Trump's World Order, Christian Apologetics, Andrew Tate Anti-Semitism | Know More News
Powerchat: https://powerchat.live/knowmorenews
Know More News with Adam Green
https://www.knowmorenews.org/
Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/know-more-news
Cash App: https://cash.app/$AdamGreenKMN
Follow Know More News:
Twitter - https://twitter.com/Know_More_News
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/know_more_news/
TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@thejesusdeception
Telegram - https://t.me/Know_More_News
BitChute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/know-more-news/
Odysee - https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1
Rumble - https://rumble.com/user/KnowMoreNews
Email - KnowMoreNews@protonmail.com
Mail - Adam Green 663 S Rancho Santa Fe Rd. San Marcos, CA 92078 # 266
Underneath the bridge top of sprung the league and the animals are trapped all become my pets And I'm living off of grass and the drippings from the sea It's okay.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
Adam Green here with No More News.
Thank you all for joining me today, Wednesday, January 21st, 2026.
So much to cover.
Bunch of clips of Trump at the World Economic Forum.
It's Trump's world order.
We've got some Christian apologetics clips out of Daily Wire and Pints with Aquinas.
We've got some updates on the Andrew Tate anti-Semitism scandal, I guess we could call it, and a bunch of other stuff.
Gonna be a huge show.
Hopefully, we'll get to all of it today.
If not, pick up where we left off tomorrow.
This show is only made possible thanks to you guys and your support.
I forgot to link.
I just realized right now, I forgot to link the power chat.live/slash no more news, where we're streaming live on Rumble and Odyssey.
I'm going to put that in there right now.
Also, the subscribestar link down below.
Every dollar helps.
I can't do the show without you guys and your support.
Appreciate all the support making it possible for over a decade now at No More News.
I'm having some fun with AI tools.
I'm going to have a new intro soon.
The books, I'm getting the books printed and shipped very soon as well.
Big things are happening.
All right.
First clip: Trump says, Sometimes you need a dictator.
The World Economic Forum.
A bunch of crazy clips.
More Greenland stuff.
Let's see.
Leave it.
We got good reviews in that speech.
Usually they say he's a horrible dictator type person.
I'm a dictator.
But sometimes you need a dictator.
But they didn't say that in this case.
Leave it.
We got good reviews in that speech.
Owning it.
They say he's owning the dictator status.
He loves calling himself king a lot, I've noticed also.
Let me do an advanced search.
We play the next clip.
I know he said the other day, I played the clip.
He said he's the king of selling Boeing jets.
And then again, he says he's the king of tariffs, the tariff king.
I'm the tariff king, and the tariff king has done a great job.
And I hope we win the Supreme Court case because if we don't, he's calling himself the tariff king in third person.
I'm the tariff king, and the tariff king has done a great job.
And I hope we win the Supreme Court case because if we don't, be a shame for our country.
Be a shame.
We understood how to deal with him.
Sometimes you need a dictator.
Trump asked how far is he willing to go to acquire Greenland?
This is his line.
He's really got the hot sound bites with these replies.
He knows what he's doing with the media.
How far are you willing to go to acquire Greenland?
You'll find out.
You'll find out.
You'd be in jail.
It's one of his one-liners like he did to Hillary.
You'll be in jail.
When you said you would remember, when you said you would remember, if Denmark didn't remember.
I don't know what's going on.
The camera seems like blurry to me today.
Is it just me or does it look a little blurry?
Agreed at DR on Greenland.
What did you mean?
What are the consequences?
You'll have to figure that out for yourself.
You're a smart guy.
It seems blurry to me.
I need a new camera.
If Denmark did not agree to DR on Greenland, what did you mean?
What are the consequences?
You'll have to figure that out for yourself.
You're a smart guy.
Figure out the consequences, smart guy.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink tells W Economic Forum that we need to move faster towards digital currencies under a single unified blockchain to reduce corruption.
And they're talking about the West falling, the financial system falling.
Trump's talking about writing off our $40 trillion in debt to crypto.
Here's your mark of the beast tokenized system.
I think the movement towards tokenization, decimalization is necessary.
It's ironic that we see two emerging countries leading the world in decimal in the tokenization and digitization of their currency.
That's Brazil and India.
I think we need to move very rapidly to doing that.
We would be reducing fees.
We would do more democratization by reducing more fees if we had all investments on a tokenized platform that could move from a tokenized money market fund to equities and bonds and back and forth.
We have one common blockchain.
We could reduce corruption.
So I would argue.
Reduce corruption.
That means they'll be in full control of all of it.
Total mark of the beast system after they collapse the economy and the financial system and the petrodollar with the bricks currencies with Trump and the debt and a war.
It's going to be total mark of the beast, digital, digital currency, like all the conspiracy theorists have been saying forever.
It's not the conspiracy.
They've been saying it forever.
Conspiracy theorists didn't come up with it out of nowhere.
They've all been saying it.
Remember The Economist magazine?
It said like digital currency econom economist digital currency.
If you've been online, it's only the most common conspiracy thing out there with the Eagle too, with the EDOM Eagle.
Get ready for a world currency.
And then gov coins, the other one, digital currencies will transform finance.
And then they got the one of Trump, like I showed yesterday, lighting up with the gas, lighting up all the dollars.
Yes, we have more dependencies on maybe one blockchain, which we could all talk about.
But that being said, activities are probably processed and more secure than ever.
The other, the blonde woman, Ursa Ursula, we played her clip yesterday, European.
She said that we went off the gold standard and then there's been inflation and the systems failed us.
So, they really are all ready to shift to this.
All right, I'm getting the power chat.live slash turned on right now.
We didn't hit, there it is.
We didn't hit the goal yesterday.
Can we do it today?
Keep up the good work.
It always takes a second for the first one.
NATO's Arctic Defense Plan00:12:52
Mark Crampton.
That's a new name.
I haven't seen that.
Appreciate you, Mark.
$10 on Rumble.
Keep up the good work.
I will do my best.
I will do better than my best.
What happens?
The military's not under the same.
I don't think it'll be necessary.
I really don't.
Okay.
I think people are going to use better judgment.
They're going to use their best judgment, and I don't think that will not be necessary.
We'll see what happens.
The military's not understood.
He's saying military will not be necessary now.
I asked yesterday about the rumors that they're going to buy it.
They're going to buy it.
Why not?
Just write a check for a gazillion dollars, right, when we're already in 40 trillion debt.
Just print some more money and give it to them so we can take it.
This is interesting.
NATO Secretary stuns the world, says President Trump is right and must defend the Arctic and Greenland from China and Russia.
In September, we are working on that.
So statements from me will not add anything here.
And when it comes to the Arctic, I think President Trump is right.
Other leaders in NATO are right.
We need to defend the Arctic.
We know that the sea lanes are opening up.
We know that China and Russia are increasingly active in the Arctic.
There are eight countries bordering on the Arctic.
Seven are a member of NATO.
That's Finland and Sweden and Norway and Denmark, Iceland, Canada, and the US.
And there's only one country bordering on the Arctic outside NATO, and that's Russia.
And I would argue there is a ninth country, which is China, which is increasingly active in the Arctic region.
So President Trump and other leaders are right.
We have to do more there.
We have to protect the Arctic against Russian and Chinese influence.
And that's exactly what NATO ambassadors decided to do in September.
We are working on that, making sure that collectively will we defend the Arctic region.
It's not surprising that you would think NATO would be all about utilizing Greenland all they can as defense.
If you look at the globe, it's right there, right in the middle between North America and Russia and China.
So I wouldn't be surprised.
Even though there's Zionist stuff involved, it still obviously makes perfect sense that Greenland is in perfect spot to have like nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile defense systems, which I assume we already have.
I know there's one base.
Remember, we looked into it on stream a while back.
They do have one base, but I would imagine we would need a whole bunch of missile defense systems there to truly.
Maybe that's kind of what Trump meant by the golden dome.
The golden dome is not going to be over America.
It's going to be over Greenland.
Yeah, Globe, right.
Yeah, Adam believes the globe.
Yeah, exactly.
I sure do.
In fact, I just saw a top trending everywhere.
Did NASA do a space flight?
Did NASA do a flight that I missed?
It said a post-flight interviews they were doing.
Yep.
Beowulf, small hat check.
Nope.
No small hat.
No small hat.
Statements from me will not add anything here.
All right.
Finland president says Europe can unequivocally defend itself without America.
Really doing a lot when it comes to.
Golden Showers Dome.
Right.
We have another clip of Trump saying that BB needs to stop taking credit for the Iron Dome, that America did it.
I've always been saying that.
Well, I haven't seen the clip yet, but I read the header and we'll have to see how tough Trump is talking at BBC.
President Stubb, I'd like to ask you first: do you see this sense of urgency for a plan B among your European partners?
Is there the need for that and who should lead the charge?
Because, I mean, it's a bit unfair.
We're sitting here on the panel with Finland and Poland.
You know, you are really doing a lot when it comes to defense, especially Finland.
You have this comprehensive approach to defense in your country.
Are your partners experiencing the urgency?
Who needs to come up with the Plan B and lead the charge?
Well, I mean, two answers.
First is a direct answer to the question of this panel.
Can Europe defend itself?
My answer is unequivocally yes.
Without the Americans.
Without the Americans.
I mean, how?
Trump has been saying that, that they need our defense.
He says that to Canada.
He says that to NATO, says that to Europe all the time.
But you're relying on them for these key elements.
How would you do it at scale and at duration and at intensity?
With an assumption that the United States would cut off completely any kind of work.
Well, if we look at the defense composure of Europe by and large in a country like Finland.
So how do we do it?
We have conscription.
One million of dollars.
Okay, don't need to hear it.
So there's an update now.
This guy, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutt.
Donald Trump says, based on a very predictive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic region.
This solution, if consummated, thank you, P. Rules.
Rules 247 sent $5 on Rumble.
Hey, Adam, have you heard of this praxis?
I get the feel that it's guys wanting to recreate the world from Bioshock.
Look it up.
No, have not heard of Bioshock, had not heard of Praxis.
IOIBA sent $5 on Rumble.
Thank you, Ohiva.
Looks great.
I'm excited for the bookend.
Will there be an audiobook version?
Oh, yes, there will.
I'm going to try to do an AI.
I don't want to read it all, but I can get a good AI solution voice to read it and record it.
I will do that.
Okay, let me finish the big deal.
Trump's big deal formed a framework for a deal.
So having agreed to a deal and the entire region, this solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO nations.
Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st.
Additional.
I just skipped ahead to say, of course, he says, thank you for your attention to this matter.
Okay, the Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland.
Oh, I'd called it.
That's obviously the Golden Dome.
Further information will be made available as discussions progress.
JD Vance, Barubi, Little Rubio, Steve Witcoff, of course, Jared Kushner, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations.
They will report directly to me.
Thank you for your attention.
So, more threats of tariffs and then pulls them back.
Now, here, Canadian Prime Minister, at least this quote says, made it clear he would fight against the U.S. if Trump tries to annex.
I'd like to know what Canada is doing to protect the integrity of Greenland.
And related, China fashions itself a near-Arctic power and with some claims to Arctic resources.
So I wonder if you could answer that question: what we're doing to help protect Greenland's integrity, and how do you feel about China's claims, such as they are to Arctic resources?
Well, to several aspects of that.
The first, with respect to Greenland, Greenland, the future of Greenland is a decision for Greenland and for the Kingdom of Denmark.
We are NATO partners with Denmark, and so our full partnership stands.
Our obligations on Article 5, Article 2 of NATO stand, and we stand full or square behind those.
I'd like to know what Canada is doing to protect the integrity.
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Trump issues warning to Canadian Prime Minister.
I wonder if that was before or after that statement.
Probably after, I would guess.
Going to be defending Canada.
Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way.
They should be grateful also, but they're not.
I watched your Prime Minister yesterday.
He wasn't so grateful.
But they should be grateful to us.
Canada.
Canada lives because of the United States.
Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements?
Well, they only live because of us.
That's going to be news to some people.
Since when have we defended the life of Canada, by the way?
Of course.
All the United States here.
Yes, he's here.
Hello, Mark.
We never asked for anything, and we never got anything.
We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable.
But I won't do that.
Okay, now everyone's saying, oh, good.
That's probably the biggest statement I made because people thought I would use force.
But I don't have to use force.
I don't want to use force.
I won't use force.
All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland where we already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago after we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians, and others in World War II.
We gave it back to them.
We were a powerful force then, but we are a much more powerful force now.
After I rebuilt the military in my first term and continue to do so today, we have a budget.
So is he trying to say that America possessed Greenland after World War II?
Budget of $1.5 million.
We're bringing news to me.
Money.
But that did decades.
But the problem with NATO is that we'll be there for them 100%.
But I'm not sure that they'd be there for us if we gave them the call.
Gentlemen, we are being attacked.
We're under attack by such and such a nation.
Such and such.
You don't want to say Russia and China, so he says such and such.
Any wrong.
We're being attacked by the such and such tribe.
I know them all very well.
I'm not sure that they'd be there.
I know we'd be there for them.
I don't know that they'd be there for us.
So, with all of the money we expend, with all of the blood, sweat, and tears, I don't know that they'd be there for us.
They're not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you.
Iceland.
He keeps mixing up Iceland and Greenland.
Market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland.
Iceland.
Well, Greenland's covered in ice.
I call it, I mixed it up.
So funny.
It's already cost us a lot of money.
But that dip is peanuts compared to what it's gone up.
And we have an unbelievable future in that three decades.
He just gets all the countries mixed up.
Yesterday, he was mixing up, what was it, Norway and Denmark?
He's like, Norway wouldn't give me the Nobel Peace Prize.
Someone else gave it to me, but they wouldn't say it was mine.
So I'm going to have to take down Denmark and Greenland from Denmark because of Norway.
They called me daddy.
I'm helping Europe.
I'm helping NATO.
And until the last few days, when I told him about Iceland, they're going to call it the Trumpland.
We're changing.
Whoever called it Greenland was a real idiot.
It's not even green.
It's covered in ice.
We're going to call it Trumpland.
Trump's.
It's like they say, the conspiracies of Hitler and Antarctica, there's going to be.
Conspiracies of Donald Trump up the king of the north and his hyperborean white supremacist Greenland nation.
Loved me.
They called me daddy, right?
Last time.
Very smart man said he's our daddy.
Peace Talks Falter00:03:43
I was like running it.
I went from running it to being a terrible human being.
Doing it.
I'm helping.
He was running NATO.
I'm helping NATO.
So funny.
Now he's calling out Macron's sunglasses.
So when I called up Emmanuel Macron, I watched him yesterday with those beautiful sunglasses.
What the hell happened?
Did his wife hit him again?
Imagine if he said that.
Imagine if he's like, did Macron slap him around again?
He totally could.
It's on video of her hitting him.
He totally could have.
So when I called up Emmanuel Macron, I watched him yesterday with this beautiful sunglasses.
What the hell happened?
Peace in the Middle East, but threatens Hamas.
Let's go.
I mean, I think we have peace in the Middle East.
There are some little situations like Hamas and Hamas has agreed to give up their weapons.
Now, you know, they were born with a weapon in their hand, so it's not easy to do.
When they were born, they were born with a rifle in their hand.
It's not an easy thing for them, but that's what they agreed to.
They've got to do it.
And we're going to know, Jared, over the next two or three days, certainly over the next three weeks, whether or not they're going to do it.
If they don't do it, they'll be blown away very quickly.
They'll be blown away.
You know, we have 59 countries that are part of that whole peace deal.
And some of those countries aren't even in, they're near the Middle East, but they're not in the Middle East traditionally.
And they want to come in and take out Hamas.
They want to come in.
They want to do whatever they can.
There's a problem with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
And we'll see what happens.
I'm hearing stats like 100,000 killed in Gaza.
And you're telling me there's still all of these Hamas soldiers that need to lay down their arms or Trump is still threatening.
What is.
I thought the whole Gaza Strip has been turned to rubble.
Hardly a structure standing.
Trump says it's a demolition site.
And now, supposedly, there's this threat that it was like, oh, all these threats until they give over the hostages.
They did that.
Now, all of these imaginary Hamas soldiers have to lay down their arms.
They just keep moving the goalposts more and more.
It seems ever they can.
There's a problem with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
And we'll see what happens there.
But that's a problem.
But there are these little flames, but there's peace in the Middle East.
I mean, I think peace in the Middle East.
Peace in the Middle East.
I did it.
We're about to go to war with Iran.
Oh, we got a Scott Ritter clip of some of his 4D chess bullshit saying Trump shut down the Iran thing, whole big theory.
We're going to show that.
I haven't watched it yet, but we're going to show that.
Here, this is the BB Iron Dome clip.
What we did for Israel was amazing, but that's nothing compared to what we have planned for the United States, Canada, and the rest of the world.
We are going to build a dome like no other.
We did it.
We did it for Israel.
And by the way, I told BBB, stop taking credit for the dome.
Dude, that is so fucking funny.
That is so that is such a chat.
It makes me want to love Trump when I hear funny stuff like that.
Set Up Netanyahu00:07:34
Technology, that's our stuff.
That's our stop taking credit for our tech, BB.
And by the way, I told Baby Beebe, stop taking credit for the dome.
That's our technology.
That's our stuff.
And funded.
They had a lot of courage.
It was a collaborative effort with the tech, with some, I think it was Rafael, an Israeli company.
But we funded most of it from what I remember.
Fighters, and they did a good job.
And we wiped out the Iran nuclear threat like nobody can believe.
Nobody's ever seen anything like it.
That's Venezuela.
$75 on Rumble.
World Economic Forum logo looks like a fish hook with the name as bait.
Nah.
This looks like the world.
Looks like a crescent of the moon.
The outline of the world.
That's what I think it is.
People do like, they'll draw six, six, six.
Totally satanic globalist new world order.
Donald Trump's the king of the king of Edom.
He's the Messiah of the nations, the Jewish Antichrist figure.
Tourney against BB.
It's our technology, BB, the Iron Dome.
Trump's antics now.
Europe announced huge trade deals with China and India.
And European Union ends free trade deal with the U.S.
So all of this Trumpisms, all of Trump's actions may be screwing up America by design.
We'll see.
Trump talks about Somalian, the Somalian IQs at the World Economic Forum.
A topic I'm a little surprised he's bringing up, I must say.
$19 billion in fraud that was stolen by Somalian bandits.
Can you believe that Somalia, they turned out to be a more low IQ than we thought?
That's what he said.
They have a higher IQ than we thought.
That is so fucking funny.
Dude, at the World Economic Forum, he says this shit.
Can you believe that Somalia, they turned out to be higher IQ than we thought?
No, it's a bunch of Democrats helping them do these scams in the city, collaborating with them.
I don't think they came up with all this stuff on their own.
Cute people.
how did they go into minnesota and steal all that money that we have you know they're pirates a good pirate site but we shoot them out of the water just like we shoot the drug boats out they're not pirating too many boats lately do you notice it's like a roast yeah it is and fraud that was stolen by everybody's like oh it's so racist it's so anti-semitic but it is so funny i'm sorry They're smarter than we thought.
They're scamming a whole lot.
They're not as stupid as we thought they were.
So I just dude.
Okay, let's see what Ritter.
Let's hear the latest BS BS scoop theory from Ritter.
How Trump's playing 4D chess and Israel's about to fall and Hamas and Hezbollah are going to take him out.
Russia shill and all of his bullshit's been wrong about so much.
This was just like Merseheimer, too.
This was something that was cooked up at Mar-a-Largo.
I mean, Lindsey Graham has admitted it.
This is something that Netanyahu and Trump cooked up when Netanyahu was visiting.
He's discussing the attack on Iran.
Marlow, this was all planned.
There's extensive planning going on between the Mossad, the CIA, British intelligence, Dutch intelligence, and every intelligence agency in the world that has been lined up against the Iranians.
You know, and yet the United States didn't pull the trigger until it was too late.
And I just have to sit there and go, come on.
Oh, it's too late.
Oh, I guess it's too late.
They're never going to do it now.
Come on, dude.
Trump knew what he was doing.
Oh, dude.
Trump set up Lindsey Graham.
Set up Netanyahu, set them all up.
Oh, it's all 40.
It's all a trap, man.
The Patriots are in charge.
Trump played the art of the deal on all of them and set a trap for Netanyahu and Lindsey Graham.
And oh, he's outing everything, man.
4D chess.
Why do all the Russia shills promote the Trump 4D chess stuff?
Scott Anon, that's funny.
They shot their bolt.
The Mossad network that every time, every time this guy's saying something, it always ages so bad.
He's got hordes of followers of like duganist Russia bots and third worlders that lap this stuff up.
Used is gone, finished.
I mean, he's he was a Russian-Israeli psyop.
Exactly.
Yeah.
In the end, they, they, when they lost communication with them, they tried to shove in a whole bunch of new Starlink communication kits.
And the Iranians were just sitting there waiting for him to come and go, thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Because the Iranians broke the code, got in there.
Thanks to the Russians, Russia, the help of Russia, by the way.
So it's all over.
That entire network's gone.
It took decades to build that network up.
It's gone so great.
Oh, we can't attack.
Trump set a trap and got it was an ambush.
Trump set up an ambush and they took out all the agents.
And now we can never attack them again.
Come on, dude.
What kind of bullshit fan fiction is this?
Graham knows what happened.
There is no capacity to replicate this, the opportunity that was lost.
Now, he's trying to be nice and say it's not Donald Trump's fault.
It's 100% Donald Trump's fault.
And you have to ask yourself, was this deliberate?
Is it just incompetence?
Which I got to ask yourself.
I also accept.
Or was this deliberate?
Oh, is Trump pulling the 5D chess Trump card on all of them?
Imagine still saying this shit for Trump.
Set up so that Netanyahu and Graham and everybody else stops talking to him about overthrowing the Iranian regime.
Oh, I'm sure.
Yeah, they're all going to drop it.
Yeah, they totally drop.
Oh, we don't have the tools to do it anymore.
Sure, right.
That makes total sense.
Yeah, Trump set a trap and all the Mossad agents in Iran all got compromised and liquidated.
Oh, yeah, it's like a spy novel with Trump.
Who listens to this shit?
12,000 likes from the apocalypse accounts.
All right.
That's trash.
All right.
Are we ready for this Christian apologetics yet?
Let's see.
What else do we got here?
Oh, no, we don't.
Yo, thank you.
Yeah, the beard, it looks weird.
Jewish State Identity00:06:25
It looks a little.
Thank you for the haircut thing.
But the beard looks a little long.
It's a little Abraham Lincoln-y looking.
Long beard with the shorter hair.
I'm going to trim it up.
I'm going to trim it up maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow, one of these days.
It's hard work.
It's really hard to make everything even.
But thank you.
Okay, we're going to, before we get to the Christian apologetics, let's do this latest from Greenblatt.
The acceptance and equality that we enjoy.
So I think that the Jewish state of Israel.
Yeah, Billy Goat.
It looks like a billy goat.
good one so i think dude i'm gonna ai i'm gonna take a picture and do an ai billy goat and say he is something like esau So I think that the Jewish state of Israel has a degree of responsibility for Jews around the world.
Yeah, Abraham Lincoln.
And has to realize that.
Hold on, hold on.
I'm missing.
I think that the Jewish state of Israel has a degree of responsibility for Jews around the world and has to realize that the policy decisions in Israel have practical implications.
And then we as Jews need to realize we have a commitment to Eretz Israel.
We have a commitment to Medina Yisrael.
Oh, oh, diaspora Jews everywhere have a commitment to Israel.
But don't talk about dual loyalty, though.
We, as Jews in diaspora, need to realize that the comfort that we enjoy, the privilege we enjoy, the acceptance and equality that we enjoy in part is because of the state of Israel.
They always, Ben Shapiro says the same thing.
No.
Oh, because we have a safety zone to go to, to flee to.
Such a weird mentality.
I firmly believe that our success is related to our sovereignty.
And I will tell you something else.
Why do they hate us?
Those countries, the names I just mentioned a few minutes ago, it's because of our sovereignty.
They cannot tolerate the idea of Jews as equals.
We are fine as long as we know our place.
That is not what the problem is.
You don't consider yourself equals with the Goyam.
That's the reality.
But those days are total projection.
Over.
We do not need to be second-class citizens ever again.
If you will, never again.
Dude, all these guys at their billion-dollar conferences every weekend, oh, we're second-class citizens.
You're running shit.
What are you talking about, second-class citizens?
Are we pretending that Jews are second-class citizens in America?
Really?
What world are you living in?
Citizens ever again.
If you will, never again.
So I think we will.
We need to recognize that our actions have consequences.
Our words have resonance.
And we need to reaffirm our relationship to the state of Israel.
And the only way we deal with the- Yeah, I don't know how their audio sucks.
The only way we defeat the scourge, I think there are just three things.
Number one, again, identity.
Going on offense means preserving and reaffirming our Jewish identity.
And you cannot take the Zion out of Jewish identity.
This is one of the things that our enemies tell us.
It's true.
That part is true.
And that's what all these Russia shills always try to do, and these leftist critics of Israel.
They go, oh, Israel has nothing to do with Judaism.
Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism.
There's this new idea, this ridiculous idea, diasporic Judaism.
Diaspora is a condition.
It's not an aspiration.
Where's the Ashkenazi IQ with the sound engineering?
Good question.
Right?
The other clips that we had didn't sound that bad.
There's a reason why every sidur in every show on the planet Earth, on every page, says something about Yerushalayim or Yisrael or Zion.
Because you cannot take the Zionism out of Judaism.
Zionism didn't start with Theodore Herzl.
God, have I not said of that a million times?
The stupid talking point?
See, this is the problem.
Your talking points aren't true, so then they end up winning.
Didn't start with Theodore Herzl.
What is he going to say?
It started in the Bible.
It started in the Torah.
Started with Kabbalist, mystical rabbis.
They say it started with modern atheists.
What about Zabbatai Zevi in the 1600s?
That was a Zionist, Kabbalistic movement.
Messianic movement.
Zion didn't start not with Bibi.
It started with Moshe Rabbainu.
Moses.
So the author of the Torah, exactly like I said.
T-Lav still says this to the day.
I know.
Him and lots of people.
They all, like, it's a very common talking point amongst anti-Zionists to say Zionism is not Judaism.
It started thousands.
Thank you, Parizha.
Parisia Times sent $5 on Rumble.
Jews, we're disproportionately successful because of our Jewish culture.
Also, Jews.
We're second-class citizens.
Schrödinger's Jew.
Yeah, that's exactly thousands of years ago.
I think that the Jewish state of Israel has it.
They're like, you should be ultra-nationalistic and supremacist according to your Judaism.
And God did give us the land.
The Torah is inherent in us.
Signed Copies and Disbelief00:02:25
Here's Jewish Zionist Blake.
Thank you.
Banned?
Well, we'll have to unblip you.
Yes.
Well, like I said, guys, I submitted the cover and the manuscript to the publisher, and then they're going to have to shipping me a book of what it would look like, and then I'm supposed to review the book, and then I could do a big order.
And as soon as I do the big order, another one.
Uh-oh.
I am banned from the Rumble chat.
All right, we'll get you unbanned.
Guys, unban them.
Can we do that?
All right, so after I review the hard copy of the paperback, then I can approve it and then do an order.
And as soon as I put that order in, even before I get them, I'm going to put them up for sale on the website so you guys can get your order in.
All right.
And we're doing for the book release, we're going to do $24.99.
And then after sometime when I get the audiobook, it's ultimately going to go on Amazon and go up to $29.99.
So if you want it, get your order in first and you'll get your signed copy.
Release price.
Adam is the goat.
That's funny.
Yeah, I'll say goat above me.
Exactly.
That'll be perfect.
Yo, disbelief.
Disbelief suspender sent $5 on Rumble.
Adam is the goat.
Thank you.
I wish.
I wish that was the case.
Gary.
I sent $25 on Rumble.
Yes.
Worldwide.
Worldwide.
It's post office.
You can ship anywhere.
It does.
I don't know.
I know the shirts can be up to like $20 to ship overseas.
So I'm not sure what the book is.
There's supposed to be discount pricing for media in the post office.
So hopefully it'll be less.
All right.
So as we were saying, also, remember Melanie Phillips at the Zionist conference in New York City back in November says the same thing about how Israel comes first.
Old Europeans vs. New Immigrants00:08:10
They're all about Israel.
It's inherent in their blood.
Every Jew, you have to be Israel first, basically.
But then they turn around and say, oh, don't talk about dual loyalty.
Oh, sorry.
You are part of the Jewish people.
To fight, I love how Greenblatt basically says to be anti-Zionist is genocide, and that Zionism comes from Moshe Rabano, from Moses, who never existed, who wrote a Jewish fairytale book.
So if you deny their Jewish fairytale book written by mythical figure, that's genocide.
I need to get those two clips together to show.
It's saying you're Amalek and you want to genocide them if you don't go along with their book.
30 shekels and a Gentile tax, 65 shekels?
To fight, you need to know and love your identity.
Israel gets it.
Now, diaspora Jews need also to realize you are not just Americans with Judaism added on.
In Britain, they're not just British Jews with Judaism added on.
They are part of the British people of the, sorry, you are part of the Jewish people and the Jewish nation, and that should come first.
That should come, your Jewish nation and the Jewish people comes first before your national identity.
You see, the Jews believe, according to their religion, that if they're in exile in diaspora, if they're anywhere but living in Israel, in Jerusalem.
So they say, she says it.
Top Zionist at their conferences on camera saying it's Israel first, your Jewish identity first before having any allegiance to the nations that you live.
Jewish nation, and that should come part of the Jewish people and the Jewish nation.
And that should come first.
First and foremost, you are Jews.
Everything else is secondary.
To fight, you need to know and love.
Ultra-nationalist, ethnocentric.
And yet if Europeans do it, it's the epitome of all evil and must be banned everywhere.
Yeah, it's like an open admission of treason.
Exactly.
Crazy.
So crazy.
This is an important clip, though.
Because he also says being anti-Zionist is genocide and that Zionism is Moshi Rubeno.
The authority of their Zionism is Moshi Rubeno, Moses.
Someone clip this.
Okay.
All right, where were we now?
Let's see.
President at the World Economic Forum, president of the Conference of European Rabbis, calls us old Europeans.
Your eminence, especially in Germany, you are facing a rise of anti-Semitism, but we are facing this all over the world.
So I would like to hear what is your perspective on this.
The 7th of October has created turbulence in the whole world, a tremendous rise of anti-Semitism, organized, state-sponsored, in many instances, in universities, on the streets, and a rise of 500%, maybe some instances to 1,000% of anti-Semitic acts.
And there has also been a reaction of Europe.
I think the rise of the extreme right in many European countries is a response to the insecurity felt by the old Europeans, so-called old Europeans, regarding the new immigrants who came from the Middle East.
So I think that fighting Islamophobia and anti-Semitism is an interest of both religions and both communities.
And when we do it together, it's going to be.
Nationalism for me, but not for the.
Yeah, exactly.
That's the way they want to have it.
Have their cake and eat it too.
I think I've seen a clip of this guy before.
This is the same one that talked about the Jews and the Muslims teaming up against the old Europeans, the racist old Europeans that want to have their nations while they're all obsessed with their chosen promised land, covenantal nations.
Europeans, so-called old Europeans, regarding the new immigrants who came from the Middle East.
We need to be the old Europeans and the new Europeans.
Today's Europeans need to be the old Europeans.
Do we talk about like, oh, well, like, you're just the old Jews, and now we're going to bring in all the new Israelis that are all foreigners?
They would never have that.
$10.
Thank you, Todd Fox.
That's a new name.
I don't think I've seen Todd Fox.
We got to unban that guy that gave us 50, too.
I don't know how to do that.
Can you email me with your link to your account?
I think that's what I need.
... came from the Middle East.
So I think that fighting Islamophobia and anti-Semitism is an interest of both religions and both communities.
And when we do it together, it's going to be much more useful.
We have created.
Dude, it's funny how these Jews will try to rally the blacks against white people.
They'll try to rally the Muslims against white people.
The other Zionists will try to rally white Christians against the Muslims.
Jews will be ultra-racist and at Muslims and Arabs, but then turn around and force us and push us and team up with them to push them into European countries.
Just stuck in a kosher sandwich, getting hit with arrows from all sides.
Also, the Saudi umbrella, more than 10 years ago, the Muslim Jewish Leadership Council, which was successful.
And we believe that we have to go this way if we want to make sure that every European can live in peace and walk in peace in the streets.
You don't care about every European.
I see rabbis all the time online saying Europe has vengeance being brought upon it by the Muslims.
The Muslims are the broom conquering Europe, punishing Edom for destroying their temple and persecuting them in their exile.
And then they get the other Jew to come up and sit on the stage and say this shit.
You don't care if our streets aren't safe because you want to flee to Israel anyway.
Europeans don't have anywhere to flee to.
Americans aren't going to be able to flee to Europe if they keep pushing for the immigration that they do.
Let's see.
Brimlow from V Dare interviewed by Tucker.
Let's see some of this clip.
Anyone see this?
Is it worth watching the whole thing?
The defining fact of our lives is that whites around the world are being eliminated.
And I would like to know why.
The people running the Good Society are anti-white, and they've been able to persuade or intimidate the entire legal system to operate in an anti-white woman.
White white in this case with me is anti-American because the whites are Americans.
The people who signed like that gracious independence, that's who Americans are.
Yeah.
Hold on.
Anti-white also is anti-European, but I guess what you can say, like European identity has their national identity, but Americans are all mixed European.
Tucker Asks Ava00:02:25
So that's kind of where like the white mixed European mutt identity comes from.
So I get what he's saying there.
I'm pretty sure that's what he means.
That's who Americans are.
Yeah.
The defining fact of our lives is that whites around the world are being eliminated.
And I would Nick has called out V-Dare for deliberately not naming them, really?
I saw Tucker.
There was a clip too.
Tucker asked, man, I kind of have the Tucker haircut right now.
He asked that blonde Viking girl, Eva Ava, something.
He said, like, who's behind this?
And she was like, I don't know.
I have no idea.
I'd like to know why.
The people running the good society.
Hold on, let's find that clip.
Tucker Ava.
Tucker Ava.
She's.
I can see why.
I can see why she's so famous.
Too bad she's a Christian.
Somebody needs to save the Viking Queen.
I mean, so clearly, there is a very well-organized, very well-funded effort to eliminate the white population of Europe.
I mean, because it is being eliminated and you're not allowed to notice it, you'll be punished by police and courts you pay for if you notice what's happening to your ancestors' homeland.
So that's all just true.
That's right.
Like, who is pushing this?
Sorry, Tucker.
Question of all questions, right?
But it seems that all of these leaders that we or is it the answer of all answers?
She's playing dumb.
She's like extremely uncomfortable.
She's like, Chucker, are you trying to get me canceled?
Who's behind it, Tucker?
Really?
Come on, dude.
Quit trying to set up our girl.
No, I'm just kidding.
Good jeans?
Question of all questions, right?
But it's the $6 million question, as they say.
All of these leaders that we have, be it Kier Starmer, be it Ursula von der Leyen, be it Meritz in Germany, be it Macron, they all follow the same playbook.
Agenda of Erosion00:06:39
They all say the same things, literally post the same things, you know, in their communications to the outside world.
They might focus on slightly different subjects here and there, but the agenda is the same everywhere.
And it's the erosion, essentially, of our borders, of our nation states, of our heritage.
I don't have to tell you.
She crashes out against anti-Semitism, too.
I hadn't seen that.
You or your audience, Dad.
All know it.
The question is: who's behind?
She's like the nationalist poster girl.
Honestly, you know, the is completely kosher, right?
She's never said a thing about Jews at all, as far as I know.
I don't know.
I can't answer that question, but what I can tell you is that people who are rolling out these agendas.
No answer.
They're doing it out in the open in front of our faces.
So they're doing it in the open, but you can't name any of them.
They keep getting hey, how about sharing an Edom compilation of the rabbis?
Even if they're not the be-all, if you don't believe they're actually pulling the strings and the be-all end-all, at least reveal that this is what they all think and are saying: oh, Edom's going to be destroyed.
God's going to destroy Edom.
They persecuted us and vengeance is coming to them.
Can we get a share on that?
Miss Big Nationalist woman.
Oh, their number one prophecy is about destroying Europe and America.
Not worth covering.
Where is she from?
I can't remember.
Norway, Denmark, something like that.
Re-elected.
Is that that crazy to share compilations of rabbis, like dozens of rabbis all over the internet talking about destroying Europe according to their prophecies?
March, March on Penguin.
Blessing of Thunder to all.
The mountains call our name.
March on Penguin.
The Penguin, yeah.
Okay, I guess we're doing the Penguin meeting meme now.
Her answer depends on keeping her job.
Yeah.
So I, you know, she's in with the kosher nationalism.
See that face, that uncomfortable face she just did right there.
Re-elected.
So I, you know, I've made it my mission at least to talk about those people and target them specifically because they are the ones that are in front of us, you know, rolling this out over and over and over again.
But it's, it's very difficult to say.
So I don't know that much about Mertz.
I don't know Macrone.
His reputation is Rhys Witherspoon forehead.
Clever and cunning.
Her forehead's fine.
Politically.
But she's suboptimal.
We'll go clavicular.
Never.
Yo, Clav, can we get a rating on Ava?
Mandible is recessed, blah, The orbital, suborbital, optimal bone.
Clever and cunning.
She's a middle physically.
I'll give her a six.
I know a fair amount about Cure Starmer, and you will never convince me.
At gunpoint.
Remember the first time I saw her, she had like a red bandana and looked like a country girl.
She had like some raw milk.
She's holding some milk.
And that Cure Starmer is making independent decisions about the future of Britain.
Just you can't convince me of that.
He's not adequate as a leader of a nation.
He just doesn't have the basic qualities.
He is taking orders.
That could not be clearer.
And I think it's clear to the British population.
But you don't know who's giving orders.
No, I mean, I don't know who's giving those orders.
I think if we would know, you know, it would be easier to stop this from happening, right?
But that is, I think, part of the agenda.
This is how she earned the spot of top nationalist in the world.
How's that for subliminal messaging?
Whole lot of milk you got there in front of your chest, Ava.
You've got a lot of milk.
Your milk?
Hey, girl, I like your milk.
You look like you produce a lot of milk.
Viking queen with milk.
Milkers, we don't exactly quite know who's behind this.
Seriously, though, that's what she did.
She did that post and then instantly overnight, top kosher nationalist in the world, right?
I'm not kidding.
That's literally how it went down.
This was her audition to become the top nationalist, top Christian nationalist in the world.
Oh, what was your resume?
Credentials?
What are her credentials?
I wonder who it could be that has an anti-white agenda.
Yeah.
I guess we'll never know.
Guess we'll never know.
No idea who it could be.
So clearly, there is a very well-organized, very well-funded Christian shill to the white population of Europe.
I mean, because it is being eliminated and you're not allowed to notice it.
Stormer is making independent decisions.
Can we watch the whole thing?
Pretty privileged.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't know who's giving those orders.
I think if we would know, you know, it would be easier to stop this from happening, right?
But that is, I think, part of the agenda is that we don't exactly quite know who's behind this.
Guess we'll never know.
Does anybody know who could it be?
And they've been able to persuade.
This is so funny.
Oh, this, I should have played this right after the green black clip.
This could go in there too, maybe.
If Muslim leaders want to see their religion respected, they'll try to ensure that these crimes are not committed in the name of Islam.
And that's the problem.
They are being committed in the name of Islam.
Signs and Prophecies00:15:38
If Muslim leaders want to okay, see, I got tricked here.
He said Muslim.
They just switched Jewish and Muslim.
Okay.
Pass.
Okay, let's see.
Let's do some Christian apologetics.
Gotta stop the wizards before you stop the orcs.
That is so funny, see-through it all.
Is that a rabbi line?
That's what the response to that rabbi that says, We're protecting you from the orcs.
You should worship every Jew because we're protecting you from the orcs.
All right, let's go.
Where's the Christian apologist?
It was some see-through-it-all tagged me.
Here it is.
Who's this guy on Pints with Aquinas, which is now a daily wire show, talking about Jonah in the whale?
Let's hear.
Oh, this is seven minutes.
Let's see.
I want to hear it all.
It's all right.
So, a lot of Christians today, like a lot of apologists, when they want to argue for believing in the resurrection, what they'll usually do is appeal to like the sincerity of Peter and Paul or the apostles.
Like these guys, they clearly believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
Otherwise, they wouldn't have been martyred for his sake, for his messiahship.
I mean, they well, nobody ever dies for a lie.
Nobody would ever they're made-up stories, too, for the most part.
Way later legends, there were no disciples, only apostles.
Paul never even uses the word disciple, were willing to be crucified upside down like Peter or decapitated like Paul.
They would not have done that if they knew the story.
The story, the book, the source where Peter was crucified upside down, like it's so late, and there's so much other nonsense in it.
Serious people don't take it serious.
He hadn't been raised, and it was all just a hoax.
Okay, that's a credible argument.
It's interesting, the church fathers, they don't, that's not how they do it.
Like, they don't appeal to like the sincerity of the apostles.
When they argue for believing the resurrection, they appeal to prophecy and they appeal to one prophecy in particular.
And it's the only one Jesus links with the resurrection.
Because they only knew of it from prophecy.
There were no eyewitnesses, disciples that were martyred.
They appealed to prophecy because Jesus is a product of prophecy.
He's a myth, mythical product of prophecy.
The sign of Jonah.
So, real quick, so you probably remember this in Matthew chapter 12 and Luke 2.
It says, some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you.
And Jesus said, answered them, an evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except one, the sign of the prophet Jonah.
For as Jonah was three nights and three days in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
The men of Nineveh will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah.
And behold, something greater than Jonah is here.
Now, pause there.
Jesus just told you the one sign you're going to get is the sign of Jonah.
And he links it with his resurrection.
Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
Now, I don't know about you, but like when I used to read that when I was younger, I was like, okay, I get it.
Three days, three days.
Like, I get the parallel, but I wasn't entirely too impressed by it because when I think of Jonah, I always, I kind of think of like, you know, Pinocchio.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah, yeah, exactly.
Or, you know, like, or like the, what's the veggie tales, Jonah?
Like, you know, that kind of stuff.
Right.
Like we have this kind of fantastic, incredible, like, how could a man stay alive in the belly of the whale for three days?
You know, it just doesn't make any sense.
And so I never, I didn't really, I kind of blow by that passage.
But then one day when I was actually reading Jonah in Hebrew, it hit me a lot harder.
Because if you go back to the book of Jonah and you look at it and you don't skip the prayer of Jonah, but you actually read it, what you'll realize is something fascinating, namely that the book of Jonah doesn't actually say he was alive for three days and nights.
Dude, it's only because of Christianity that any of us, anybody today in modern times, all these Europeans are obsessed with ancient Jewish fairy tales.
Only because of Christianity do we take these things serious.
Do we sit around asking, wondering like, well, I wonder if lightning really does come from four?
No, because that's stupid.
This is stupid.
Living in a fish for three days is stupid.
Jesus proving to the Pharisees that he was truly the son of man because he went to hell for three days is retarded.
It's like Jews and Christians dressing up, LARPing together, playing Dungeons and Dragons and pretending it's real world.
These people should be shunned and laughed at and polite society should consider them unhinged lunatics that should not be listened to at all or taken seriously.
Three nights and belly well.
It's actually a story about death and resurrection.
And Old Testament scholars have shown this too.
There's an ancient Near Eastern motif of you go down into the underworld for three days and you come up.
And fascinating.
Look at exactly.
It's a motif that the Jews co-opted and it didn't happen.
I love how he says that like it's no big deal.
Yeah, the dying and rising God, the three-day motif.
Oh, it was in pagan religions.
I have a section in my book about this and the pagan parallels.
And then the church fathers, everybody knew this.
So the church fathers said, oh, that was Satan planting Jesus's redemption story so that the pagans wouldn't believe it when Jesus came and really did it.
Jonah, listen to his prayer.
Yeah, what about filling a small boat with all the world's animals?
Exactly.
If you believe that, you failed the retard litmus test, and I can't take you seriously for anything you say.
That's the truth.
If you read it, look what he says.
He says, Jonah prayed to the Lord God from the belly of the fish, saying, I called to the Lord out of my distress, and he answered me, out of the belly of Sheol.
I cried.
So how?
You heard my voice.
You cast me into the deep into the heart of the sea.
The flood was round about me.
Your waves and billows passed over me.
And he said, The waters closed in over me.
The deep was round about me.
Weeds wrapped around my head at the roots of the mountains.
And I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever.
Yet you brought up my life from the pit.
Okay, pause.
Sheol is the name for the realm of the dead in the Old Testament.
The pit is the Hebrew name for the realm of the dead in the Old Testament.
And he actually says, My soul fainted within.
I have a section in my book.
It's about a subsection about the resurrection, prophecies that made them believe in a resurrection.
And there's several verses in there about being saved from the pit in the Psalms, I believe.
Nefesh is the Hebrew name for soul.
In other words, I died, but as I died, my prayer came to you.
As my soul fainted, my prayer came to you in your holy temple.
And then what happens?
The Lord spoke to the fish.
It vomited Jonah out upon the dry land.
And the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: Arise, go to Nineveh and preach to the Gentiles.
Right.
Okay, so pause.
Hey, go to the Gentiles.
So it was a Gentiles, it was a religion fabricated to go take, conquer the Gentiles.
Thank you.
Christians take literally what Jews wrote metaphorically.
Good point.
It's fascinating.
Not just Jonah, but if you look at ancient Jewish targums and some of the ancient Jewish midrash rabbit, like these commentaries on that, this is not just me.
They recognize there is a stream of interpretation that says Jonah dies and the whale vomits his corpse up onto the land.
And it's a resurrection story.
It's a death, descent to Hades, and a resurrection story.
And after he's resurrected, the miracle is not just that he's spit out by the whale.
It's that he goes to the Ninevites, who are these wicked Gentiles, preaches to them.
And what happens?
They all convert from the king all the way down.
They start worshiping the God of Israel, repent for their sins.
And this is insane.
The Ninevites, this is some of the worst people.
They're like the pre-Babylonians.
They're just, they're the worst.
So instead of realizing, like, they use this as the template and the framework, and then invented the myth of Jesus to go into hell for three days and then rise and then go conquer the Gentiles, or be the Joseph that's thrown into the pit, rejected by his brothers, and then goes and rules over Egypt.
Same template.
This is their messianic template to conquer the Gentiles.
They made up a myth of Jesus.
These guys are sitting here in awe, like, oh, it all really happened.
It's all fulfillment.
The Jews are magical.
I see Amaleks here.
He says, The Jews are allowed to be the dungeon masters and the party's wizards at the same time, and the Christians allow it.
The Christians elevate them and their delusional covenant Jewish fairy tale stories.
Yeah, the Lord spoke to the fish and then went and convinced the Goyam.
Ben Shapir is like, You're hired, Pints of Aquinas.
Oh, Catholic, you're hired.
You're going to talk about Jonas being real?
You're hired.
You're hired.
That'll help.
Good Noah, hi.
They're oppressors of Israel.
They're wicked.
And yet, through the miracle of Jonah and his preaching, they convert.
Right.
Now, go back to the sign of Jonah.
With that in mind, if Jonah, the story of Jonah, is a story of a death and resurrection, a death, descent into Hades, and resurrection, and then a conversion of the Gentiles.
Now go back.
What does Jesus say?
You want a sign?
You're not going to get anyone except one, the sign of Jonah.
As he was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man beware in the grave.
And then this doesn't make any logical sense that Jesus would tell the Pharisees, you don't get any signs, but Jonas.
Wasn't he walking around fulfilling one prophecy after another?
His whole life is fulfilling this prophecy and then doing this.
So because the prophet said, and you're telling me the Jews didn't see that as a sign healing the blind, freeing the slaves, every he was in the synagogue and said, The blind can see Isaiah 61.
This is fulfilled in me.
Isn't that a sign that he's the Messiah?
When he says, get me the donkey, and then rides into Jerusalem on the donkey, fulfilling Zachariah 9, 9, as they say, Hosea, and they have their palm leaves, all fulfilling prophecy.
But oh, there's no signs for the Pharisees.
This is incoherent mental illness.
Their analysis is so bad.
He will rise on the third day.
And the men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment and this generation condemned for they repented at the preaching of Jonah something greater than Jonah is here.
So what happens?
Son of man is crucified.
Son of man is buried.
He goes down to the realm of dead for three days.
On the third day, he rises again.
And what happens after the resurrection?
He sends his apostles go to all nations, teaching them everything I've taught you, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, the Holy Spirit.
And what happens, Matt?
The nations.
One by one, the nations start to fall.
They start to convert.
They start to abandon the temples.
Start to fall.
I mean, convert.
One by one, the Goyam are conquered by the Jewish Son of Man.
That's all about conquering the Gentiles.
And all the kings and the Goyam will bow and tremble in fear, setting their sight on that Son of Man who will have dominion over all nations and all languages.
Abandon Artemis.
Yeah, nothing more Jewish than accepting Jesus.
Soft and quiet.
Matt Frad versus Amalek.
Is this Matt Frad?
Matt Frad versus Samalek would be entertaining.
Is this Matt Frad?
I don't know who that is.
Yeah, and now we're slaves now.
This is so good.
Teaching them everything I've taught you, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, the Holy Spirit.
And what happens, Matt?
The nations.
One by one, the nations start to fall.
They start to convert.
They start to fall.
That's the blonde one.
They abandon Artemis.
They abandon Ephesus.
I mean, they abandon the goddess of Ephesus.
They abandon Zeus and they start to they abandon all their pagan gods and now they worship the Jewish gods.
Super based.
Brought to you by Daily Wire.
Hey, from your Catholic influencer.
Worship the God of the Jews.
They start to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
How is this even possible?
It's fascinating.
If you look at Isaiah, Jeremiah.
29 likes.
29 likes.
The Christians laying out the whole scheme.
Yeah, start to fall.
Freudian slip.
Yeah, the Gentiles conquered the Jews with earthly weapons, but then the Jews fought back with spiritual weapons and won.
Because of these idiots falling for it.
Yeah, myth wars.
Ezekiel, like there's these prophecies.
One day the nations are going to convert.
One day the nations will be gathered into Jerusalem.
One day, the nations will call upon the God of Israel.
One day, the house of one nation, the Goyim will be enslaved to Yahweh.
Yes.
Christ is king.
Prayer will be a house of prayer for all nations.
And you're looking.
What, what, Adam?
You don't want to bow down to the king of the Jews?
What are you, a Jew?
You don't believe in magical Jews.
What are you, a Jew?
You don't want to be a spiritual Semite and Jewish inwardly and have a circumcised heart.
What are you, a Jew?
Nothing more Jewish than hating Jesus.
I can't believe we're dealing with the type of mental illness.
Round in the seventh century, sixth century, fifth century, first century.
You're like, how is that ever going to happen?
The prophecy of the conversion of the nations.
And yet that prophecy begins after the resurrection of Jesus.
In other words, the sign of Jonah isn't just the resurrection of Jesus.
It's the conversion of the Gentiles after his resurrection.
Just like the conversion of the Ninevites, Jonah's preaching was a miracle.
It was a sign that the one God was the true God.
So too, the conversion of the Gentiles is a sign that Jesus is the Messiah and is the Son of God.
And so Eusebius writes this.
Listen to this.
This is fourth century.
So it's like 200 years later.
He said, behold how today, yes, even in our own time, our eyes see not only Egyptians, but every race of men who used to be idolaters, released from the errors of polytheism and the demons and calling on the God of the prophets.
The demons.
The God of Israel.
Yes, in our own time, the knowledge of the omnipotent God shines.
Dude, Eusebius must have been a crypto, Jew.
Come on.
He's living in the Middle East.
He's living in the Levant.
Oh, the Goyam no longer worship the demons.
Now we worship the Jew God.
This is such a good clip.
So glad I watched the whole thing.
Good find.
See through it all.
The whole thing's right here.
And then they'll go, Adam, I love how like all the Christians will show Christians and rabbis and Nazis and everybody all saying and recognizing the same thing.
But then when we say it, they go, oh, what are you Project Esther Messiah agent?
They're so bad faith.
Oh, my God.
How many times do we have to get vindicated?
Yeah, laying out the whole plan in critter on Twitter.
It's just crickets.
God was the true God.
So too, the conversion of the Gentiles is a sign that Jesus is the Messiah and is the Son of God.
And so Eusebius writes this.
Listen to this.
This is fourth century.
So he becomes the Messiah because the gullible Goyam fall for the Jewish prophecy deception.
So it's like 200 years later.
He said, behold how today, yes, even in our own time, our eyes see not only Egyptians, but every race of men who used to be free from the errors of polytheism and the demons and calling on the God of the prophets, the God of Israel.
Yes, in our own time, the knowledge of the omnipotent God shines forth and sets a seal of certainty on the forecasts of the prophets.
F Fulfillment of Prophecy00:15:49
You see this actually going on.
You no longer only expect to hear of it.
And if you ask the moment when the change began for all your inquiry, you will receive no other answer but the moment of the appearance of the savior.
I mean, like when they when the sect of mystical, messianic, apocalyptic Jews discovered Jesus hidden in the scrolls, God's hidden mystery, that they read through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, discovered the hidden coded Jesus in the prophecies, and then came up with a pesher midrashically and then sold that lie to the Gentiles.
That's how it went down.
Wasn't for the Jews.
Jesus wasn't for the Jews.
He was for the goi.
So yeah, maybe it's a coincidence that all the prophets' prophecies began to be fulfilled after Jesus Nazareth was crucified.
Or maybe the Jews just made it up.
Or maybe they knew the prophecies and some Jews made up a story fulfilling prophecies.
How do they never even address that possibility?
The most likely, simplest, obvious explanation, they all act like that's out of the question.
Oh, it must be real.
Sure.
Casts of the prophets.
You see this actually going on.
The magical Jews in their prophecies predicting the future to conquer the Goyim.
Moment when the change began for all your inquiry, you will receive no other answer but the moment of the appearance of the Savior.
I mean, like, so yeah, maybe it's a coincidence that all the prophets' prophecies began to be fulfilled after Jesus Nazareth was crucified, died, and reputedly rose again.
But maybe it's not a coincidence.
Maybe it's probably not.
Nobody's saying it's a coincidence, or maybe it's providence.
Maybe it's real.
We're saying they made up these stories.
Coincidence.
Are any atheists out there like, just a coincidence that Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies?
Nobody's ever said it's a coincidence.
Talk about a straw man.
Is it a coincidence or is it magic?
Obvious magic.
Is it magic or is it a fairy tale?
It's actually the fulfillment of prophecy.
Maybe this is why Jesus went back and began with Moses and all the prophets interpreted the things in the scriptures concerning himself.
Like, this is the motive for believing that he's not just the Messiah.
He's not just the Son of God, but he's the resurrected Son of God.
And all the claims he made during his earthly life are vindicated by the truth of the resurrection.
And you look around, you still see it today.
The Gentiles, the nations are still converting.
They're converting now.
People, every day, people are converting to worship the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, God of Jacob, who becomes man in Jesus of Nazareth.
The God of the Jews.
All the going.
Worshiping the God of the Jews.
Isn't it so based?
29 likes.
That Jonah's mission to the Gentiles.
All right.
So, this guy, of course, unsurprisingly, greatest story ever, the greatest lie ever sold.
It's a line I have in my book.
Of course, he uses the appeal to Bart Ehrman fallacy.
So let's see some of that.
Let's hear some of this apologetics for historical Jesus.
I'm sure it's going to be a steaming pile of shit.
I'm sure you'll get the unbiased, unfiltered truth from a Christian apologist on if Jesus existed or not.
$20, what's going to take for these people?
The whole dumb religion came from a people that made everyone believe if you kill an animal just right, God will make it rain on your crops.
Yeah.
Yep.
Thank you for the dono there.
That was another new name.
All these new names.
All these new names today.
What was that name?
Appreciate you.
And I'm all out of bellgum for the 20.
All right.
Let's hear the Bart Air.
I have a section of my book called The Appeal to Bart Ehrman Fallacy, too.
Bart Ehrman, who just retired, famous, used to be an atheist.
I think he's agnostic now.
New Testament.
Used to be an atheist.
He was educated at Moody Bible Institute, Ultra Zionist Evangelical School, at Wheaton College, another hardcore Christian school, and Princeton Theological Seminary.
All religious schools.
He's their token atheist.
Their token secular atheists that they always appeal to.
I've read his book.
They haven't.
I've read his book multiple times.
I quote from his book a lot in my book.
And then I quote the other side.
I quote Richard Carrier.
I quote Earl Doherty.
I quote Frank Zindler, Robert Price.
They have a whole book debunking his book.
And these Christian apologists get up here and just go, well, but even Bart Ehrman says, case closed every single time.
The Bart Ehrman appealed to Bart Ehrman fallacy.
Whole chapter in my book about Bart Ehrman, basically, and his core arguments, how flawed and debunked his core arguments are.
But hey, guys, you're getting it straight from Daily Wire.
This is your Zio kosher-approved Christian apologetic propaganda here.
Bart Ehrman, who just retired, famous, used to be an atheist.
I think he's agnostic now, New Testament scholar, very influential.
I've read his books when I was in grad school.
You know, he also did Jesus exists.
And he has no religious, theological, or faith motivations here.
And he just decimates a lot of the radical, they call it the Jesus mythicism school.
This idea that Jesus Nazareth never existed.
That is not a credible scholarly position.
Not credible.
Oh, listen to the Christian that believes that you can, that Jesus really was in a way, or that Jonah was really in a whale for three days.
Yeah, it's not credible to say a magical comic book Jesus didn't exist, though.
Jesus Nazareth never existed.
That is not a credible scholarly scholarly position.
Decimates a lot of the radical.
Decimates, dude.
In my book, I show all the arguments back and forth between Ehrman and other scholars.
He's the one that gets decimated.
Are you going to trust me or are you going to trust the Christian apologist on Daily Wire?
He does look like Aaron McIntyre.
I thought that too.
Guys, if you've been watching my show, is it not every single time?
They'll say Josephus.
They'll say disciples were martyred, wouldn't die for a lie.
And they say Mo Bard Ehrman every time.
Or they'll go, he says the same one too.
He goes, oh, if you don't believe in Jesus, then throw out every historical figure.
We can't know anything about history.
Another just case for Christ Christian apologetic lie.
Can't wait for the book.
Thank you, Johan.
Well, they call it the Jesus Mythicism School.
This idea that Jesus Nazareth never existed.
That is not a credible scholarly position, even for someone like Bart, who is.
Oh, even Bart Ehrman says it's just not credible.
See what I'm saying?
This is all they have every time.
It's trash.
It's so trash.
I got to send this to Neil and Derek.
The Bard Ehrman Cope every single time.
Oh, the guy that believes in all of the Old Testament, literally Noah's Ark, talking snakes, Jonah in the whale.
He's going to tell us what's credible.
Okay.
Okay, sure.
Who is not a believing Christian himself?
All right.
So I would say Ehrman was a believing Christian so much that he went to go become a pastor.
He was such a Christian that he dedicated his life to studying the Bible to become a pastor and got all of his education at theological institutes.
He's not even a historian.
He's basically a theologian.
He was trained as a theologian by Christian pastors.
He believes in talking donkeys, but he's going to tell us, oh, no, it's not credible to say Jesus existed.
Yeah, Ehrman went to Zionist Christian colleges.
Exactly.
And they sit up here and he's the token atheist that, oh, he has no bag.
He's made a whole career, illustrious career, telling you who the real Jesus, historical Jesus, really was.
But, oh, he's not, he's not, there's no sunk cost.
He's not invested in this.
All of his work would be, all of his years of shutting down and being a gatekeeper on Jesus mythicism would be in vain.
So don't tell me he's like got nothing at stake here.
Bart Ehrman is as credible as Lee Strobel.
No, that's not true.
That's he's Ehrman's way better than Lee Strobel.
What about the murder of the innocent?
That's taking it too far, SBF.
Too far.
You got to make sure to watch the Josephus clip, see-through-it-alls clip from this that goes over Josephus too.
It's so good.
He bullshits about Josephus.
I'm not surprised.
They always do.
Christian himself.
All right.
So I would say, what about the murder of the innocents where Joseph was told to wake and flee?
I mean, do we have any external case of something that's a good question?
And if we don't, doesn't that count against the.
Oh, okay.
Well, okay, a lot of historical method today.
That's okay, though.
First, number one, just because you don't have an external corroborative source doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Okay.
We know that.
We know that.
But thanks for admitting there's no contemporary source outside of the Bible that mentions Jesus.
You're God on earth.
Nobody mentions him.
Thank you for admitting that.
Not how history works.
For most, especially ancient history, a lot of times we have one source if we're lucky.
Okay.
So just because something's not corroborated by an external witness explicitly doesn't give you reason to doubt it, especially if the source in question, like in this it does if you have stories about this guy walking around Jerusalem doing all this magical shit and nobody noticed.
Thank you, Vril Vision.
Paying my tithes.
Be on the lookout for a real vision on Rumble.
Liam lives.
Yeah, it's the genre of the Gospels and the epistles is it's not like a historical, regular, secular documentation.
It's it is myth.
It's clearly a mythical figure.
He's the creator of the universe and the son of God and born of a virgin.
There's no like secular, regular witness of Jesus.
There's no any witness of Jesus.
An external witness explains.
Yo, by the way, thank you, Vril Vision on Rumble.
Be on the lookout.
Liam lives.
explicitly, doesn't give you reason to doubt it, especially if the source in question, like in this case, the Gospel of Matthew, which tells us about the massacre of the infants, is credible on other grounds.
Like, in other words, if you've established...
Come on.
Oh, it's if God can do anything, then the slaughter of the innocents is credible.
You're telling me that Herod killed all these Jewish kids and nobody wrote about it at all?
Come on, let's hear the cope for that one.
Doubt it, especially if the source in question, like in this case, the Gospel Matthew, which tells us about the massacre of the infants, is credible on other grounds.
Like in other words, if you've said he's telling you lots of true things about what Jesus did and said on other grounds, well, because Matthew says other true things about Jesus, then the slaughter of innocents must be true because he's already telling true things because the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.
Did everybody get that?
Wow.
This is so bad.
So bad.
That's the stupidest logic cope I've ever heard.
Aaron 720.
Thank you, Aaron.
Thank you for the big dono.
That's so funny.
I hadn't seen this yet.
This is hilarious.
The source in question, like in this case, the Gospel Matthew, which tells us about the massacre of the infants, is credible on other grounds.
Like in other words, if you've established that he's telling you lots of true things about what Jesus did and said on other grounds, it makes it reasonable at least give him the benefit of the doubt.
The second thing is, although we don't have an external witness to the massacre of the infants, we do have an external witness in Josephus, Jewish historian I mentioned earlier.
Oh, he's going to say a pilot killing people?
Yeah, we know.
That doesn't mean that the slaughter of the innocents is real.
The fact that Herod the Great was a absolutely murderous, horrible person.
He executed two because you sent $40 super pumped for the book.
Thank you, Aaron.
Me too.
I'm checking my email.
I'm checking the mailbox.
Like, when is this book going to get here?
So I can flip through it and say, okay, margins are good.
Everything looks good.
Order.
I don't even know how I'm going to order for the first order.
Maybe I might do 50.
I don't think I get a discount between 100 and 50.
So I'm going to start with 50.
And just, I don't want to do a huge order because the price doesn't go down that much.
And if there's anything wrong, I find a typo or something.
I want to be able to fix it before I do a huge order.
You get it.
He thought they posed a threat through his throne.
They executed his wife and then went mad with love, regretting that he had executed her, put her to death because he was still in love with her, which I'm like, if you're in love with her, you probably shouldn't murder her.
It's just a basic.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's just some advice.
If Herod was willing to kill his own sons because he thought they posed a threat to the throne, then it is reasonable and even plausible to assume that if he had heard there was an infant who had been born and that people were beginning to talk about as if it were the Messiah and this posed a credible threat to his throne,
which it would, by the way, because Herod, he wasn't actually one of the reasons he expanded the temple.
So he glorified the temple edifice because when the Messiah was supposed to come, one of the things the prophecy said he would do is build a new temple.
So Herod said, Well, I'm going to show you.
I'm going to expand the temple complex.
And he did.
He used slaves to do it and carpenters too.
It's interesting.
Joseph himself.
Like, I don't go down the road, but like, I've done some studies fascinating.
You're going to say Jesus' dad built the temple.
Is that what he's going to say?
$10, Matt Frad's set is maximally pretentious.
Just so you know, he reads Dostoevsky.
Yeah, Ben Shapiro hates Christianity so much.
That's why he hires a bunch of Catholics and Christians at Daily Wire, like Pints with Aquinas, because there's nothing they fear more.
Why Rumors Threatened Herod00:15:17
Joseph was a carpenter.
The word they use for him is one of the people who were conscripted at the time of Herod to actually work on the temple.
Anyway, please don't say that I said Joseph built the temple.
I'm just saying this is the kind of thing that was happening.
Anyway, I just said that.
Back to Herod.
So rumors of a child that would be an authentic Messiah, an authentic king, would definitely pose a threat to Herod because although Herod was referred to as a king, he's not actually from the line of David.
He's not even actually fully Jewish.
He's an Idumian, so he's like a half-Jew.
Okay.
He was put in power by the Romans as a puppet king.
And as an Idumean, as a half-Jew, there was always a kind of, shall we say, skeptical attitude toward the authenticity.
Like, you're not, you're not really the king.
So he was always trying to prove his kingship, right?
Through expanding the temple.
So, and any threats to his kingship, he would stamp out.
It'd be one thing if Josephus referred to Herod as Herod the Peaceful or something like that.
Oh, yeah, no, no, no.
This is a murderous thug who would kill anybody he thought threatened his claim to power.
And if my memory serves, which I might be wrong here, but if I'm not mistaken, there are a few Herods, so I don't want to mix them up, but I'm pretty sure it was Herod the Great, who he realized no one would mourn for him because everyone hated him.
So one of the things he planned to do was actually bring in, gather up a bunch of the men from the city, from Jerusalem, and execute them on the day of his death so that there would be mourning throughout the city, so that people would mourn, at least would be mourning.
Brilliant.
Okay, I know totally wicked in an e-wick kind of way, right?
Sounds fake.
This is the whole Herodian family.
I mean, they're just not a good family.
Somebody should do like a, you know, he thought it, he thought killing a bunch of innocent people, or maybe it was criminals, he thought killing a bunch of people when he died would make everybody mourn for him more, really?
We're going to need a fact check on that one.
SPF says, you think Clavicular would FW the green pill because he's no bullshit and doesn't like cortisol, like being afraid of hell and stuff.
That would be a good angle.
Hey, man, isn't Jesus and the Bible and hell and stuff just like, doesn't that just raise your cortisol?
It's not chill.
Yo, is it mogging to bend down to the king of the Jews?
Is that mogging?
Real moggers worship Yeshua, right, Clav?
Real moggers, real Chads bow down to the king of the Jews.
If you're serious about them, the Herods, it would be, it would be, it would be terrible.
It would make Dallas or, you know, one of these, you know, 80s TV dramas about wicked families look like child's play.
So all that's is it fake?
I didn't chat GPT it yet, but I've never heard heard such a thing.
It sounds ridiculous.
He didn't seem too sure of it either, the Herod story.
Back up, the point is, is that the description of the massacre of the infants and this is like four minutes of cope of why nobody outside of the Bible talked about the slaughter of the innocents.
And here's the other thing: it's an obvious retelling of Pharaoh killing all the Hebrew firstborns.
It's another myth to portray Jesus as the new Moses.
It's a myth based on prophecy, and he bends over backwards.
And oh, Herod must have probably killed him because he killed other people.
So it's not a surprise, grasping for anything.
It's just desperation.
Matthew 2, although it is not corroborated by external evidence, does fit with what we know from other sources about the character of Herod the Great.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
Yeah.
So again, it's reasonable.
Yes.
This is the kind of thing.
Circle jerk.
Does Teleichael Chamber?
Yeah, man.
No, no skepticism here, man.
That's a sin.
A novel Star Wars, let's say.
And you could at the end of the day, in the hey, you think Daily Wire, they'll platform a million Christian Zionist apologists.
You think Daily Wire will ever have, since they hate Jesus so much, you think they'd ever have me on to talk about how Jesus is a Jewish midrash and a mystical cosmic messiah that never existed?
You think the Egyptians would have recorded all their firstborn males being killed mysteriously?
Exactly.
Well, Pharaoh was a killer, so he could have killed all the Hebrew boys, right?
It's like, it makes sense.
Same logic for that.
Good one.
Instead of just having the common sense to know, oh, this is a motif that they're retelling a story.
No.
Not smart enough for that, apparently.
At the end of the day, in the final analysis, a text critic, however great they might be, they can't tell you whether something's the word of God.
You need a supernatural authority to make that is Daily Wire is Aquinas going to ever have on Richard Carrier or a mythicist to actually give the mythicist argument or just Christian apologists to tell you, oh, it's not taken seriously.
Yeah, that should be the new goal.
We got a green pill clav.
You read the Bible, so I don't have to.
The green pill really is the most based you can be.
I am definitely buying the book, too.
So if I die, some idiot around here will read it.
Appreciate those kind words.
Thank you.
Kind of supernatural claims.
So to sum it up, you would say that the New Testament documents are the best attested documents that we have from antiquity?
Oh, no.
In terms of quantitative attestation of manuscript numbers, absolutely.
Oh, my God.
Quantitative of manuscripts?
It's like the meme that we've covered.
They go, oh, 25,000 manuscripts.
And then you look at the fine print and it's from hundreds of years later in a different language, Latin copies of copies.
And they go, oh, yeah, there's so many copies that it's real.
See how he spins the question?
Quantitative attestation of from antiquity?
Oh, no.
In terms of quantitative attestation of manuscript numbers, absolutely.
Lots of manuscripts in the fourth century does not mean that the first century gospels are credible.
This is why we can't take Abrahamic serious.
They shouldn't be allowed in the historical Jesus debate.
Their bias is too much to overcome.
They should not be a part of this discussion.
If they believe that the Bible is the literal truth of God, you cannot take them seriously in a debate on if Jesus existed or not.
They lie about everything.
Apologists are professional liars, full-time professional liars.
Christianity is a lie, so the only way to defend it is with a bunch more lies.
There's no contest there.
Now, but that doesn't solve the historical question.
You have to answer that on other grounds, right?
You have to look at things like contextual plausibility.
Number one, like do the events and described in the New Testament, are they contextually plausible within a first-century Jewish context, given everything we know, Jewish scripture?
So if in 2000 years from now, somebody was looking back and they were reading a novel, Star Wars, let's say.
And you could say, well, no, this is actually the best attested because this novel went right.
But that wouldn't follow that was true and it didn't fit in within the context of the world.
Because the genre is fiction and it's a novel.
It turns out they didn't have spaceships back then.
Yeah, dude.
The Gospels are a fictional novel.
They're an exercise in writing a story to fulfill scripture, inspired by scripture.
It's retelling of pagan stories also mixed in.
You still don't have the flying car and I'm waiting, but whatever.
You know, when I was growing up in the 80s, I was sure I'd be, you know, watching George Jets and I was sure I'd be flying.
So, you know, they didn't get that one right.
But yeah, it's a genre matters.
Yeah.
Contextual plausibility, chronological proximity.
Like how close is Nice to be affinity?
They didn't give it also consequences.
Like if you look at the New Testament, you can see the effects of the New Testament documents, both in their being copied in the second century, like already the fathers from the second century, Irenaeus, just they're quote.
They're real because they're being copied.
Well, they created the Quran and started making copies.
I guess that's real too.
God, they should just title this video like every bad argument you could make for Jesus from some effeminate soyboy.
We know they exist, right?
And we see the effects of what they're claiming in the spread of Christianity throughout the world.
So there are lots of other historical approaches and historical criteria that the New Testament documents meet in terms of being a reliable witness to what both Jesus of Nazareth as well as his first followers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, what they did and what they said, Paul in the.
Hey, Retard, Paul never knew Jesus.
He never followed Jesus.
Come on.
Paul never knew Jesus, and he said he only learned of him from scripture and revelation, personal, private revelations or visions.
The Holy Spirit inspiring him to see Jesus, the hidden mystery in the pro in the scriptures.
It's funny how he just said Paul was a follower of Jesus.
He was no follower of any earthly Jesus.
Yeah, see through it all.
Christianity spreads, so it must be true.
That's the logic.
What they said, Paul, in the second half of the first century AD.
Like, I mean, if, put it this way, if you want to, if you want to throw out the New Testament as a reliable witness to Jesus and the apostles in the early church, you better be prepared to throw all the other ancient history as well.
So stupid.
Such an ignorant, absurd statement.
We have so much other writings of the first century.
We would have a lot more if the Christians saved them and didn't destroy them all, by the way.
Where you can tell it's real historians saying, I learned this because of this, and not writing fictional playwright, you know, gospel stories.
To compare like real secular historical works to the gospels and say, well, if you don't believe the gospels, you can't believe anything that was ever written down ever is just pure Christian bullshit.
So bad.
This guy is the worst.
Throw out the New Testament as a reliable witness to Jesus and the apostles in the early church.
You better be prepared to throw out all the other ancient history as well because it stacks up.
What if the other ancient history doesn't have ridiculous miracles in it?
And it says things that could be corroborated in other sources or that we know historically.
They always say this.
Oh, if you don't believe in Jesus, then we can't believe that Abe Lincoln existed.
If you don't believe in Jesus, then what about Caesar?
Well, there's better evidence for Jesus than Alexander the Great.
They always do.
The evidence is so bad for Jesus that they have to do these whataboutisms that aren't even remotely true so well against most of the history and accounts of people and events in antiquity.
Like you said earlier.
A lot of ancient.
Dude, the gospels don't even say who wrote them, when they wrote them, where they wrote them.
They don't cite any sources.
They don't show any critical scholarly skepticism.
They're propaganda pieces written by evangelists to try to say that it's the best sort.
It's the worst type of material to corroborate a historical event.
What he's saying is the absolute opposite of the truth in reality.
Figures, we only have one source, two sources.
A lot of times those are in medieval manuscripts that are a thousand years later, and yet nobody blinks an eye.
Oh, yeah, of course, this is a reliable witness to them.
But when it comes to the New Testament, we have hundreds of manuscripts that are written really close to the event.
No, they're not.
Oh, my God.
There's no hundreds of manuscripts.
We have no first century manuscripts.
What they believe are second century manuscripts is like little fragments with like one word on something.
There's no full Bibles until fourth century.
You are just, they just lie, and then the Christians hear it and it confirms their beliefs.
So they just regurgitate it and don't even look into the reality.
Keeps going back to the number of copies.
Yeah.
Hundreds of years later.
With such confidence, too, and authority, they say these pure, all of this bullshit.
Oh, yeah, of course, this is a reliable witness to them.
But when it comes to the New Testament, we have hundreds of manuscripts that are written really close to the event.
Really close.
Like, you mean 300 years?
You have no complete manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, until 4th century.
We're talking 300 years later.
Do we have a single manuscript?
It should be criminal for these guys to lie like this.
I'm sorry.
But this is like just like defamation of the truth.
And the only reason, at least I can see, that you would doubt the substance of what they're claiming is because the claims they make on you.
Oh, because you don't want to bow down to the king of the Jews.
So you don't believe the stories.
It's because you've got daddy issues.
That's basically what they say.
If you don't believe the Bible, it's because you just want to sin.
Oh, mic drop.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is.
How about you believe in Jesus because you're a closet homo?
I'm just joking.
And you got to pray the gay way and be forgiven for all your sodomy that you've done.
You need to get out of jail free pass.
It's another projection.
Another total projection.
Claims they make on you.
The claims they make on you.
Yeah, yeah.
Like it's because if Alexander the Great claimed to be God, which he did, and he wanted people to worship him, which he did, doesn't have any impact on my life.
Jewish Roots Clarified00:09:14
But if Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and then verify.
Nobody believes Alexander the Great is God.
This is so stupid.
Are we sitting around here trying to tell you Alexander the Great was really God?
No, you're the only one that thinks that a Jew is really the God and creator of the universe.
Another, everything they say is so incredibly stupid.
How is this possible?
Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and then which he did doesn't have any impact on my life.
But if Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and then verify that and vindicated that claim, not only through his miracles, but through his prophecies and ultimately, of course, through the resurrection, an empty tomb and the resurrection of the body.
So the story is true because if you believe the story is true, another circular argument here.
Yeah, Alexander was closer to a God because he actually existed and he actually was a conqueror.
Military conqueror.
He says things like, I and the Father are one, or unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.
That's John.
Okay, oh, now, now this is kind of where the rubber hits the road.
Like, I have to make a decision.
Yeah.
Like, am I going to accept that?
Yep.
And if I do, dude, his argument literally consists of this.
He goes, like, well, we know it's true because the Bible says it's true right about it in a book.
Do I have to live like he does?
Do I have to pray like he does?
Do I have to imitate him?
Like, what, what does that mean for who I am and what my life is like now?
And so, yeah, the stakes are, you know.
Dude, so good.
So good.
Every time this guy does interviews, he just lies like this.
They all do it too.
Okay.
Last one, the Jewishness of Jesus.
Who is this guy, see Duet all?
Does he have a big following?
You have another clip about him saying the gospels are eyewitnesses?
Yeah, I might as well.
I'm doing a whole big segment on this.
I'll knock down all of their bullshit claims.
Why not?
Just post it and tag me on it.
Bubble gum sent $5.
Yeah.
Paul or Saul only saw Jesus in prayer when he was back and forth.
And they celebrate Peter as a secret agent selling the idea of the God-man because they thought we would respect it.
That's true.
Looking at the Old Testament and looking at the Jewish roots of Christianity.
How has your study of the Old Testament convinced you of the truth claims of the Catholic Church?
I know we don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to wrap up with this.
Yeah.
So I would say that as for me personally.
Are they making these Joel Webb and Matt Walsh Christian shills in some lab out of Tel Aviv or something too?
Why do they all have the same look?
Personally, as a Catholic, you know, as a Catholic, the looking at the Old Testament and looking at the Jewish roots of Christianity hasn't just convinced me of, you know, the Messiahship of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus, but it's also convinced me of scriptural and the biblical foundations of distinctively Catholic teachings like our Christian shill physiognomy, right?
Beliefs about Mary, beliefs about the papacy.
And I've written a book on that.
I mentioned Jesus and the Jewish roots of Mary.
Highly recommend it.
Highly recommend it.
Yeah, yeah.
Everybody get that book.
Yeah.
What's the link?
So the e-crusaders would be like, well, this guy's Adam's wrong and doesn't understand.
He's too dumb, maybe Mossad.
But so they trust everything this guy says about Bard Ahriman and Josephus and eyewitnesses and manuscripts.
He's right about all that.
But then they're like, no, he's wrong, though.
Jesus isn't Jewish.
It's not Judaism.
It didn't come from, and he's not Jewish, though.
He's wrong about that.
Yeah.
Airy beliefs about the papacy.
And I've written a book on that.
I mentioned Jesus and Jewish roots of Mary.
Highly recommend it.
Highly recommend.
Yeah, get that book.
Yeah, put the link in the description below.
We can maybe come back sometime.
I'll do another show just on her, but on a basic try, bro.
It's simple.
In a nutshell, I would say, like, all Christians would believe, I think, you know, that, well, because the New Testament says it, that, you know, Jesus is the new Adam.
He's the new king.
He's the new David, right?
He is.
He's the new Jonah.
He's the new Joseph.
He's the new Joshua.
He's the new Alicia.
The new temple, right?
All the new temple.
He's the new Israel.
He's just like the total.
He's the what's the term?
Is Amalek still here?
Omni.
He's the Omni Jew.
He's the everything.
He's the embodiment and the typology of all of the Jewish archetypes and characters.
Yeah, he's a mythological syncretized construct.
He's an amalgamation literary construct.
Fulfilling all these prophecies.
But what happens in Catholic faith, we always believe everything we believe about Mary is based on what we believe about Jesus.
So if Jesus is the new Adam who's going to deliver humanity from death, well, who's the new Eve?
Yo, we got a Swedish girl in the house.
Sonny.
I don't know if it's a girl, actually.
I'm Swedish too.
I don't know why.
I just heard Swedish and I was hoping Swedish girl.
Try to show in the book.
You look at the scriptures.
Don't cry, Krangs.
It grows back fast.
Don't worry.
It's Mary.
And the tradition does the fathers say this.
If Jesus is the new temple, where's the new ark?
Because, yeah, the Ark of the Covenant.
Well, if you look in the New Testament, as I show in the book, Mary's being depicted as a new ark.
If Jesus is the new king, then who's the queen?
Right?
Well, a lot of people don't realize this, but in Judaism, the queen was not the king's wife.
It was the king's mother, right?
So, in other words, looking at the Jewish roots of Christianity hasn't just helped me understand the Jewish roots of Christianity, it's helped me understand the Jewish roots of Catholicism in particular.
And I keep going of Catholicism.
Yeah, dude, all these Catholics calling me a Jew all the time online.
This is what real Catholicism looks like.
You and your Jewish roots.
Oh, man.
So bad.
Do the E-Crusaders ever get tired of taking L's?
Why do you put yourself through this?
Why do you do it to yourselves?
Doesn't have to be this way.
If you don't want to worship a Jew, stop coping with your Aryan Jesus bullshit and your Galilean copes.
If you don't want to worship a Jew, then you just, you can't be a Catholic, can't be a Christian.
Just let it go.
That's such a funny line right there.
Kennedy, it's to help me understand the Jewish roots of Catholicism in particular.
And I could go into so many more details, like even like the Catholic liturgy.
Like, why do you have, why do you have a priest with vestments and tabernacles and can't they're LARPing as ancient wizard Jews?
That's why.
Because like Jay Dyer says, Does your temple liturgy even like have the Pharisee?
Do your fathers dress like the Pharisees?
Do you even like have the sacred Jewish sacraments in your liturgy?
We're actually Jew worshiping correctly, and you're not, you're a heretic.
Uh, were there the real true fulfillment of the Jews?
And incense, and all that stuff that can often be very mogged for our non-Catholic, especially non-Catholic Protestant Christians, mogs, traditions.
All of it is rooted in the tabernacle, Moses, the Temple Solomon, the Old Testament.
Like, these are the signs and shadows, the prefigurations that illuminate the mystery, not just of Christianity, but the mystery of Catholicism in particular.
So, for me personally, like it has helped deepen my understanding of the full Jay Dyer was on millennial, but not me.
The figures of the Catholic faith in a way that I would not grasp if I didn't look at how he talks shit, too.
I had to, I had a back and forth with him millennial on Twitter.
The whole campaign talks some shit and I had to mogum.
Holos means according to the whole.
We usually say it means universal, but actually literally means according to the whole.
So, when you look at it according to the whole in light of Judaism, at least for me, over and over again, every time I think there's an aspect of Catholicism that either doesn't make sense or isn't biblical, if you look at it through Jewish eyes, you can see it.
So true, so true.
You got something right, so true.
You know, Amalek also sent me this one: the Council of Trent.
Historical Proximity to Jesus00:10:44
So, what is this, Trent Horne?
Video of him, Christians, stop saying this about Jesus.
This is more historical, Jesus.
Apologetics, might as well.
We're doing this.
We're deep in it.
Let's do the other crypto-Jewish Catholic here.
It's great when Christians stand up to extreme skeptics who say Jesus never existed, but sometimes they make a misstep and say things about Jesus that aren't true.
Yeah, all the time they get shit wrong.
Them look historically naive.
So, in today's episode, we'll find out what that misstep is and how to make a case for the historicity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
But before we do that, don't forget to hit the subscribe button and support us at Trenthornpodcast.com.
Okay, before we get to Trent Horn, there's another one from See Through It All called New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Even on the latest kind of standard, even skeptical New Testament scholar dating of them, they're within 40 to 60 years of Jesus' death.
So, Jesus dies around 30, 33 AD.
The standard gospel dating amongst New Testament scholars today is that Mark is the earliest, around 70, and then John's probably the latest, around 90, 95, maybe 100 AD.
And that's the most charitable to the Christians.
They try to place it as early as they can, mark the first gospel right after the destruction of the temple.
But very likely, it came later than that, probably even late 90s or later.
Well, that's four to six decades as opposed to three to four centuries, and yet no one questions the kind of basic data that we have about Alexander.
And this is cope.
You're talking about texts, events way older than Jesus.
It's wild, too, that these Christians want to brag about what has been preserved and what kind of historical books that we still have when they were in charge of preserving and destroying the books and copying the books.
But the Great, based on these biographies, that are hundreds of years later.
Whereas you have all kinds of.
And while he's this is the cope for why the gospels are written decades after Jesus supposedly died, yeah, they waited 40 years to write down the official account of Jesus' life in the gospels.
Instead of admitting, oh, that's actually very problematic.
They go, oh, well, Alexander the Great, the oldest copy we have that talks about him is this much after and blah, blah, blah.
Yeah, but it was, you can't comparison.
These guys bullshit these comparisons.
All kinds of doubts about the gospels because they'll say, oh, the time gap between the gospels and the life of Jesus is too great.
No, actually, it's not.
40 years of hand-rubbing.
It's like the Beatles existing and being the biggest band in the world, Beatlemania, and nobody writing about it until a documentary 40 years later.
That's what the equivalent is.
Does anybody believe that?
But they're obviously not eyewitnesses.
You have Mark was the first.
It's clearly the first verse.
It's, oh, as the prophet said, it's all about prophecy.
It's a Greek tragedy play.
It's all based on scripture and pagan motifs.
And then Matthew copied that.
It's not independent.
It's not another eyewitness.
It's not another disciple.
And then Luke copied Matthew and Mark.
And then John came along and knew the author of John and knew all of those synoptic gospels, but then kind of just came up with his own thing.
Because they are written within what scholars refer to as the living memory of the events, right?
The living memory of these historical events.
So if you think about it, Jesus begins gathering his apostles, his 12 apostles, in the either late 20s or early 30s.
He stays with them for about three years before he's crucified and then put to death and then raised from the dead.
We'll come to that maybe later.
Look at the evidence for that.
So that's around 33 AD.
Those apostles, those disciples begin telling stories about him, begin preaching and evangelizing, and then narratives of his life, gospel accounts, two of which are attributed to eyewitnesses, Matthew and John, and two Luke and Mark.
Attributed.
How is Matthew an eyewitness, but Mark isn't when Matthew copies like every single part of Mark verbatim?
I'm pretty sure Matthew has like 90% of Mark word for word attributed to disciples of either eyewitnesses.
They weren't attributed.
None of these gospels were attributed by name to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John until at least 180 AD with Irenaeus also.
Clement of Rome, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr.
They don't mention the four gospels.
Like Peter.
Mark is a companion of Peter, according to the Church Fathers, or disciples of disciples, like Luke.
He's a companion of Paul.
Those are written within three, four, five decades, right?
Within the living memory of the events.
And in any other, with any other historical figure, right?
That kind of chronological proximity to the event, especially with multiple accounts, would be.
No multiple accounts.
I just explained.
Mark was the first account.
The rest of the synoptic gospels, that's what synoptic means is same, right?
They're copying Mark and adding on and changing things.
Starting point for beginning to treat the sources as if they were reliable, unless they give you reason to doubt them.
Does that make sense?
Do you follow what I'm going to answer?
Yeah, I do.
So in other words, do you like that logic?
Grant them is real unless you have a reason to doubt them.
Assume they're real and don't doubt them.
That's literally the Christian type of logic here.
This guy is so bad.
The worst.
Beginning to treat the sources as if they were reliable unless they give you reason to doubt them.
Does that make sense?
Do you follow what I'm going to answer?
Yeah, I do.
So in other words, just on a level of reason alone, the New Testament documents, the gospels in particular, are written within living memory of events, chronological proximity to the life and death of Jesus.
And this is really important.
We have just hundreds of manuscripts from the first two, three, four, five, six centuries of these books in ways that we just don't for lots of the classical sources.
Hold on.
The classicals are older, and you guys destroyed them.
You destroyed all the pagan stories.
You don't get to brag about this.
Does he say there's hundreds of copies in the first century here?
Please don't tell me he lies like this of these books in ways that we just don't for lots of the classical five, sixth century.
Two, three, four, five, six centuries of these books in ways that we just don't for lots of the classical sources, like copies of Homer, copies of just hundreds of manuscripts from the first two, three, four, five, six.
No, there's no hundreds of manuscripts in the first, there's not even one manuscript in the first one, two, three centuries.
Not until the fourth century do we have any manuscripts.
How does this guy get away with lying like this?
And then the other guy, just echo chamber, just nods along everything.
And then the Christians hear this, and then they think that they're informed that they can lecture us in the replies online.
We keep saying it.
He just lies.
We just don't for lots of the classical sources.
Oh, yeah.
Can you point hundreds of manuscripts?
Show them to me.
Show me these manuscripts.
What are their names?
When were they written?
Show me them.
They won't.
They have nothing.
He wants to cite Bart Ehrman.
Bart Ehrman doesn't say there's hundreds of manuscripts in the first three centuries.
Yeah, present them.
We'll wait.
Imagine if we could set up.
They don't do debates because they would get absolutely embarrassed.
That's why.
They just go around their Abrahamic circle jerk echo chamber like Daily Wire.
It's like copies of Homer, copies of the Iliad, the Odyssey.
A lot of the manuscripts for classical sources will have.
And who cares?
We don't think those are real.
Nobody's basing their life on the Odyssey being a true story.
They always knew they were symbolic.
One, two, three, maybe 10, 20.
But with the New Testament, the Gospels, we have dozens, hundreds throughout the centuries.
So the textual evidence, the chronological proximity, the personal proximity too.
If Matthew and John, for example, are written by eyewitnesses, we can discuss debates about that if you want.
But if they are written by who they purport to be, then this is the kind of thing that even just on a human level, you would give credence to them until we start to doubt them.
Does that make sense?
It's really important to say that believing in Jesus and accepting the historical accounts of them that we have in the Gospels is not just something I know through faith.
It's actually a reasonable position when you begin to look at the story.
They always start with faith and then pillpole into things being reasonable.
The only thing they have in the second and third century are tiny little scraps, little fragments with barely any words on them.
And there's only a few of those also.
What does that prove?
Jesus mythicists are not denying that gospels, that stories about Jesus were being written down in the first century, especially second and third.
What does that prove?
Sources of his life, the accounts of his life, just according to the standards of how you would judge other historical documents about other historical figures, other biographies.
Like Lucian is a, he's an early Greek writer who writes a life of Demonax, a philosopher.
Well, he was a student of Demonax.
And so if you look at classical writers, they all just assume, yeah, he's giving us at least the substance of what this philosopher said.
Well, likewise, if Jesus of Nazareth has disciples, has a group of disciples, and some of those disciples give us bioi, ancient Greco-Roman biographies, lives of what Jesus did and said, then our first list, our kind of basic posture from a historiographical perspective should be, well, let me see what they claim about him.
Garrett And The Lost Friend00:06:05
And also, do they corroborate with what one another, like, do the claims correlate with one another at the level of history?
And at least for me.
Dude, dude.
So we know that Mark, Matthew copied Mark, and Luke had access to Mark and Matthew.
These are not independent attestations that are corroborating each other.
I cannot handle the level, how low he's stooping with this bullshit.
Me too, after 20, 30 years now of stuff.
Garrett.
Oh, no.
Lost a childhood friend of over 20 years because I told him he, as a Christian, is worshiping the same God as the Muslims.
Then he said, Don't criticize my religion.
And I said, You sound like a Muslim.
He also thinks his Methodist Bible has no bad parts.
Yeah, is this what he sounded like to you?
Are you questioning my faith?
You want to bubblegum sent $10.
You know their case at Flimsey when you were able to take Christians for seven hours on JQ Radio.
It was one of the greatest things on the internet.
Yeah, I've done that on a lot of spaces, actually.
And just a lot of debates.
It's been a long time since I've done a debate, but once the book's out, I'm ready.
I'm game to start trying to set them up again.
They don't ask.
There's not any, you know, do these shows, all of us, they're always stressing about the neo-pagans online, right?
And do you ever see any Christians debunking what we say?
They don't.
They try to ignore it.
They try to ignore it and say, oh, Mo Butter Bard Airman.
No, they're just going to debate Catholic versus Protestant and Muslim versus Catholic over and over again.
They don't debunk me because they can't.
You think these Christians out there, they'd be, if they were good faith, they'd be like, oh, I see what you're doing over here.
Let's debate.
I'll prove you wrong.
Where's the videos proving all these points I'm saying wrong?
They don't exist.
They can't exist.
Yeah, I feel bad for people throwing away friends over religion.
What an idiot.
Not you, the other guy.
He chooses his magical Jew over his own friends and family.
That's what Jesus is supposed to do.
The Golden Eye sent $5.
Thank you for continuing to expose the mentally ill, dangerous, and delusional.
Much love from the Pacific Northwest.
P.S. Digging the New Haircut.
Anglo-mogging hard AF.
Thank you.
Anglomogging.
Online Crusaders just crash out once Adam appears.
Yeah, they just start calling me Jewish and lying.
That's all they ever do is lie and cope.
That's why I got tired of it.
It was a waste of time.
But now, no, we'll see.
There won't be anybody debunking my book either because they can't.
You know, there's no odyssey.
Yeah, our politicians aren't making geopolitical moves based on odyssey prophecies.
Good point, see through it all.
Dude, Garrett's friend was like, Are you questioning my faith?
You want to go?
You want to fucking go?
Jesus first, bro.
Confidence goes up more and more.
The more I look at the New Testament documents, the more I look at the Gospels, especially when you really start to look at the genre of the Gospels and the things that Jewish myth, that genre, Jewish pesher and Midrash, that genre.
Luke or John themselves are claiming about the kind of books they're writing and the kind of claims they're making, then it's really clear that the gospels are not, they're not like ancient folklore.
They're not just trying to tell.
Yeah, they are.
They're ancient comic books.
It's not folklore, talking snakes, walking on water, turning water to wine.
It's not folklore.
This is history here, guys.
This is real historians.
Okay, let me tell you, these Jews were telling the truth.
You can trust these Jews that wrote the Bible 100%.
Trust me.
Yeah, I've got faith, dude.
What do you have, you little bitch?
You want to throw down, bro?
Okay, hey, hey, hey, hey.
You want to see what it feels like to talk shit about Christianity?
Fairy tales or stories about some mythical figure.
They really are making historical claims about an individual man.
Jesus Nazareth.
Not fairy tales.
Proof, not fairy tales.
They're not like folklore.
They're not just trying to tell fairy tales or stories about mythical figure.
They really are making historical claims about an individual man, Jesus of Nazareth, about what he did and what he said.
Yeah, totally.
It's just totally real, man.
It's not a myth.
Trust me, bro.
That was amazing.
That was amazing.
I don't know if I'm going to be able to do all the Trent Horn one.
I got to get to the gym and get home before a certain time.
That's wild.
Okay.
One minute.
Maybe we'll finish the rest tomorrow.
I do want to hear a little bit.
Where you get access to bonus content.
And if there's more in 40 to 60 years.
Okay, that's the one.
Gospels are eyewitnesses.
Sources, all the manuscripts.
And I give charts of the.
Okay, let's see your charts here.
We'll do Trent Horn tomorrow, but there is another two-minute one.
We'll just do this.
When we look at the actual sources.
Oh, and Amalek, I saw you did share this earlier too.
Washington Post reporting: Catholic Archbishop of U.S. Military Services said it would be morally acceptable to disobey orders if troops considered them against their conscience.
Manuscript Evidence Dissected00:15:44
So we got Catholic leaders in the military telling troops to not go fight in Minnesota.
We're allowing Catholics to instruct our military to stand down and not follow orders.
How is this allowed?
How are we going to tolerate this?
The Trent guy is terrible.
He's a real Catholic.
But yes, real Catholics are terrible.
All the manuscripts.
And I give charts of this in the book.
The fact of the matter is, is that over and over again, all the extant sources, ancient manuscripts, and ancient papyri, like fragments, as well as the external evidence from the church fathers, is unanimous.
That the first gospel is written by Matthew, the tax collector.
Second one is by Mark, the companion of St. Peter.
The third one's by Luke, the companion of Paul.
And then the fourth one is by John, the beloved disciple.
And here, there's actually a really important contrast, Matt, too.
With, for example, the letter to the Hebrews.
So we actually have a document in the New Testament that is anonymous.
A letter to the Hebrews.
It's formally anonymous.
It doesn't have a name at the beginning.
Dude, the other gospels are anonymous too, you idiot.
It doesn't have a name at the end.
It's just identified.
Tell me, where is the name in Mark?
They put it on the cover 100 years later by its audience, the epistle to the Hebrews.
And that's how it was promulgated, and that's how it was published.
So guess what happens when you have an actual I have a chapter on the book of Hebrews in the book, by the way, too.
So much smoking gun evidence of Jesus being a mystical, heavenly Melchizedek figure.
No biographical details.
All Midrash and cosmic Jesus, if you read the book of Hebrews, it's probably one of the earlier Christian texts.
Anonymous document.
When you start to look at the manuscripts for the letter to the Hebrews, some of them attribute it to Paul.
Some of them attribute it to Timothy, Paul's disciple.
Yeah, it's because they were making it up.
They translated it from Hebrew after Paul wrote it originally.
So, like, there's actually some of the fathers say it was written by Barnabas.
Others say, again, that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and let Luke translate it.
In other words, you get discreet.
What's funny too, the Apocrypha and Nagamati, there's so many other texts attributed to other disciples, to Mary, to all types of people, right?
The Gospels in the New Testament are just as fake as all of those.
They were doing the same thing.
Discrepancy and debate, both in the internal evidence, the manuscripts, and in the external evidence from the fathers, when you have an actually anonymous document like Hebrews.
That's precisely what you don't find with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
So, again, just a level of history.
What we have here then is for the reason that they first argued that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the authentic accounts of Jesus is because they claimed that they were written by eyewitnesses, which we now know is not true.
So, even their ancient argument for why the gospels were legitimate and the others weren't was based on a falsehood.
So, cope on that too.
Historical biology.
Hey, you think that there's ever going to be a mythicist on this show or any of the big media platforms?
No, Joe Rogan will bring on a million Christian apologists, but never somebody to expose Jesus in the Bible and be critical of religion.
You don't see it.
That's the actual third rail and taboo.
Biographies, Greco-Roman biographies written within the living memory of the events, two of them by eyewitnesses, to the master, teacher, philosopher, messianic claimant in question.
And obviously, very, very similar in the claims they make about Jesus.
Otherwise, there wouldn't even be a synoptic problem of who copied from whom because a lot of the stories and sayings of Jesus, especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are extremely similar.
And in fact, even verbatim at points.
Because they copied.
They're not verbatim because these are real disciples that saw it.
They're verbatim word for word because they copied each other.
Because they're not independent sources.
These guys can get some of the facts right sometime, but even when they get the, they say something true, their logic, their Christ brain spins it up into being completely wrong.
It's actually impressive how stupid these guys, how much pillple and wrong these guys can spin things.
And you found this kind of word-for-word correspondence in like term papers, you know, somebody is copying from someone else.
So the corroboration, but also the diversity, all those things lead to the conclusion that these accounts, the four gospels, should at least be treated with the kind of reasonable credibility that you would lend to any other biographies of ancient within living memory of the event.
No, no.
Biographies that are written by people that we know, they say when they wrote them, how they knew about it.
They cite their sources.
They don't have all these miraculous, magical things.
They can be corroborated outside of the text.
That's real evidence.
The Bible is none of those.
The Bible is the exact opposite of all of us.
It's all of the worst evidence.
That is the facts.
These Christians are filthy liars.
Absolutely.
It's disgusting.
It really is disgraceful.
Intent and help us keep creating awesome episodes.
All right, so I'll see Christians respond to critics who say Jesus never existed with memes like this one that say Jesus is the most recorded figure in the ancient world or videos where people say Jesus's life is one of the best established facts of the ancient world.
But that's not true.
Wrong.
Thank you.
Okay, he's at least being more honest.
He just said what that other guy said, and he's saying it's not true.
Thank you.
Thank you for admitting that.
It's getting exposed by a skeptic who knows how the evidence stacks up.
Let's take a look at a few examples of this.
If you asked your friends who are thinking this way, if they think Alexander the Great is what would they say?
If you asked that George, if George Washington, the first president of our country, it was a fairy tale, would they say yes, he's a fairy tale?
See, comparing Jesus to George Washington, this is not serious.
This is bullshit.
This is Christian lying.
This is Christian cope.
Both of those, Alexander the Great and George Washington, the amount of historical documentation about them is paltry compared to what we have about Jesus.
We have paintings.
We have painting.
We have sculptures of Alexander the Great, right?
We've got coins.
We've got tons of different accounts.
We've got paintings of George Washington.
Did he sign the Declaration of Independence?
We don't have Jesus writing down anything.
We don't have a painting of Jesus.
There's not a sculpture of Jesus.
And Trent Horne, the Catholic apologist, is even going to agree with me.
He's telling you, this guy's bullshitting.
We have documents, not just from Jesus' closest friends, the apostles, right?
The Apostle Peter, Apostle Paul, who saw him on the road to Damascus, the apostles.
We have documentation about Jesus from his enemies.
Paul.
Paul saw him on the road to Damascus.
You mean he saw a light?
He had a vision of the resurrected Jesus, that he saw a light.
And this is only in Acts, not even in Paul's letters.
He says he never knew, didn't learn.
Paul says he didn't learn about Jesus from any man or any oral tradition or any books or eyewitness.
It was from scripture and visions, mystical visions, like when he's caught up into the third heaven have documents from Jesus' first century enemies, like the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate.
The so-called report from Pilate to Emperor Tiberius is a lie.
That's the white Jesus lie, by the way.
Yeah, Alexander actually conquered cities.
He actually spread the Greek influence all over.
Founded cities.
We obviously have more evidence for the life of George Washington than we have for the life of Jesus Christ.
Yes, it's preposterous.
Portraits of George Washington, his diary entries, his personal papers, contemporary newspaper accounts.
See how unserious these guys are?
They just spew the worst of the worst Christian apologetics.
And accounts from British newspapers and commanders who oppose Washington.
Lazy similar sources like that for Jesus.
Not credible.
Bad evidence for Jesus.
It just means we should not overstate our case about the good evidence for Jesus we do have by claiming it's the best evidence of all the cases.
In this next clip, Jeremiah Johnson does this when talking about the evidence for Jesus' death by crucifixion.
It's the best established fact of the ancient world, Jesus' death by Roman crucifixion.
What does that mean?
Meaning that if we can't know that Jesus died by Roman crucifixion based on the historical record, we shouldn't believe anything from history at all.
See, I covered this video too.
This shroud kook, this Zionist shroud kook on with Tucker.
I love that Trent's already correcting all of this Christian bullshit.
Thank you.
Thank you for that, Trent.
Have as much evidence for the crucifixion of Jesus that we have from Roman empires or the Roman emperors of the same period.
That's so couldn't be any worse of the truth.
So wrong.
Dude, these guys are so bad faith with their lies.
There's no lie so ridiculous that they won't spew.
Now, on the one hand, you can say that if you follow the standards of history, then we can be confident Jesus was crucified.
Yeah, it's religious fraud.
They should be in prison for religious fraud.
These con artists spreading these lies.
Confident in many other ancient events, and skepticism of Jesus would cause us to reject much of ancient history if you're being consistent.
John Dominic Crossan, for example, denies Jesus' resurrection, but still says, quote, Jesus' death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be.
On the other hand, John Dominic Crossan was also, by the way, a trained monk.
He went to like a monk.
Is it a seminary?
Where do monks go?
It's not seminary.
There's another word for it.
Jesus' crucifixion is not the best established fact of the ancient world.
For example, there's more evidence for Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon and starting the civil war between himself and Pompey.
Exactly.
Be crucified in Jerusalem.
Thank you.
Monasteries, monastery.
John Dominic Crossan was trained at a monastery.
Take that into account.
He was alive at the time.
Letters from Caesar's enemy, Pompey, and testimony from Caesar himself, who records the event in his work entitled Civil War.
And these Christians all over the internet and their memes lie and repeat these lies.
Yeah, I know it was monastery.
They all lie and say, oh, there's more evidence.
The evidence for Jesus is better than Alexander or the Caesars or the Romans.
This is good.
This is a good video.
Also, minted coins commemorating the event with an elephant on them to pay homage to Hannibal, who accomplished a similar feat.
Nothing like that for Jesus.
Now, in other videos, Christians say that Jesus is the best documented figure of the ancient world because there are more manuscript copies of the New Testament.
Yes.
Another lie.
Let's go.
Like this video comparing 12 manuscripts for Julius Caesar to TikTok's lot.
I don't know how many Jesus Christ has.
Oh my God.
This is unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
800.
I was reading that.
I'm like, that can't be right.
So I researched it.
50,000 Greek that we have.
In total, out of all of them, over 25,000.
Dude, someone needs to save her.
Unbelievable blew my mind.
And they were written a few years after his death to a century.
A few years.
A few years.
Most out of anybody wouldn't even come close.
Plus, they were written closer to his life than any other person alive.
The number of manuscript copies of a text only tells us the reliability of how the text was transmitted through history, not the number of sources that gave us the text in the first place.
For massively influential figures in the ancient world, like Julius Caesar, we have many different sources, including sources from when he was alive.
We may not have as many manuscript copies of those sources as we do for the New Testament because the Christians were in charge and they were only making copies of the Bible.
That's why also hundreds of years later, she sounded like a flat earth chick, probably.
Probably.
A lot of overlap, as we all know.
We have enough to rely on.
Aryan princess, mind-fucked by the Jews.
I know.
Isn't it sad?
What those sources said about someone like Julius Caesar.
That's why I tend to bring up manuscript evidence of the New Testament not as a positive argument for Christianity, but as a response to critics who say we can't possibly know what the original New Testament documents said and that they're just copies of copies of copies.
If you don't trust the New Testament that has much better manuscript evidence than other ancient works, then you couldn't trust anything from the ancient world or do any ancient history.
However, it is absolutely not true to say that these 25,000 manuscripts were all written within a century of Jesus' life.
The majority of manuscript copies of the New Testament come from the Middle Ages.
According to this graph, of the 5,800 Greek manuscripts in the New Testament, only about 100 come from the first three centuries after the crucifixion.
And almost all of these are partial fragments.
Exactly.
Not manuscripts, partial little fragments.
And not like lots of little fragments that give you the whole thing, but like you'll only get one little fragment from anything from there.
She has been on spaces before.
It's not surprising because the fragmentary nature of manuscripts is true for most ancient works.
Homer's Iliad, for example, was written in the 8th century before Christ, and a few fragments of it can be dated to within 500 years of Homer.
But the oldest complete copy of the Iliad, a manuscript scholars call Venetus A, was written in the 10th century AD, 1800 years later.
This stands in sharp contrast to the first complete copy of the New Testament written just 300 years after the time of the apostles.
Biblical scholar F.F. Bruce put it bluntly: there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys.
Christian, this guy was a hardcore Christian.
I cite a quote from this guy in my book.
Evidence For Jesus00:15:47
He's the one that says, like, no serious scholar questions the historical Jesus.
It's the greatest evidence ever for this.
He's a Christian apologist.
He's another Christian.
You cannot take Christians seriously on the Jesus question.
Is such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.
And we have to remember a lot of the New Testament was quoted in the writings of the church fathers.
So we have further corroborating evidence of what these original documents said.
Not in 1 Clement, not in the oldest.
Sorry, wrong.
But this manuscript evidence doesn't mean that Jesus was more documented than other ancient figures at the time, because as I said, manuscript copies only told us how stories were preserved, not how they were composed.
Of course, we would not expect an itinerant preacher from a backwoods province like Judea, Jesus, to have lots of people writing about him.
I mean, Pontius Pilate was a procurator of a whole region, and yet archaeological evidence for him was not found until 1961.
And only one non-Jewish Roman source, Tacitus, mentions Pilate, and that is in relation to Pilate being the one who sentenced Christ.
That's all cope.
If you believe the Bible and you think that nobody would write about Jesus because he was just an itinerant preacher and he was only a few years and he was really illiterate at that time, this is all cope.
You believe that God walked the earth and nobody wrote about it.
He walked the earth doing miracles everywhere and nobody wrote down one thing besides your fake Jewish Bible decades later.
Christ to death.
Now, some skeptics like to list dozens of ancient historians and say Jesus Christ never existed because these ancient non-Christian historians never mentioned Jesus.
Right.
However, some of the people on this list do mention Jesus, like Tacitus and Josephus and probably Suetonius.
Well, that's a bad list.
The others also never mentioned Christians.
That's not the argument.
Christians existed because Pliny the Younger talks about how to police them in an early second century letter.
And we have 10 years.
But he didn't know anything about them.
Writings from Christians, like St. Paul.
Yeah, it contradicts the Bible.
It says he was famous.
Paul, which no serious scholar doubts.
That means we can be confident that Jesus Christians like St. Paul released them in an early second century letter.
And we have first century writings from Christians like St. Paul, which no serious scholar doubts.
That means we can be confident that Jesus and his followers, Christians, existed in the first century, even though these ancient non-Christian historians didn't.
No, no, no, no, you can't say Jesus existed.
You can say his followers existed.
Believers in a Jesus existed in the first century.
Not that a Jesus existed.
Wrong.
Bad logic.
Bad argument.
Uh-oh, we're going off the rails here, I think.
Not mention either of them.
And for many of these writers, Jesus wasn't a subject they would be concerned about.
For example, Pausanias and Pompanello wrote now that he backed off, it makes no sense at all, and he looks like a total crazy man.
I don't think he's, I don't think he's backed off.
He's going to get Greenland.
He's not backing off on that.
They're saying that there's a deal, by the way.
Greek and Roman geographies.
Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder were scientists who recorded things about the natural world.
Theon of Smyrna, Favorinus, and Gellius wrote about philosophy.
Hermogenes, Quintilian.
So where's Philo?
I don't see Philo on here.
He's like one of the biggest ones that would have written about it.
In and Dio Chrysostom focused on things like speechmaking, and Columella only wrote about different types of trees in the Roman Empire.
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
We can say, though, that Jesus was well documented relative to other members of the non-ruling class of his time.
Now, as we saw, Tacitus mentions Jesus being crucified, and the Jewish historian Josephus testifies to Jesus having a relative that was executed, and that Jesus accomplished startling deeds and won over people before he was killed, but that his followers did not abandon him.
Plus, as I mentioned in a recent episode, he's just gonna, he's not even gonna say how disputed Josephus is that I'll link to below.
New evidence suggests that Josephus's account of Jesus is completely accurate, and the older view that it is a partial forgery doesn't account for all the data.
That's a new book written by a Christian again.
You cannot take anything these Christians say at face value.
Josephus, by the way, is a total, total fake.
They didn't just add in a little bit.
it's a total fake.
There was no, the great Josephus didn't write anything about Jesus.
So a Christian had to, had to forge it in there.
Ancient witnesses who attested the existence of Jesus.
Just because some of these dude, Josephus does not say Jesus existed.
He's saying that Christians believed in this figure.
Again, another huge joke.
Miracles doesn't mean we should reject them because many ancient historians believed in the supernatural and things like omens, but we don't throw out their works.
Instead, we weigh the evidence for unusual claims and see which unusual claims are more likely to be true.
And the most unusual and extraordinary claim would be that a massive movement in the first century that resulted in churches rapidly coming into existence throughout the Roman Empire, along with documents describing the founder of this movement being widely distributed in this community, even though the founding figure of this movement never existed in the first place.
Those who deny Jesus existed answer this argument by saying that Christianity began with a few people like Peter and Paul having hallucinatory visions about a heavenly Jesus.
Over the next few decades, these stories turned into legends about an earthly Jesus.
The earliest sources we have about Jesus, the writings of St. Paul, describe Jesus having an earthly existence.
No, they don't.
Jesus was a man who is descended from David.
He was born of a woman.
According to the flesh.
Dude, okay.
Carrier has a video out on myth vision within the last two weeks where he addresses every one of these things in Paul.
It is slop.
Born of the woman is metaphor.
It's a metaphor.
It's a metaphor that he's saying he's born under the law.
He says a few verses down, it's to be taken figuratively.
He doesn't say born of Mary, born of a virgin, doesn't say that.
He says he's born of Hagar.
It's a metaphor.
This is, again, so bad and been debunked so thoroughly.
Descended from David, the Messiah has to be descended from David.
Logic alone entails that because of prophecy, the Messiah is the seed of David.
Saying that is not proof that he was a Paul believed in an earthly figure.
Existence.
Paul makes it clear that Jesus was a man who is descended from David.
He was born of a woman, had a last supper with his disciples.
He says, he doesn't say there's any disciples there.
Paul does never uses the word disciples.
In Paul's account of the Lord's Supper, he does not say that anybody is in attendance.
He doesn't say the disciples are there.
And how does Paul learn about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians?
He says he received it.
He received it from the Lord.
For I received from the Lord what I delivered to you.
Received as in a vision.
Like he receives the secrets in the hidden mysteries through the revelation of the Holy Spirit.
Not received from somebody that was in attendance.
Received from the Lord.
He had a vision of this.
He's so fucking.
See, this is sloppy.
This is supposed to be the best of the best apologists.
How am I able to rip this to pieces with dumb arguments that I've heard a million times already?
Wrong, Was crucified and rose from the dead.
And Paul.
Hold on, hold on.
Crucified and rose from the dead.
He says, according to scripture.
Disciples was crucified and rose from the dead.
He says that's all he knew.
And he says his source for knowing that he died and raised on the third day was scripture.
He says, according to the scripture, Christ died and rose on the third day.
According to scripture, scripture was his source.
Just think of this.
Just like Satan is some mystical, you know, there's not a Satan on earth walking around as a historical figure.
Jesus is the original Jesus was just as real as Satan.
He's a cosmic figure playing out stories in the heavens.
This is not describing an earthly figure.
This is a post-resurrection appearance of zombie Jesus.
And Paul knew those who knew Jesus, including James, one of the Lord's own brothers.
Paul, by the way, I'm only just covering, scratching the surface.
Myth Vision has a video with Richard Carrier where he goes over every one of these arguments.
I have a section in my book about James, the brother of the Lord.
Lord or brother just means Christian.
Hebrew Greek speaker could use to mean and hey, Trent Horn, if James is the brother of Jesus, how come he doesn't show any knowledge of that in the Epistle of James in the New Testament?
Neither does Jude.
Jude's also the brother of Jesus.
Neither of them mention being the brother.
That would help their authority in their letters they're writing, but they don't mention it.
They introduce themselves as servant of the Lord, not brothers of the Lord.
Paul in his letters uses brothers and sisters all the time, meaning Christians.
Cousin or half-brother.
Now it'd be difficult to have all of that if you never existed in the first place.
No, I just addressed every one of those copes.
Richard Carrier debunked all of this in his book 10 years ago.
Earl Doherty in the Jesus puzzle, this is irresponsible for a Christian to make all of these claims when these claims have already been addressed and thoroughly debunked.
You have to address the debunkings, not just keep reasserting your talking points.
The Jesus puzzle in 2005, 20 years ago, you're still regurgitating the same debunk talking points that have already been addressed and refuted.
Anonymous sent $5.
Yesterday, you looked like Viking Jesus.
Now you closing up on Jake Paul.
Jake Paul doesn't have a haircut like this.
He's got it like super short on the sides, like military cut.
That's why no one in the insult?
Not even early pagan critics like Kelsus or Lucian argued for a mythical Jesus.
That didn't happen until the 18th century.
They didn't know that, number one, they didn't know that Jesus was a myth.
They just argued polemically at face value.
That's what they did.
It's really hard to prove the non-existence of a person in the ancient world.
Theories about Christianity plague the church for century after century, but mythicism, the claim Jesus never exists at all, is not among them.
The evidence is clear that Christians always believed in an historical Jesus because such a person really did exist, and we can know basic facts about him, such as that he had a group of dedicated followers and that he had a reputation for being a miracle worker.
These are bedrock facts that even skeptical scholars admit to being part of our foundational understanding of Jesus of Nazareth.
Even skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman.
It's because they thought it was absurd.
Yeah, just like Richard Carrier today will say, he'll say, I don't think proving Jesus is a myth is the best argument against Christians because it's so easy just to grant he existed and then debunk all of the stupid shit anyway, right?
Amalek?
It's an easier argument.
Instead of arguing, having to disprove somebody that lived before the temple was destroyed, they didn't have the internet.
They didn't have newspapers.
They didn't have records.
They can't make the, it's a harder argument to make for them.
And how do we know that there weren't pagans that were questioning that he existed?
And we just don't have their works preserved because the Christians went around burning all the critics and their books and the critics.
We only have a lot of these Critics of Christianity preserved in the writings of the Christian apologists.
So, when debating people on the evidence for Jesus, you should point out that the claim Jesus never existed is pseudoscience, rejected by basically everyone.
Believing, see, even academic non-Christians, even Bart Ehrman, pseudoscience.
No, believing that Jonah lived in a whale, that's not pseudoscience.
Believing that you can walk on water and turn water to wine and multiply fish and bread, that's not pseudoscience.
Questioning the magical comic book superhero, that's not serious.
Okay, I think we're done here with this bullshit.
I'm pretty sure he debated Richard Carrier now that I'm thinking of it.
Do we have to do a review of that?
You should point out that the claim Jesus never existed is pseudoscience, rejected by basically everyone, even academic non-Christians.
According to respected New Testament, he's just wrong, too.
It's the biggest topic of debate in biblical studies is if Jesus existed.
And they just ignore the actual mythicist arguments.
They regurgitate the same talking points that have been debunked, and then they say it's not credible.
It's pseudoscience.
Stop asking questions.
Look at this.
11 years ago, debate on the historicity of Jesus, Richard Carrier versus Trent Horn.
We'll have to do this.
I know I've seen it before because I remembered it, but I'd have to see how this went.
Appeal to Consensus Fallacy00:04:00
11 years ago, this might even be like right before he had his book out.
Also, Trent Horn is ethnically Jewish and converted to Catholicism.
True.
And he's very kosher.
He's a very kosher Christian.
It's just pseudoscience.
Oh, another Christian bullshitter.
Imagine my shock.
Oh, the guy that thinks that an ancient Jew created the universe.
The guy that believes in Adam and Eve and a talking snake.
He's going to tell us what pseudoscience.
These guys are.
Viking Jesus.
I knew that wasn't the insults, but the Jake Paul, it was like, well, you used to be cool, but now you're Jake Paul.
It's okay.
I'm not mad.
I was just joking.
Testament scholar Bart Ehrman.
The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet.
And because of this, you don't need to overstate your case by saying Jesus is the best attested figure of the ancient world.
You just need to say we have.
Mike drop.
Bart Ehrman quote.
Bart Ehrman says everybody agrees.
This is why I did a whole chapter in my book about Bart Ehrman.
Because they do this.
He's the token atheist.
Bart Ehrman, who's like one of the president or one of the leaders of the Society for Biblical Literature, where a Christian gets up there and gives a speech about miracles being real, and they all give a standing applause for miracles being real.
Yeah, the token atheist.
Bart Ehrman's the most popular scholar in the world because the Christians love to cite him so much.
Because he's the historical Jesus gatekeeper.
Oh, what do you know?
The appeal to Bart Ehrman.
Imagine my shock.
It's worse than that.
I have two sections in a row, the appeal to Bart Ehrman fallacy and then the appeal to consensus fallacy.
And Bart Ehrman always does the appeal to consensus fallacy.
Ehrman's like, well, my pastor that was my professor in college And all the Christian theologians that I know, they all agree he existed.
Nobody questions that.
Nervous laughter.
It's an appeal to a barred airman who's appealed to consensus of a consensus that's always been biased and a field dominated by believers.
So bad.
So bad.
Well-established evidence that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died by crucifixion, and as I've shown in other videos, I'll link to it getting traction.
Absolutely.
That's why they give it this treatment.
His followers claim to see him alive after his death.
The question then becomes: what theory best accounts for all of this data without trying to explain away the unique impact of Jesus of Nazareth.
If you like more resources related to today's episode, I recommend my book, Counterfeit Christ, linked in the description below.
And I hope you can.
All right.
That is all we have for today.
We smash the goal.
You guys are awesome.
Thank you so much.
They're nice.
Thank you.
That's awesome.
Yeah, baby.
Thank you.
If we wouldn't have hit the goal again today, it would have been brutal.
It would have been devastating.
Miss No More News would not be happy.
I still have a bunch of stuff I didn't cover.
I'm going to get to it tomorrow.
Everybody, go to the gym.
They're alive.
Leave a comment, clip it.
Some of this Jesus debunking stuff would be a good clip, possibly, although the Christians never want to hear it anyway.
Give me a like, leave a comment, clip the show, share the link.
Keep your eye out for the book on the website.
I'll share it and do a show and post about it non-stop.
You'll see.
And I will see you guys tomorrow for another stream.