once they did, they kind of redid it a few times till they tweaked it and got it right.
	That's kind of what I see happening.
	You know, very possible.
	I'm not going to rule it out.
	And something interesting that you brought up was the two Messiah hypothesis that that was a working thing.
	The reason that they say that was a working thing was the Dead Sea Scrolls.
	We have evidence in the Qumran sect of this kind of concept.
	And one of their teachers of righteousness dies and they're like expecting him to come back from the dead.
	Like this isn't a new idea.
	This is one of the reasons why it could work in the historical Jesus idea is that in the Qumran sect, you had a teacher of righteousness, part of the cult that was their Messiah figure.
	He dies.
	They're expecting him to come back.
	Like there's no way God can't let this happen.
	He's supposed to come back.
	Also, Bart Ehrman says that after the temple was destroyed, they started looking for a suffering Messiah in the scripture.
	And that's not true at all because Paul was before 70 AD, is what they believe.
	And he's talking about the suffering Messiah all along.
	Right.
	I don't see how an expert could get something wrong like that.
	And I'm sure Carrier would strongly disagree as well.
	I heard that and I was like, all three things he said.
	I'm just like, Carrier has debunked this.
	Why do you refuse to?
	I'm not going to get you in the middle of these guys, but.
	No, I mean, dude, this is exactly where Myth Vision puts itself on purpose.
	God, I would like to see an Ahrman Carrier debate on Myth Vision.
	He's the only one, man.
	Dude, I'm like, I've talked to Carrier, and I like, don't even bring it up to Ehrman.
	It's difficult enough to even get him on the show.
	Trust me, that's a whole other conversation.
	The point is, is Carrier saying someone offered 10K to make it happen and it wouldn't happen.
	Airmen wouldn't do it.
	That should tell you something.
	That should tell you something.
	Yeah.
	And I don't know if it speaks all of the volume, but I, dude, I thought about this a long time ago.
	I love Bob.
	He is like a dad figure to me.
	I absolutely love him.
	You know this.
	Robert Price, a Jesus expert, basically.
	Yeah, Dr. Robert and Price.
	I mean, he's double PhD.
	The guy's got two PhDs.
	Former pastor.
	Yeah, he was.
	He was a former pastor.
	The guy knows his stuff.
	Bottom line is, I felt because Bob sometimes is very rhetorical.
	He's sometimes not the scientific approach that you need when you're going against a guy like Ehrman.
	Dr. Prabhu will talk about stuff when you strip away all the elements.
	What do you have left?
	What's historical pigs running into the water?
	I mean, we know that that's Dennis McDonald's work.
	That comes from the Odyssey, by the way.
	The whole cutting and demonically possessed guy.
	That's the Cyclops.
	So that's a whole nother, there's a whole other thing here that we haven't even explored.
	Richard was, I think, Richard would come in and he would be very good at debating because Bob's not the debater type like Richard.
	So it would have been a better representation of mythicism, I feel, up against Ehrman on that topic.
	Yeah, it definitely needs to happen.
	I enjoyed the debate you had with Scurbina, and I can't remember the other guy's name, though, about if it was a Roman creation or a Jewish-motivated creation.
	I enjoyed that.
	I've had Scurbina on as well.
	Scurbina, yeah, I had him on also, did Paul exist in a recent episode.
	What do you think of that?
	He, um, look, friends of mine, right?
	All of these people, but I don't think he's as strong-suited in that particular uh area when it comes to that.
	But either way, I do side with there being a Paul.
	And I do think there was a historical guy at the basis here writing these letters.
	I'm with Steve Mason on this.
	There's too many, what seem to be very human elements, not like you're writing fiction.
	Like this is a real guy trying to argue why he's, you know, why you need to listen to me.
	I'm not a liar.
	Like, over and over, this guy is trying to defend himself.
	It sounds very human and not epistolary fiction.
	A lot of these guys that I mentioned earlier about the Romans 11:25 that want to say the Gentiles are actually apostasized Israelites genetically will say, and these are guys I've engaged with online.
	They're called Israel Only.
	They will say that, well, it's all fiction.
	Paul's letters and everything are fiction.
	It's all created, and there's no historical verisimilitude there.
	I have to differ.
	I think that Paul's letters do look like a real guy dealing with disputes.
	And the ones that are what we would call forgeries in Paul's name seem to be followers in this tradition of Paul that are still carrying on the doctrines.
	And you can see it starts to kind of climax.
	Ephesians seems to be highly almost headed in a, if I could use the term Gnostic type of docetic approach.
	Like it's starting.
	Paul's Jesus is Gnostic.
	It's not a historical figure.
	It's basically a Gnostic Christ.
	And when you see his debates and arguments he had in the epistles trying to prove that Jesus is real, all his arguments basically expose the fact that he wasn't a historical figure that was alive, you know, a decade before.
	You're talking about Paul's letters?
	Paul's letters, yeah.
	I don't think Paul addresses, I don't think he's look, there's multiple ways to look at this.
	The mythicist way, you can also consider that we just lack evidence to present this.
	So the lack of evidence of a historical man being described in a lot of his letters seems to be evidence used by mythicists to say what we do have is a Christ.
	We don't have this earthly figure.
	And you got to wonder, like, is this?
	This is something I've thought about.
	Are they attaching the celestial logos ideas to a historical person that they admired as their Messiah with this weird blend of both Jew ideas, Judaism, as well as Greco-Roman concepts?
	Or do you think that he was whole cloth created this way out the gate?
	And either way, no matter your position, my advice would simply be not to be dogmatic, but to say, this is what I think and why.
	And that's it.
	Not to be dogmatic.
	Dr. Ehrman is dogmatic about this.
	And I'm not.
	I'm not dogmatic because I actually empathize and understand why mythicists come to the conclusion that they do.
	I'm in that specific sweet spot.
	Mythicist, myth vision, I mean, gets to see mythicist and historicist front row seat.
	I get to see all of the in and outs.
	And I understand why both sides think the way that they do.
	Our data is not great.
	We don't have the best information.
	We're lacking so much information we could have.
	There's letters Paul wrote we don't have.
	We know that because he talks about this in Corinthians.
	So if we had more information, maybe it would help clarify this.
	I'm not sure, though.
	I'm not sure if any letters would clarify.
	There's also the Jesus of the Talmud, which, or one of the Jesuses in the Talmud that lived like 100 years before the time that Jesus supposedly lived.
	I think Jesus of what I always forget the name.
	It's kind of a difficult name.
	Do you know it?
	Jesus of.
	I know, I don't know that.
	I know he died under Alexander Gennaeus 70 BCE.
	And this particular thing came up.
	I talked to a friend of mine who was like, dude, there's so many of these fictional characters.
	Like, they literally don't even know when Jesus died or when he rose or when he lived.
	They got one of the church fathers saying Jesus lived till he was 50 years old, and that's a fact.
	They thought he was 50 when he died.
	Like, how do they not know this information?
	Richard Carey told me, Pause.
	He's like, I don't even use that.
	I wouldn't even use that as evidence.
	One of the reasons why is the Talmud is later.
	And when you get to this later literature, it's already polemicizing the ordeal.
	Who knows?
	They're probably writing in Jesus's that they don't like this guy already.
	They're like, screw this piece of crap.
	In one of the parts of the Talmud, he says, this is the reason the temple was destroyed because of him.
	So they're blaming Jesus, whereas Christians who are following Jesus, supposedly, are blaming the Jews for all of this.
	Oh, you guys are the reason.
	No, you guys in this Jesus is the reason.
	It's just a bunch of polemics, I think.
	It's interesting that they believe Jesus.
	This is what Maimonides believes too, with a 12th-century top rabbi that Jesus, you know, he tempts the Jews to idol worship.
	He, you know, he whipped and rebuked the Pharisees.
	He says he's not here to bring peace like Moshiag ben David is.
	He's come to divide and bring the sword.
	And what was I going to say?
	Oh, the idea that Jesus led to the scattering, the destruction of the temple and the exile and the scattering of the Jews.
	And then also via Christianity, via persecution, via Christian Zionists, end times prophecy, also helped the Jews return to the land.
	And if you look at the Talmud, they believe that this is an essential part of their script of their prophecy, that they will go into exile.
	They will be a thorn in the side of the Gentiles.
	They will be scorned and stuff, and that they will suffer and atone and then they can return to the land in a purified state.
	So it's almost like it was all planned out.
	I mean, the fulfillment, either that or God's real, and everything's really happening, or they're engineering the prophecy to be fulfilled.
	You got like two options.
	You know, this is interesting because the Jews have dealt with exile.
	Israel has dealt with exile, period.
	Northern, southern.
	We have historical outside sources that are not in the Bible showing that exile has happened more than once.
	It's happened in Babylonian times with Persia.
	The Greeks come and conquer.
	Everyone's conquered.
	So it's almost like, well, if it's happened six or seven times, huh?
	It's probably just going to keep happening because we still live by the same playbook.
	Now, we're still using the same playbook.
	It's not hard to predict that if, let's just say something happens right now.
	I'm making, this is all hypothetical.
	Don't take me to the bank.
	Imagine some chaos happens in the Middle East right now, and the Jews get like some crazy thing happens, they get exiled again.
	Okay.
	They're probably going to prophesy that one day, as long as they survive as a people, they're going to come back.
	Then what's going to happen in 2,000 years from now?
	Let's just say it takes that long.
	I'm hypothetical here.
	And they come back.
	Someone's going to go, the prophecy was fulfilled.
	And it's almost like, no, dude, they're still living by the same playbook.
	It's the same thing.
	And it's just happening again where people are believing and they're bringing them back.
	And here you are.
	It's the same thing.
	Now, I am not an anti-Semite at all, as you well know that.
	But I also learned.
	Are you anti-Judaism?
	Are you anti-Abrahamic religions?
	I mean, obviously, I want people to see through this stuff.
	Like, it's obvious that I want people to see freedom.
	Like Christopher Hitchens, was he an anti-Semite?
	No.
	And he spoke out against circumcision.
	He spoke out about women's circumcision, too.
	Like, that's an obvious one.
	Yeah.
	Like, how are we going to look at that guy?
	Is he all of a sudden anti-Semitic?
	So, no, I don't.
	Richard Dawkins got accused of anti-Semitism.
	You basically can't criticize the Judaism without being called that.
	Well, I'm hearing a lot of Islamophobia from people who are Muslim or antichrist.
	You expose Christianity.
	They call you Antichrist.
	Just the same with Judaism.
	They call you anti-Semitic.
	I don't get offended by the Antichrist statement, though.
	I think because personally, like Christians, it's not an ethnicity identity.
	It's more like a collective group that were spiritually part of the body of Christ type thing.
	And for me, I was one.
	So, like, I have no offense if someone wants to jab me.
	Where I get offended is when I have really good friends who are both Muslim that have helped survive drug addiction.
	And I also have Jewish friends that I actually come on.
	They come on my channel to expose New Testament stuff.
	And they're friends.
	Like, if I go to Israel, like, I will hang out with these Jews.
	These are friends of mine.
	I think they're wrong about their conclusions, but I have friends like this.
	So my point is: at what point do you stop being like that way and have that rhetoric toward people just because we don't believe in your myths?
	And in fact, we don't just not believe in them.
	We want to educate people on the harms of them and where their conclusions may go.
	Now, there's some, you would agree with me, I'm sure.
	I know that you think Abrahamic religions are false.
	I do too.
	But there are people who are heading in a more progressive way where they're trying to get away from the superstitious stuff.
	They're like, well, we traditionally are Christian, for example.
	I've got scholars who've told me I'm a Catholic, John J. Collins.
	All right, Old Testament monster.
	This guy is a beast when it comes to the Old Testament.
	But he's a Catholic.
	We were eating dinner.
	And I said, but do you actually believe it?
	I don't care if someone does.
	Personally, it's not my goal to change everyone's minds in this world.
	People will come to conclusions based on their own research and whatever they subjectively go through that causes them that way.
	But I said, Do you believe this?
	He said, No.
	I said, But you're Catholic.
	Yeah, tradition.
	So I wish things started heading that way where it wasn't like where religion was secondary and not primary.
	When it's primary and it's something that is influencing politics and the way you live your life, the way you view your family, the way you view your neighbor, like the guy next door is your enemy because he doesn't think like you.
	That's annoying to me.
	I want to change the world for that.
	And that's why I have myth vision.
	Yeah, it really has just caused a ton of unnecessary division.
	There would already be, you know, disputes and division, but it just definitely exacerbates the situation.
	I want to play a quick clip and get your take on it.
	All right.
	All right.
	I always get shocked by you, dude.
	What did I say?
	Oh, the clips?
	I always get shocked by your videos.
	Your videos are intense.
	Here we go.
	God was trying to get Peter to go to the house of Cornelius, a Gentile, a Roman centurion, to carry the gospel.
	Peter looked inside the sheet and what did he see?
	Creatures.
	That was us.
	Why?
	Gentiles were unclean.
	Jews were not supposed to have anything to do with Gentiles.
	We were nobody until Jesus died for us at the cross.
	And at the cross, we were adopted.
	We became heirs and joint heirs.
	He took our sin and gave us forgiveness.
	He took our death and gave us everlasting life.
	But until the cross, we were nothing.
	What do you think of that kind of mindset?
	Nope.
	Absolutely horrific, terrible.
	We were nothing.
	He said that twice.
	Absolutely BS.
	I call BS.
	From the perspective of the Jewish milieu at the time, for sure, and maybe in other times.
	I'm just saying, for sure, this is the point of the Cornelius story.
	In fact, just dwelling on that for a second, yeah, I think it's ridiculous.
	But I also know that if you go into Greek literature, okay, and I have some really good Greek friends who know Greek, the Athenians believed that they were superior and that others were animals that they were less than, and they were called the Gentiles as well.
	That term Gentile doesn't come from the Jews.
	That term comes from the Greco-Roman, or not the Roman, but the Greco-world, the Greek world.
	And they used it for other people, like the barbarians and such, people that they viewed as like wild and animals.
	We, he's referring to us who are non-Jews, right, in this context, are wild beasts.
	We are impure, unclean.
	And I find it ironic in my research that Peter is The guy who bumps into these unclean animals, or Cornelius, if you will.
	They don't have Paul, because Paul says in Galatians, I'm to the Gentiles, but they have Peter.
	Now, why is Peter in Acts 10 bumping into these unclean animals?
	I think it's, I think, Acts is trying to harmonize previous factions that have particular views.
	And Peter was the last guy who probably would have thought, okay, these unclean, uncircumcised people are clean.
	Get out of town.
	They have to fully become, if you will, fully convert.
	And the way that one of the scholars I've talked to said, if you weren't circumcised at the eighth day, you weren't really technically a Jew.
	You might have suited up to look like one, but this is the argument that they'll say Paul's arguing.
	They think Paul's saying these conversion people that Paul's probably dealing with, hey, you need to convert, Galatians.
	Hey, you need to circumcise.
	Paul's saying, no, if you weren't born on the eighth day circumcised, your circumcision is just all it is is aesthetics.
	It's like getting breast implants.
	You know, you're not really, that's why he says just cut it off in Galatians 5.
	I think it's 5 or 6.
	Cut it off.
	It's useless at this point then.
	And he's upset, of course.
	So there's definitely this riff between unclean Gentiles and Jewish people in the New Testament.
	They're called dogs.
	The Phoenician, the Syro Phoenician woman, or if you will, the Canaanite woman, she's called a dog by Jesus.
	Huh?
	By Jesus.
	By Jesus, the Lord Himself.
	Yeah, and then you go to Philippians 3.
	The scholar Matthew Thiessen said, He thinks when he said, I wrestled against wild beasts, wild dogs, the Greek word, there's dogs.
	He thinks he's talking about Gentiles who have Judaized, and they're sitting here trying to convince other people to Judaize.
	This is what he argues.
	That was a problem actually in Rome that there were Christians that were becoming Jewish, and the Jews didn't want that.
	Another reason why I think they set up Christianity and the Noahide laws.
	You mentioned Peter.
	I want to share this with you.
	Now, I just found this clip the other day.
	Did you know that according to Judaism, Peter was a double agent?
	No, I didn't know this.
	Watch this.
	This is Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, a messianic Jew.
	This is a rabbinic mind that's been enlightened to Yeshua.
	This is a rabbinic mind enlightened to Yeshua.
	This is a modern Paul.
	That we're talking about.
	So let me shock your audience.
	I want to be shocked.
	Maybe even Jonathan never heard it before.
	But on the night of Tevet that is coming upon us, the Jewish people fast.
	It's on the ninth day on the month of Tevet.
	It's the Hebrew calendar, on the Hebrew calendar.
	It's next week.
	It's almost on Christmas, by the way.
	Guess what happened?
	Every Jew in the world that is a practicing Jew fest.
	Why do we fast?
	Fast and fasting.
	Why do we fast?
	Why?
	Why?
	I found the answer.
	We fast for a special Jew.
	You know what his name is?
	Simon Peter.
	Every Jew in the world fast for Simon Peter.
	I never heard that.
	Yes.
	Yeah, I mean, they don't know who it is, though.
	No, they know who it is.
	But why, wait, wait, wait.
	Why do they fast?
	Ah, ah.
	Because during the time of tribulation of the Jews, during the first century, Peter, Peter, is actually protected the Jews because, quote-unquote, he was the apostle to the Jews.
	So they say he actually saved the Jewish people.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait.
	How do they know?
	Please forgive me.
	I'm trying to catch on with you, and it's so much that you're saying.
	This one is new to me, too.
	You're right.
	Peter to them.
	Peter, according to Judaism, is what?
	He's a secret agent of Judaism that was put by the Jews themselves to protect the Jewish people from those big, mean Christians.
	It's very, very interesting.
	This is a little crazy.
	I can't believe the Jews believe that Peter was a double agent.
	Right.
	And that's who traditionally went and started the first pope in the Vatican.
	I have another clip of this.
	All the Christians excited about it, and then move them out.
	This Kabbalah rabbi says that the first Pope of Rome was a Jewish sage in the same story, basically.
	Have you ever heard that before?
	Isn't that amazing?
	I haven't heard that, but I know Kabbalah is like a really fringe idea.
	I think it's not fringe, actually.
	I think it's mainstream.
	With ultra-Orthodox, it's mainstream.
	It's been huge over the last few hundred years.
	Yeah, from what I've always talked to people, they're like, maybe, yeah, it has grown.
	I'm just saying they're like, there's some odd crap in it from what I've seen.
	It is odd.
	I want to talk a little Kabbalah with you.
	Now, have you had anybody on your show to talk Kabbalah?
	No, no, I have not.
	I haven't.
	I've got a friend who said that I should look into some of it, but I'm like, I haven't actually done any of that as well.
	I've been so busy doing what I do.
	Well, I know.
	Yeah, you are busy posting tons of interviews.
	I'm bringing up another file, though.
	I wanted to end it talking a little bit of a...
	I've heard you, even with your discussion with Michael Brown, you tried bringing this up with him about Edom being Rome or Christians.
	Well, check this out in Isaiah chapter 63, the day of the great and terrible day of the Lord, it says that the Lord will come out from a place called Edom and he will crush Edom.
	Now, I'm just a broadcaster here, okay?
	In Jewish understanding, Edom is really talking about the Christianity.
	Okay?
	Christianity is Christianity is Edom.
	How's that?
	It's a rather lengthy explanation.
	Christianity is a dome.
	Christianity is also.
	This is from Chabad Kabbalah Online.
	Edom is the Christian West.
	It represents Rome, Greek, Roman, the Roman Catholic Church, and the foundations of Western civilization.
	So you have to know that to understand Zohar now.
	Here is the Talmud, Pesachim 5A.
	It talks about in the end times what has to happen.
	They have to eradicate the descendants of Esau, which is Edom, or Western culture, and then construct the temple and to name their Moshiach.
	Here's another one, a rabbi's commentary.
	It says, it is agreed that it is the function of the Jewish people to destroy the descendants of Esau.
	And they believe this is instrumental to their end times prophecies.
	Amalek has to be cut off and blotted out.
	And, you know, Amalek is the grandson of Esau.
	And these rabbis are constantly conflating the two.
	And here's another one, Snorfo on Genesis, another commentary.
	After the destruction of the kingdom of Edom and other nations, successor of Esau, only Jacob and his descendants will remain.
	In the verse is Jeremiah.
	I will make an end of all nations, but I will not make an end of you.
	Here's Zohar now.
	But at first, Jacob or the Jews received above only, and Esau received below.
	After the Messiah will arise, Jacob will receive above and below the heavens and the earth.
	And Esau or the Gentiles will lose everything.
	He will have no portion and inheritance or remembrance in the world.
	That's Zohar, which Kabbalah is based on.
	And the verse is in the house of Jacob shall be fire, house of Joseph, flame, house of Esau for stubble.
	Esau will lose everything, and Jacob will inherit both worlds, this world and the world to come.
	What do you think?
	What's your first thoughts on some of those verses?
	Well, obviously, these are definitely giving you exactly what it's saying.
	They believe that they're going to be redeemed.
	It's very doomsday-ish, too, by the way.
	So, you know, one of the mottos I've learned is that every doomsday cult that has predicted something's going to happen has failed.
	Okay.
	This is something that I believe, okay, at this point, because there's no evidence that any of these things actually have become fulfilled.
	That is a very horrible idea to believe, Period.
	Anyone.
	There's also Christians, right, that believe that at the end, and I'm not speaking for all, but they can't wait for their enemies who don't believe to be destroyed.
	I saw an interesting love letters to Richard Dawkins video.
	If you haven't seen it, it's really worth watching.
	He reads these letters sent, really, their emails from Christians to him, to give you one example.
	And he's reading and he's going, You faggot, I can't wait to watch you cook in God's broth from my post in heaven.
	You don't get those?
	I get those.
	I get once in a while, I get hate, but believe it or not, I come across as a very nice person.
	I mean, I really do care about people, right?
	So it's like, I would love for people not to believe what you just showed me, by the way.
	That's a horrible ideology to have about the world because, I mean, I'm way past that.
	I'm way past that.
	And I think if we all started to kind of deconstruct from these things, started to like separate ourselves and realize, okay, we're holding on to some ancient, ancient rivalry, tribalism, really old stuff.
	We should kind of progress and get out of this altogether.
	My deconversion didn't happen overnight, though.
	It took me years to slowly get out of the idea of hell and heaven and punishment and superstition stuff.
	It takes a long time.
	I might still have some of that unbending.
	Like, I don't know it maybe, but it's like I probably carry some of this stuff for all the indoctrination.
	But I'd like to see this stuff slowly dissolve.
	And the way we do that is we educate people and we don't just focus on one thing, right?
	Jews have got all their problems.
	Islam, all the problems.
	Christianity, all the problems.
	Hinduism has tons of problems.
	Looking at all of these things, I think, are ways of saying, let's take down all of it.
	And what I mean is, not with weapons, but simply by educating people.
	You see what I'm saying?
	Trying to teach them.
	That's what I'm trying to do.
	I think it's awful.
	The Kabbalah and certain sects of Jews believe that Gentiles are the polluted with the serpent.
	They believe Samael is the guardian angel of Esau and that that is Satan.
	They believe Satan is our guardian angel of the non-Jews.
	And I got to ask you this.
	Okay.
	This is something that I've kind of picked up as I've done Myth Vision for a while.
	Some ideas are picked up by some people.
	I don't think everything's homogenous, right?
	Like everyone agrees with every idea altogether.
	But do you think all Jews everywhere believe exactly what you're saying?
	Or would you say there's a large majority of them that maybe believe something like that?
	I would say the religious ones on different levels believe it.
	Like all of the old, like if you just look at the story of Jacob and Esau and Cain and Abel and the creation story, like it's this is all over the Zohar as well.
	But obviously it's not all.
	A lot of Jews have no clue about any of this stuff.
	Right.
	But I just think it's awful that the Jews, I shouldn't say the Jews, some Jews believe that Gentiles are the seed of Satan and our guardian angel is Satan.
	And then Christianity also believes that their father is the devil and they're the synagogue of Satan.
	And I think Elaine Pagels was on your show one time.
	She talked about how the religious mindset where anything that doesn't agree with you is satanic and how dangerous that mindset is.
	And all of them kind of share that.
	Yeah, they all share that.
	And this is the funny thing.
	This is why I said making things like Judaism altogether, everyone who practices that or everyone who practices this.
	It's like it, I'd love to see all of it dissolve, right?
	Everyone start to realize that these are narratives.
	There may be some history to them, but I don't believe them.
	But like she says, it got so specific, it wasn't just collective nations.
	Because if you go in the Old Testament, it was a big political national thing.
	I read this book I told you about by Adi Ophir and Ishai Rosensvy called Goy.
	And it talks about the origin of Goy as it relates to the people of Israel who were Israel's others.
	And in different books, it's different depending on the author.
	These are guys who've like gone deep into the Hebrew and gone into the Greek and looking at all this stuff.
	And you get to the New Testament and it doesn't just work between like Jew and Gentile.
	It's even working amongst certain factions of Jews against other factions of like there's people starting to call Each other these things.
	Eventually, Christians pick up on this.
	They start using the same in-group, out-group argumentation.
	And this was one of the reasons that I actually started leaning historicity.
	Elaine Pagels talks about this connection between using demonic terms, Satan, spiritual, etc., etc., and always, as mythicists do, they apply them to the spiritual things in the heavens.
	They don't apply people on earth crucified actual Jesus.
	No.
	But it says the archons of this age crucified him.
	Mythicists say that's in the heavens.
	Well, Elaine Pagel says it's not either or, it's both.
	These are humans that are being demonized.
	They're being pointed at as children of Satan, et cetera, et cetera.
	And the archons of the age, the demons, the spirits, are in control of these people according to their superstitious thinking.
	And they're calling them these things.
	So it's in-group, out-group stuff.
	And it made me go, hold on.
	Mythicists say it's all that.
	They don't say it's on earth.
	These are actual humans that are involved.
	They always argue the archons are some heavenly creature beings, whatever, spirits, etc.
	Not that they're actual humans that are controlled by these powers.
	So just to give you an idea, you may have heard of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sachs.
	He's like one of the world's most famous rabbis.
	He actually died recently, but this is an article he wrote about Jacob and Esau.
	Look at what he says here.
	There's a tradition that the scapegoat in some way of Yom Kippur symbolizes Esau, Azazel, the mysterious place or entity for which the goat was intended, was Samael Esau's guardian angel.
	So even he is acknowledging that this is a pervasive belief.
	He also says here, Esau in the Torah is not the epitome of evil, rather, he is the man of impulse.
	But it does also say Chabad believes that it is that they have a dualistic view of the world.
	They're the light.
	The non-Jews are the darkness.
	They're holy.
	We're impure.
	They're from one side.
	Their souls come from the holy emanations.
	Ours come from the unholy side in the tree of life.
	Which they talk about in this book, an end to evil.
	Evil Goyam Amalek by one of the first Chabad Lubavitch rabbis.
	You had a question you said?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Just as we close here, I just want to bring up Christine Hayes.
	Have you heard of her?
	No.
	She's definitely worth looking into.
	I think she's got two PhDs.
	I'm not sure.
	Her rap sheet on Talmudic studies, like all of it, the Mishnah, the whole nine.
	She's debated Jews on this particular topic of should she be looking at the who, what, when, where, and why of the Talmud, or should she read it like Jewish people do?
	It's like spiritual literature and whatnot.
	And she literally did an amazing job on pointing out how she loves to find out how the rabbi was thinking when they wrote it, etc.
	Well, she talks about the tradition within the Bible, right?
	How certain Talmudic rabbis interpreted it, or maybe some of these other people that you might be pointing out, how they interpreted it, might be one thing.
	But I have a clip of her talking about how you've heard of the documentary hypothesis, right?
	What is that again?
	That's about proving that some of the books, explain it for us.
	I'm brain farting.
	It's very simple.
	Yeah, without going too long.
	The Old Testament is, I mean, the five books, if you will, of Torah, are not written by Moses, period.
	We all should come to this conclusion.
	I was just listening about this in your friend, Joshua, what is it, Bowen's book?
	I'm listening to that right now, an audiobook.
	So he actually is using Dr. Joel Baden, who's also a very good scholar on the documentary hypothesis.
	But to put it simply, it is made up by multiple sources.
	Not one person wrote it, which means you will find contradictions.
	Like, who is Moses' father-in-law?
	What mountain did they supposedly go to to get these commandments?
	Mount Horeb or Mount Sinai?
	It tells you two different mountains.
	They're not the same mountain.
	Why are these traditions different?
	So in the same book, you have multiple sources that a redactor has compiled of all these things.
	Well, Christine Hayes points out you can go into certain places like in Deuteronomy, find a law or a teaching or an idea, go to another place within their law, whether in Deuteronomy, you might find it somewhere in Exodus or especially Leviticus, something, contradicts it.
	It doesn't agree.
	Or it starts to take a different position on something.
	So you have two different ideas by two different men at some point that are thinking, And most likely, they're priestly elites that are part of the temple cult who are thinking these things.
	That means what the majority believed may not even be what the authors of people writing in this book are saying.
	Long story short, she says, there is an idea in later tradition that one day the nations would come in and see the light and things like this, right?
	They would recognize the fame of the God of Israel and they would come and recognize that and come like almost like an optimistic end.
	But if you go in the same Bible, there's the same doom in the end.
	So it's not one message.
	This is something that I'm learning in scholarship as I go: is you can go to Isaiah and find something that has something positive to say about latter-day concepts of Gentiles.
	If you go to late Second Temple Judaism, Gentiles are really not looking too well in some of these texts.
	It says that they will feed off the riches of the Gentiles, the wealth of the nations.
	Not only would they be supposed to be under the iron rod, be destroyed potentially, but there's also optimistic views.
	So it depends on where you go in this text.
	And this is what I was saying on why I'm cautious to say every single person thinks this particular view about the Gentiles.
	There might be more to the picture.
	Oh, well, I'm not saying every single person, but just the fact that there is a huge chunk, and this is what the primary documents do say, you know, should I don't, that's what concerns me.
	You know, the stuff that can be interpreted as a positive towards the Gentiles, you know, who cares?
	But it's the problematic stuff in there that I think needs to be addressed.
	You know, let me just tell you this because time's running out.
	Right, I know.
	Rabbi Tobias Singer, Rabbi Tobias Singer, he has that optimistic outlook.
	I've talked to him and he's he wants us to be Noahides, which includes acknowledging their Torah and worshiping them as God's chosen people.
	Right.
	But that obviously that's part of their religious idea, and you and me aren't going to do such a thing.
	We're not convinced of that.
	Okay.
	There's no reason for us to come to that conclusion.
	I'll put it like this, though.
	If the God of Israel was true and real, and he could somehow explain to me the problem of evil and why all that happens, you know, if he could, if God appeared to me and said, let me explain to you, my son, and give you the insight of understanding all things, right?
	So I really get why things are the way they are.
	Sure, I'd have no problem recognizing that God if I actually understood it and it was right.
	But there's Greek poets who've written saying, if there are gods, they're probably evil and they don't deserve our worship because of the things that they've allowed and such.
	So where do you fall on this spectrum?
	Look, you'd need to convince me, right?
	And there are ways, if God does exist, that he could convince me.
	And if that were the case, I'd come to it.
	But as far as I'm concerned, the one trying to prove or one that's saying he exists needs to do the proving.
	Right now, I don't see any evidence.
	And he knows what to do to make everybody believe, yet he chooses not to do it.
	Yeah, in the gospels.
	I'm glad, Father, that you did not reveal this to them, but you revealed it to babes, even in the Old Testament.
	Like, they don't want you to know.
	And you're like, hold on.
	So God does not want me to know, but you say he wants all people to come to him.
	It's very contradictory.
	Right.
	There you go.
	Right.
	All right.
	Well, I know you got to get going.
	You got a sharp cutoff time.
	Derek, I appreciate what you do.
	Keep up the good work.
	I always enjoy what you've been able to do on your platform to bring all of these scholars and authors that they all are so gracious to you, too, because you are giving them exposure that they've never been able to get anywhere else.
	I appreciate you for taking the time.
	Everybody, search for Myth Vision to find some of his videos.
	He's putting out a ton of content.
	His links will be in the description below.
	Let us know what you guys think about what we talked about, covered a lot of ground in the comments on Odyssey.
	And thanks for being here, Derek.
	There's so much more, man.
	Thank you for inviting me, Adam.
	I appreciate you for being a kind host.
	You do really good hosting, by the way.
	I wish I was as good at knowing how to do this OBS as you.
	I use StreamYard, so it's pretty simple for me.
	All right.
	Well, hopefully you could check out some more of the videos, the links I sent you.
	We could have another talk sometime.
	And like I said, everybody, his links are in the description below.
	No morenews.org to find all of my links.
	And I will see you guys again very soon.

▲