It's always refreshing to see a new interview with Dr. Jones - with new questions and more of a focus on scripture. So many interviews ask the same questions he's been ask before. Thank you.
I always learn something new with Dr Jones, but on this subject @ 1:06:50 "existance calls forth essence" "look at nature and the form will emerge"... I wonder if this is a bad case of materialism? looking at things in the "wrong direction" from "the material first then the metaphysical" (instead of the metaphysical first and then the material) the Logos/God is understood to be the "primary essence" from wich all existance comes from in other words the Logos is "the map, the Logic that informs the terrain", the metaphysical as the primary and the physical/material as secondary John 1.1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ho ὁ Λόγος... καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος En archē ēn ho Logos... kai Theos ēn ho Logos in principle/in the beginning is the Logos.. and God is the Logos biblehub dot com/interlinear/john/1-1 dot htm 1 Corinthians 4:20 "For the Kingdom of God is not in word/s but in dynamic." biblehub dot com/interlinear/1_corinthians/4-20 dot htm (BTW I hope they don't take down this interview)
found the answer to my own question in this other video: " Dr. E. Michael Jones & Dr. Robert Sungenis: The Dangers of Beauty - Livestream" 55:25 "the platonic understanding of art is to impose forms on a chaotic meaningless nature, the Christian idea is that if God created the universe then God is an artist and the universe is a work of art and maybe you can find the form simply by looking at the block of marble maybe the block of marble is trying to tell you something."
@@danielpk6725I recommend to you read Ente et Esentia from Thomas Aquinas also recommend SUMA CONTRA GENTILES if you don’t want to get into the SUMA THEOLOGIAE. Same author, In God Essence and Existence identify, in all else there is a dependency upon existence, that’s why he said existance calls forth essence or being (meaning all beings other than FIRST BEING which is God) God Is Ipso Essence Subsistance, HIS SUBSTANCE IS HIS GOODNESS AND DEPENDES ON HIMSELF. See Exodus 3:14.
@@eoghainoneill7195 Dr Jones' books are not easy to get because when anybody questions the power of the Tribe, they get deplatformed for mentioning it. I got my copy of TJRS from Fidelity Press. It is an expensive Christmas present but one to cherish!
7:59 I have not read E. Michael Jones on Iliad. Here is my take. The Trojan war may or may not have involved a "civil war between regions of Hittite Empire" or two Satrapies, as Walter Leaf considered, since Achaeans may or may not have been vassals of Hattusha. From the Tawagalawa letter 80 years before it, it would seem that the then Hittite Emperor acted as a mediator. 80 years after that letter, Hattusha was down, certainly from a civil war, and Achaeans and Trojans could fight it out, which they did, leading to how Troy is destroyed. Achaeans at the outset, when arriving, however had a regionally mixed army. A man from Argos could be recruited alongside a man from Sicyon in the same boat, like Assyrians had this same way of crushing regional loyalties. This was the way Achaean kings were used to keeping the Achaean state together. And without it, it's inexplicable why Hercules didn't conquer a city of his own - the answer is, even if he could have taken _one_ city (but he wasn't Ulysses, mentally), he would immediately have been put down by the rest of the Achaean state, at least this was a realistic fear. In the tenth year, Achaeans were nearly failing, the army was getting demoralised. To boost the morale, it was suggested that soldiers should be shifted around and fight alongside the local compatriots, Sicyonites with Sicyonites, Argolites with Argolites and so on. We see this in Iliad B. And it stayed on after the war. The nostoi, then, involve so much civil war in city by city (whether Mycenae or Ithaca, to name the two most famous ones) that both the renewed regionalism and the administrational chaos worked together to, probably fairly quickly, end the Achean State. Conquered Greece conquered its conqueror - but still left Rome an Empire. Conquered Troy also had conquered its conqueror - and ended the Achaean Empire, a low key counterpart to the Hittite one. If this is how C. S. Lewis understood Homer, it explains perfectly the novel Prince Caspian. See Telmarines as Acheans, Calormenes more like Hittites (or Cretans.)
For some reason, the anecdote and explanation starting 48:30 really was amazing to me. Edit: But that said yeah many of his takes are…wild, to say the least. Mad respect for the interviewer
Ashkenazi Jews come from the Kazars, from a region between the Black and Caspian seas, who converted in the 8th century, and so have no genetic relationship with the historic Jews!
Being and becoming. Being is. It is eternal, immutable and unchanging. Becoming means ever changing. It is fluid. Two worlds. Heaven and earth. Eternity and time. Stillness and movement. Silence and speech.
Watch the "End of Quantum Reality" by the Philos-Sophia Institute or read the work of Wolfgang Smith, who is featured in the movie, he has many articles on the Philos-Sophia institute.
6:49 That cultures without the supernatural grace get distorted is true. But the caste system is not just _a_ failure, the one in India. On the one hand it is the result of probable war. While the Mahabharata probably involves pre-Flood memories (Krishna dying in 3102 BC = in the pre-Flood area, some descriptions are reminiscent of Atomic bombs, much more probable for pre-Flood era than for post-Flood era with technology loss and gradual recovery of technologies lost), it is very probably true that Mahabharata _also_ incorporates memories of Aryans conquering Dravidians. And on the other hand, the caste system incorporates _the_ failure. A kind of slave hunt, where human respect in the absence of real worship of the real God, takes on godlike proportions. Where IV Commandment displaces I, II and III. As can be seen from Japan, where a manga recently showed an employee hosting his employer and basically pushing him to take advantage of his wife, you can see that such a displacement wreaks havoc with the subsequent commandments as well. What is Molochic child sacrifice other than a parent claiming _more_ power over his child than what IV allows him, if volontary? Or, if involuntary, other than a state claiming _more_ power over parents than what IV with Romans XIII allows him?
regarding "pre flood memories" of various cultures, there is a very interesting detail in Genesis that many people miss: Abraham/Abram is a gentile born and raised in "Ur" (a sumerian/assyrian city) he gets a "call" from God to go to Canaan (and Egypt) and so he becomes the founder of the hebrews, this is the DIRECT link betwen the old testament and the sumerian stories (the flood, Noah/called utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh, the "nephilim"/gilgamesh himself is part nephilim...) Genesis 12:1 The LORD had said to Abraham, “Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father’s family, and go to the land that I will show you...and he set out for the land of Canaan....at that time the Canaanites were in the land Genesis 11:31 Terah took his son Abraham... and together they set out from Ur to go to Canaan.... also the main story of atlantis is contained in Genesis: "Atlantis" by Plato (the text indicates that the source for this story is Egypt): "when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power "Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them/ Genesis 6,2: "And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 5 Now the "giants" were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown. 6 And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, 7 then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. 8 And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle, and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them."
@@danielpk6725 _"Abraham/Abram is a gentile born and raised in "Ur" (a sumerian/assyrian city)"_ Is the city Sumerian? Woolley's Ur? Or is it Assyrian? Edessa, aka Urfa, now Şanlıurfa? One more, is he a gentile, and in what sense? If you mean he is pagan, that would perhaps be the case if he had only his father and grandfather to go by (supposing Joshua meant the older Nachor, and not his grandson, Abraham's brother, who is also father of all Israelites, through Rebecca and her nieces Rachel and Lea), but if his great-grandfather Sarug's lifespan overlapped with his own (for 50 years according to a good LXX reading of Genesis 11), he was, skipping two generations, depository of unmixed original revelation, through his grandfather. In other words, no, he is not pagan. _"and so he becomes the founder of the hebrews, this is the DIRECT link betwen the old testament and the sumerian stories (the flood, Noah/called utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh, the "nephilim"/gilgamesh himself is part nephilim...)"_ 1) Do we have any copy of the epic from his time? Please note, if the Bible is historically accurate (and we should at the very least give it the benefit of the doubt), this means that Abraham was involved in events (Genesis 14) that involve Amorrhites evacuating from En-Geddi. However the archaeology of En-Geddi places the evacuation of temple treasures on (dateable) reed mats to carbon dated 3500 BC. This places Abraham before any copy of the Gilgamesh epic. 2) Supposing the epic already existed in some version in his day, and he lived among people knowing a version close to the one we have, what would prevent Abraham from having independently even of that, like through Sarug, a correct access to a more unadulterated version of the events. _"also the main story of atlantis is contained in Genesis:"_ Egyptians refashioned the memory of the Flood in two ways. The more well known, from Egyptian papyri, remakes some memories of the Flood into a creation story. This is also the case with Norse myth, where earth and man are created after the Flood. The more unknown, if at all Egyptian, would be what Solon and Platon had from Egyptian priests, restricting the Flood to just part of the world, not all of it.
8:47 1200 BC is when Hattusha fell. Yes, I know it is carbon dated 1200 BC, but I think by this time we have a very near coincidence starting between real and carbon, as the carbon 14 reached present levels, meaning samples are not any longer being calculated to exaggerated dates by the discrepancy of a really lower initial and the presumed initial content in the sample. Troy VIIa is dated at its fall to 1180, and tradition says 1179. The late Medieval version of the Christmas proclamation places the birth of Christ: _"A Moyse & egressu populi Israel de Egypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo. Ab excidio Troiae, anno millesimo centesimo septuagesimo nono. Ab unctione David in regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo."_ The mention of the fall of Troy is no longer there, though the founding of Rome by Romulus is. It is true that at least some Mycenaean palaces had been destroyed before this, which you could't tell from the Iliad or Odyssey. Let's put it like this, there could still have been a king of Pylos receiving Telemachus, but his palace was in ruins, so he probably received in something like Beduin tents or caves or houses smaller than the palace.
As you can see from my previous discussion, the War of Troy only became possible, when the Hittite Empire was down, which was the case in 1200 BC, fall of Hattusha.
7:11 Usury is _also_ this kind of slave hunt and _also_ involves giving a IV Comm. "superior" - in this case the kind of benefactor that a lender is - _more_ power than is due to him through the IV. Usury is against the VIII, again, such an overestimation of IV is wreaking havoc with other commandments down the line.
Michael :Catholic Bible "Heavens" (plural) "and Earth" (singular). Modern Physics Eleven Dimensions : Coordinate Geometry x y z Plus Theory of Relativity Time. Plus Seven More (Heavens) with "I Am Whom I Am" (The Divine Essence of Being), Life and Love at the Top Dimension
5:59 Harappa ... probably arrival of ... * Regma, son of Kush or rather his descendants, after Babel * speakers of Dravidian, later displaced by and mingled with Aryans. Now, "10 000 BC" - we have no chronicle that states this. The carbon date of Harappa itself is actually from the time of the stay in Egypt: _"The Harappan Civilisation has its earliest roots in cultures such as that of Mehrgarh, approximately 6000 BC. The two greatest cities, Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, emerged circa 2600 BC along the Indus River valley in Punjab and Sindh."_ The carbon date 6000 BC, like earliest parts of Niniveh, as opposed to near Qermez Dere, is from the life of Sarug, from c. real 2400~2200 BC.
6:08 No, it does _not_ antedate the Hebrews by about 7000 years. That kind of time would place not just Adam, but even Noah, 7000 years before Abraham, and probably involve extending even more times between Adam and Noah. This in turn, leads to: * genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 being no longer genealogies with possibly one person left out (and if so probably for ritual purity reasons, like the three generations after Athalia), nor even Swiss Cheese genealogies, but genealogies with more holes than cheese, i e downgraded to basically worthless as historic document; * and so many generations with so many issues of transmitting collective memory between Genesis 3 and Abraham, that Genesis 3 would be myth rather then history or even legend. You are attacking the privileges of the Blessed Virgin, indirectly, by stating (though not in so many words) that there was no _historic_ memory of God's threat to the serpent, meaning we would be historically agnostic about whether God actually put enmities between Mary and the serpent, and there is no recorded event in which Genesis 3 was revealed to Moses. Tradition has that the six days were revealed to Moses on Sinai, but Genesis 3 is after the six days. You are also undermining, by so doing, § 3 of Dei Verbum, in case you believe that to be a document of a real canonic council. At least § 3 is unimpeachable, and it is an impeachment of every old earth compromiser. Why so? _3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. __1:19__-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. __3:15__) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries._ From the start = ab initio, confer, *in initio Deus creavit caelum et terram.* and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care = ceaselessly, meaning, for one thing, giving no time for early history to become a very unsafe bet or more myth, and for another, the care would also have prevented radical history loss as you are presuming and need to presume to compress over 7000 years of actual history into less than 1000 years of remembered history. Pretending otherwise is attacking Logos. _You_ are the one attacking Logos. *Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber.* or *And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.* - that is a logos. And THE Logos could not have allowed such logoi to become meaningless, while taking care of mankind, nor could He have allowed them to do so while knowing they would be in the Bible.
4:59 _"much older than the Hebrews"_ No. The same lines of evidence which would lead you to place Abraham in c. 3000 BC leads me to place early Pharaonic Egypt more recently than usually accepted in academia. Historia scholastica states that the kingdoms started to form in the time of Abraham (the oldest one in Greece being Sicyon, later known as Corinth). George Syncellus - it means George the Cellmate, it is about monastic cells, though - tends to agree pretty much. Except perhaps for Egypt, which I might tend to disagree with. What archaeology digs up as "early dynastic" or immediately "pre-dynastic" is dated to c. 3200 BC at the oldest, _within_ Abraham's lifetime, since 1935 BC (a space of 11 years of error margin, if you fix his birth to 2015 BC) is, as per archaeology of En Geddi, carbon dated to 3500 BC.
Most governments are an attempt to evade the law. We live i a world of unforeseen circumstances and death. When a nation finds itself bankrupt, whether by its own fault, or by an accident like a drought, it moves abroad in search of game, resources - whatever - and it finds neighbors, maybe also suffering, that resent its incursion on their lands and resources. There is war. But people observed the dynamic and decided that it was better to anticipate the conflicts and act preemptively to control the outcomes. War became a thing to plan, even over generations. The Great Depression that preceded World War Two looks as if it were planned to make America go to war. The British Empire was collapsing, and they needed another empire to replace it. America wasn't in a depression because it had no resources, no labor, and no creativity or innovation. If it were so, how were we able to bound out of chronic unemployment and spring into building a massive war machine. We must have blown up a million tons of explosives, and sank a million tons of steel to the bottom of the ocean. But we are expected to believe that just years before that, we weren't even able to feed and house or employ our own people. It was a deliberate plan to halt the economy and drive people to the kind of desperation that could be led to war, and it was carried out a decade before the war. They needed people to be as desperate as an ancient people fleeing from famine. It's the observation and manipulation of human behavior on a grand scale and using generations of advance planning. They probably even look at time plans and ask themselves what they will do with the generation after the next generation, and they design it like waves. They plan the war for the next generation and the generation after that, and they know how to create the economic and cultural and emotional conditions to make it happen as planned. The way of logos is law enforcement, not war, not revolution. When they want to talk war and revolution, we remind them to enforce the law. First, find the liars and murderers and kill them. God set the penalty for murder, bearing false witness, cheating or adultery, theft, and coveting as death. Every government sets itself up to commit those crimes and get away with it. Every government refuses to execute people who do those things, and more often seeks to employ them for profit. People refuse to execute governments that break those laws. It is all one big evasion of the law, and all very illogical. Obey the law and enforce it. That's the demand of logos. No loopholes, or your logos goes leaking.
One form of law enforcement is natural law enforcement - not allowing money and banking. Wider distribution of land and resources is also natural law enforcement, because land ownership is not so much real and permanent, as it is an agreement among living people. The ancient basis of it was no more than an agreement among the people of the time to divide the available land among the available people. It is no more to us than agreements between dead men's bones. Because population changes and the available land and resources change, the agreements to land use need to be re-assessed and re-negotiated every generation, which I believe is why there was a jubilee. God or logos knows that land ownership cannot be allowed to accumulate generation after generation until one man claims ownership of everything. "Do not lay house against house, or field against field until there is nowhere for people to live." People are supposed to have ownership rights over their houses and the land they live and work on. The division of land is always a matter of sensible agreements. People alive today have as much a right to demand property agreements that serve their needs as people originally did a thousand or thousands of years ago. Most people know it isn't right that a few people own everything and we all have to pay them taxes and rents to live. It isn't a natural or reasonable system, and it leads to spectacular waste as the wealthy seek to spend a fortune to fly into space or put their brains into cyborgs, as they destroy the environment and burn through the world's resources, and everyone else can die in the streets. It is the kind of unnatural division of land and resources that would not be possible at all without enormous intervention by government, regulations, banking, rule and monopoly enforcement, etc. Limited Liability Corporations are a lie and a fiction, created to evade the law. And we have seen how well they do it. No one can sue the medical profession for experimenting on them. Can no one execute the murderers?
5:23 Are you referring to Giambattista Vico, 23 June 1668 - 23 January 1744? His generalities about rise of civilisation seem so steeped in an idea which led to Engels and came from Cicero. And St. Thomas said Cicero was wrong. Where exactly did St. Thomas refute Cicero and prefute Vico and Engels? III Suppl, Q 41, A 1 - whether matrimony is of natural law. The relevant passages are objection 2 and its answer. _Objection 2. Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural._ ... _Reply to Objection 2. The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning of the human race._ Hope you didn't give Vico too much credit, we'll see.
Aye. Jones swaggered into the presidential palace like John Wayne and told the president what's up with Logos and anti-logos and also gave him him a stern warning about the dangers of beauty
Where in the story of the Fall is there any mention of a change in nature? It only describes getting kicked out of the garden and God leaving, and we ultimately die. In Romans, there is no mention of inheriting guilt from Adam. Again, we just die as a result when we sin. His proposition doesn't tie to the fall as far as I can tell.
4:46 I am on the one hand happy that you place, correctly, Abraham before the grave sacrifice in Ur, but on the other hand, you are denying post-Abrahamic genealogies, including those of Matthew 1 and Luke 3. In case you say the genealogies aren't complete, true for the one of Matthew, three generations immediately descending from Jezebels daughter Athalia are omitted - for ritual reasons. Damnatio memoriae. You cannot extrapolate from such cases that genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are incomplete, let alone that post-Abrahamic ones are so, the one omission one could find probable is Kenan between Arphaxad and Saleh. Both LXX and Luke do have manuscripts without him, though. And when you say Abraham lived about 3000 BC, you are in fact calling post-Abrahamic genealogies incomplete. You are saying there aren't 14 generations from Abraham to David, but more.
6:20 - 6:30 Human _culture_ struggling to get back to what Adam had by nature before the fall. False. All _individuals_ with very few exceptions are invited to such a struggle, but changes in culture are not (generally) a struggle to come up from bestial or satanic human relations, as if these were ever universal, nor are all inviduals in the position to need _such a_ level of struggle. Culture involved the spiritual culture, namely the memory (in non-Hebrews more and more distorted, especially around them, much less so in Amerindians) of the Original Revelation, which obviously invited individuals to take on such a struggle. But unless a culture is first perverted - over and beyond the fall - there is no struggle to restore the culture to Edenic ideals. Once for instance Guaranís had lost agriculture and taken on nakedness and cannibalism, yes, Jesuits had to struggle to bring back their culture to Edenic ideals. That is why they called their missions with reservations Reducciones - reducir or reducere meaning "bring back"
Does it not appear to anyone else disingenuous to begin a conversation stating clearly that the definition of “Jew” is not a biological distinction but a theological one, and then to go on for the next hour explaining how the Jewish people themselves, the ethnic group specifically, those who call themselves Jewish and who follow rabbinical Judaism are at the root of all the miseries visited upon Christendom and non-Jews only become “Jewish” when they conform to their revolutionary world view (eg by having an abortion).
A common critique of EMJ's thesis is to just point out the Islamic golden age, but if you actually examines the fruits of the Islamic golden age you would find that most advances were in mathematics and astronomy. In other words, the study of the fixed things. Stable and unchanging things resemble more the heavenly than the earthly, the one more than the many, and Islam's God is a strict monad.
You’re not saying anything other than pointing out a period of enlightenment reflected in the Islamic history. Islam is false. Catholicism is false as well.
The thing to remember about our knowledge of Islam is that it was specifically developed in the 17th and 18th centuries as a propaganda tool to argue in favour of the enlightenment by projecting the Utopia a future enlightened Europe into Islam’s past. The truth is that the Arabian Empires were scientifically and culturally stagnant. The knowledge they had came entirely from the communities they conquered, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Visigoths. The Islamic Empire would get a boost for the first 100 years after conquering the un Islamic peoples but as the dimmi communities shrank or converted the dynamism faded. Islamic polities we’re never able to self generate innovation or leaning, this image we have of them as “Golden” especially Spain is entirely fictitious and propagandistic. Incidentally new research in archaeology backs up the sterile Islam thesis by showing that there were no large cities or great works in the periods described as the Golden Age in fact the evidence shows burnt layers of city sacking followed by no activity until about 1150.
3:54 No, Adam and Eve were not Revolutionaries. By a Revolutionary, I understand a person perpetrating and handing on a Revolution. In a sense, yes, they were, Original Sin is how they handed down theirs. But in the sense that is concerned with the will while they were raising Cain and Abel, they were anything but Revolutionary, they were penitent ex-Rebels. Robert E Lee (if you agree with calling the South Rebels) had more pride in his past after handing over his sword to Ulysses Grant, than Adam and Eve had of their past act. In fact, child sacrifice to Moloch and Aztek sunworship hanker back to two revolutions thousands of years after Genesis 3. In Genesis 11, the technocratic revolution of Nimrod is mentioned. A bit later, some of the nations that were separated from Hebrews by God's remedy made a religious one involving apostasy from parts of what Original Revelation taught. But before we get to Azteks and Molochists, there has to be yet _another_ Satanistic Revolution, and that one involved hankering back to the worst of both technocracy and "Classic Paganism" if one may so term it. In carbon dated 2400 BC, a king of Ur sacrificed servants in the grave of his father. That's Satanic. Now, carbon dated 2400 BC would in actual fact be some time after Joseph (who came to Egypt before the actual year 1700 BC) but before Moses (who left Egypt the second time, with his people, 1510 BC). This means, the third revolution, starting trends of human sacrifice was a reaction of demons against God taking Abraham, Isaac and Jacob very visibly out of the gentile communities. In Genesis, the Canaaneans don't seem to be child sacrificers. In some of the other books of Moses, Moses had at least heard of it, and it remained in place with such neighbours into the time of King Solomon and beyond. So, during the Israelite stay in Egypt. Like the building of a new city, politically identified with Nimrod's, though not in the same spot, by the Amorrheans or Amorrhites. Babylon.
3:21 EMJ admits my point (see my debate with EMJ on my channel) that we ALL have a “Revolutionary Spirit”, thus refuting his own claim that this spirit is uniquely present in the Jewish people. This is the problem with a self-trained scholar who publishes his own material and lacks any editorial structure to filter out incoherencies. Let’s, here on the Internet, help this sincere man develop a more coherent and Catholic understandic of history, and eschew his Edgelord tendencies.
@@vaderkurt7848 Thanks man! Yeah I want to get away from the family-drama and back into Theology. Tomorrow: the dismissal of Fr. Pavone fron the clerical state.
No, it doesn't because Jones correctly points out, that it is inherent in the identities of the Jew; the Jew is a Jew solely because of his revolutionary spirit since his revolutionary spirit is the reason why Judaism even exists.
@@konterrevolutionbeginnt1457 That’s a point that has SOME truth but overstates the case. Not all Jews are anti-logos and there are aspects of Jewish culture and Judaism that are neutral or postive in regard to Logos. Equally, there are many aspects of European culture that are anti-logos and “revolutionary”. Jones simoly paints with too broad a brush. As an eccentric intellectual, he’s interesting and sometimes brilliant. As an historian or Catholic theologian ir philosopher, he’s a rank amateur and his work is extraordinarily sloppy.
@@BenThorpAkaAbel That's pure semantics right there, and who are you to say that Jones is an eccentric intellectual and that he does a sloppy job? Have you even read his books? Anyway, what you stated about the Jews is pure semantics and is only to distort from a general fact; the general fact is that the entire Jewish identity starts with the murder of the Logos incarnated; no other identity is connected to deicide the way it is with the Jews. All European revolutionary activities are connected to Jews and their activities; even the revolutionaries before the reformation were driven to revolution by the OT and a Judaized understanding of the Bible; the reformation itself was completely based on Judaized ideas, starting with Reuchlin and his affinity towards the writings of the Cabbal. Therefore, Jones correctly points out, that any European, or anybody else for that matter, that engages in Judaizing revolutions does so because they too have become Jews. Not every Jew has to partake in every Judaizing and revolutionary activity in order to make a general, objective observation of the Jewish revolutionary spirit. Or are you claiming, that one cannot make general statements about anything and anybody, because one can always find one exception to the rule?
This guys a horrible interviewer, he’ll wait till he answers something for several minutes then not even acknowledge or respond to any points he just starts reading another question.. sigh
![Scutum Fidei [ENG] - If God is Logos, who is anti-logos? - guest dr. E. Michael Jones](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6iFk_gZGkFM/mqdefault.jpg)
Took me two years of contemplation. Now watching this, I finally understand what he means by revolution. Amazing.
It's always refreshing to see a new interview with Dr. Jones - with new questions and more of a focus on scripture. So many interviews ask the same questions he's been ask before. Thank you.
His take on Aquinas, existence and essence, Etienne Gilson not understanding it, but artists like Giotto did, is INCREDIBLE
I always learn something new with Dr Jones, but on this subject @ 1:06:50 "existance calls forth essence" "look at nature and the form will emerge"... I wonder if this is a bad case of materialism? looking at things in the "wrong direction" from "the material first then the metaphysical" (instead of the metaphysical first and then the material)
the Logos/God is understood to be the "primary essence" from wich all existance comes from in other words the Logos is "the map, the Logic that informs the terrain", the metaphysical as the primary and the physical/material as secondary
John 1.1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ho ὁ Λόγος... καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
En archē ēn ho Logos... kai Theos ēn ho Logos
in principle/in the beginning is the Logos.. and God is the Logos
biblehub dot com/interlinear/john/1-1 dot htm
1 Corinthians 4:20 "For the Kingdom of God is not in word/s but in dynamic." biblehub dot com/interlinear/1_corinthians/4-20 dot htm
(BTW I hope they don't take down this interview)
found the answer to my own question in this other video: " Dr. E. Michael Jones & Dr. Robert Sungenis: The Dangers of Beauty - Livestream"
55:25
"the platonic understanding of art is to impose forms on a chaotic meaningless nature, the Christian idea is that if God created the universe then God is an artist and the universe is a work of art and maybe you can find the form simply by looking at the block of marble maybe the block of marble is trying to tell you something."
@@danielpk6725I recommend to you read Ente et Esentia from Thomas Aquinas also recommend SUMA CONTRA GENTILES if you don’t want to get into the SUMA THEOLOGIAE. Same author, In God Essence and Existence identify, in all else there is a dependency upon existence, that’s why he said existance calls forth essence or being (meaning all beings other than FIRST BEING which is God) God Is Ipso Essence Subsistance, HIS SUBSTANCE IS HIS GOODNESS AND DEPENDES ON HIMSELF. See Exodus 3:14.
Brilliant! The guts of this man! God bless him.
Excellent interview
It is always nice to realise that an interviewer of Dr Jones, has actually taken the time to read his books. Thank you from a new subscriber!
I woud love to read his book.Can you tell me how to get a copy?Zionists control all of the Major publishing houses.
@@eoghainoneill7195 Dr Jones' books are not easy to get because when anybody questions the power of the Tribe, they get deplatformed for mentioning it. I got my copy of TJRS from Fidelity Press. It is an expensive Christmas present but one to cherish!
Really enjoy Dr. Jones.
Thank you for having him.
Great questions. And great answers. Thanks to both of you.
This is the most important video on TH-cam.
Great work. Looking forward to watching this. God bless. ♥
7:59 I have not read E. Michael Jones on Iliad.
Here is my take. The Trojan war may or may not have involved a "civil war between regions of Hittite Empire" or two Satrapies, as Walter Leaf considered, since Achaeans may or may not have been vassals of Hattusha. From the Tawagalawa letter 80 years before it, it would seem that the then Hittite Emperor acted as a mediator. 80 years after that letter, Hattusha was down, certainly from a civil war, and Achaeans and Trojans could fight it out, which they did, leading to how Troy is destroyed.
Achaeans at the outset, when arriving, however had a regionally mixed army. A man from Argos could be recruited alongside a man from Sicyon in the same boat, like Assyrians had this same way of crushing regional loyalties. This was the way Achaean kings were used to keeping the Achaean state together. And without it, it's inexplicable why Hercules didn't conquer a city of his own - the answer is, even if he could have taken _one_ city (but he wasn't Ulysses, mentally), he would immediately have been put down by the rest of the Achaean state, at least this was a realistic fear.
In the tenth year, Achaeans were nearly failing, the army was getting demoralised. To boost the morale, it was suggested that soldiers should be shifted around and fight alongside the local compatriots, Sicyonites with Sicyonites, Argolites with Argolites and so on. We see this in Iliad B. And it stayed on after the war.
The nostoi, then, involve so much civil war in city by city (whether Mycenae or Ithaca, to name the two most famous ones) that both the renewed regionalism and the administrational chaos worked together to, probably fairly quickly, end the Achean State.
Conquered Greece conquered its conqueror - but still left Rome an Empire.
Conquered Troy also had conquered its conqueror - and ended the Achaean Empire, a low key counterpart to the Hittite one.
If this is how C. S. Lewis understood Homer, it explains perfectly the novel Prince Caspian. See Telmarines as Acheans, Calormenes more like Hittites (or Cretans.)
For some reason, the anecdote and explanation starting 48:30 really was amazing to me.
Edit: But that said yeah many of his takes are…wild, to say the least. Mad respect for the interviewer
thank you!
Ashkenazi Jews come from the Kazars, from a region between the Black and Caspian seas, who converted in the 8th century, and so have no genetic relationship with the historic Jews!
Ashkenazi are less than 1000 yrs old
Very smart man, agree with most of what he says.
Brilliant Catholic (genuine) mind,God bless .
Please can you tell me who was interviewing Dr Jones? I would like to hear more of his work. Thank you.
Why all he does is talk past EMJ
29:45 Fvcking A man, great way of putting it.
If Jones is wrong, we are in trouble.
Brilliant
How could existence be the primary issue relative to essence? I don't understand either
Being and becoming. Being is. It is eternal, immutable and unchanging. Becoming means ever changing. It is fluid. Two worlds. Heaven and earth. Eternity and time. Stillness and movement. Silence and speech.
Watch the "End of Quantum Reality" by the Philos-Sophia Institute or read the work of Wolfgang Smith, who is featured in the movie, he has many articles on the Philos-Sophia institute.
6:49 That cultures without the supernatural grace get distorted is true.
But the caste system is not just _a_ failure, the one in India. On the one hand it is the result of probable war.
While the Mahabharata probably involves pre-Flood memories (Krishna dying in 3102 BC = in the pre-Flood area, some descriptions are reminiscent of Atomic bombs, much more probable for pre-Flood era than for post-Flood era with technology loss and gradual recovery of technologies lost), it is very probably true that Mahabharata _also_ incorporates memories of Aryans conquering Dravidians.
And on the other hand, the caste system incorporates _the_ failure. A kind of slave hunt, where human respect in the absence of real worship of the real God, takes on godlike proportions. Where IV Commandment displaces I, II and III. As can be seen from Japan, where a manga recently showed an employee hosting his employer and basically pushing him to take advantage of his wife, you can see that such a displacement wreaks havoc with the subsequent commandments as well.
What is Molochic child sacrifice other than a parent claiming _more_ power over his child than what IV allows him, if volontary? Or, if involuntary, other than a state claiming _more_ power over parents than what IV with Romans XIII allows him?
regarding "pre flood memories" of various cultures, there is a very interesting detail in Genesis that many people miss: Abraham/Abram is a gentile born and raised in "Ur" (a sumerian/assyrian city) he gets a "call" from God to go to Canaan (and Egypt) and so he becomes the founder of the hebrews, this is the DIRECT link betwen the old testament and the sumerian stories (the flood, Noah/called utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh, the "nephilim"/gilgamesh himself is part nephilim...)
Genesis 12:1 The LORD had said to Abraham, “Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father’s family, and go to the land that I will show you...and he set out for the land of Canaan....at that time the Canaanites were in the land
Genesis 11:31 Terah took his son Abraham... and together they set out from Ur to go to Canaan....
also the main story of atlantis is contained in Genesis:
"Atlantis" by Plato (the text indicates that the source for this story is Egypt):
"when the divine portion began to fade away, and became diluted too often and too much with the mortal admixture, and the human nature got the upper hand, they then, being unable to bear their fortune, behaved unseemly, and to him who had an eye to see grew visibly debased, for they were losing the fairest of their precious gifts; but to those who had no eye to see the true happiness, they appeared glorious and blessed at the very time when they were full of avarice and unrighteous power
"Zeus, the god of gods, who rules according to law, and is able to see into such things, perceiving that an honourable race was in a woeful plight, and wanting to inflict punishment on them/
Genesis 6,2:
"And it came to pass when men began to be numerous upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, 3 that the sons of God having seen the daughters of men that they were beautiful, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose. 4 And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall certainly not remain among these men for ever, because they are flesh, but their days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 5 Now the "giants" were upon the earth in those days; and after that when the sons of God were wont to go in to the daughters of men, they bore children to them, those were the giants of old, the men of renown.
6 And the Lord God, having seen that the wicked actions of men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in his heart was intently brooding over evil continually, 7 then God laid it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he pondered it deeply. 8 And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man with cattle, and reptiles with flying creatures of the sky, for I am grieved that I have made them."
@@danielpk6725 _"Abraham/Abram is a gentile born and raised in "Ur" (a sumerian/assyrian city)"_
Is the city Sumerian? Woolley's Ur?
Or is it Assyrian? Edessa, aka Urfa, now Şanlıurfa?
One more, is he a gentile, and in what sense?
If you mean he is pagan, that would perhaps be the case if he had only his father and grandfather to go by (supposing Joshua meant the older Nachor, and not his grandson, Abraham's brother, who is also father of all Israelites, through Rebecca and her nieces Rachel and Lea), but if his great-grandfather Sarug's lifespan overlapped with his own (for 50 years according to a good LXX reading of Genesis 11), he was, skipping two generations, depository of unmixed original revelation, through his grandfather. In other words, no, he is not pagan.
_"and so he becomes the founder of the hebrews, this is the DIRECT link betwen the old testament and the sumerian stories (the flood, Noah/called utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh, the "nephilim"/gilgamesh himself is part nephilim...)"_
1) Do we have any copy of the epic from his time? Please note, if the Bible is historically accurate (and we should at the very least give it the benefit of the doubt), this means that Abraham was involved in events (Genesis 14) that involve Amorrhites evacuating from En-Geddi. However the archaeology of En-Geddi places the evacuation of temple treasures on (dateable) reed mats to carbon dated 3500 BC. This places Abraham before any copy of the Gilgamesh epic.
2) Supposing the epic already existed in some version in his day, and he lived among people knowing a version close to the one we have, what would prevent Abraham from having independently even of that, like through Sarug, a correct access to a more unadulterated version of the events.
_"also the main story of atlantis is contained in Genesis:"_
Egyptians refashioned the memory of the Flood in two ways. The more well known, from Egyptian papyri, remakes some memories of the Flood into a creation story. This is also the case with Norse myth, where earth and man are created after the Flood.
The more unknown, if at all Egyptian, would be what Solon and Platon had from Egyptian priests, restricting the Flood to just part of the world, not all of it.
8:47 1200 BC is when Hattusha fell. Yes, I know it is carbon dated 1200 BC, but I think by this time we have a very near coincidence starting between real and carbon, as the carbon 14 reached present levels, meaning samples are not any longer being calculated to exaggerated dates by the discrepancy of a really lower initial and the presumed initial content in the sample.
Troy VIIa is dated at its fall to 1180, and tradition says 1179. The late Medieval version of the Christmas proclamation places the birth of Christ:
_"A Moyse & egressu populi Israel de Egypto, anno millesimo quingentesimo decimo. Ab excidio Troiae, anno millesimo centesimo septuagesimo nono. Ab unctione David in regem, anno millesimo trigesimo secundo."_
The mention of the fall of Troy is no longer there, though the founding of Rome by Romulus is.
It is true that at least some Mycenaean palaces had been destroyed before this, which you could't tell from the Iliad or Odyssey.
Let's put it like this, there could still have been a king of Pylos receiving Telemachus, but his palace was in ruins, so he probably received in something like Beduin tents or caves or houses smaller than the palace.
As you can see from my previous discussion, the War of Troy only became possible, when the Hittite Empire was down, which was the case in 1200 BC, fall of Hattusha.
7:11 Usury is _also_ this kind of slave hunt and _also_ involves giving a IV Comm. "superior" - in this case the kind of benefactor that a lender is - _more_ power than is due to him through the IV.
Usury is against the VIII, again, such an overestimation of IV is wreaking havoc with other commandments down the line.
Michael :Catholic Bible "Heavens" (plural) "and Earth" (singular). Modern Physics Eleven Dimensions : Coordinate Geometry x y z Plus Theory of Relativity Time. Plus Seven More (Heavens) with "I Am Whom I Am" (The Divine Essence of Being), Life and Love at the Top Dimension
5:59 Harappa ... probably arrival of ...
* Regma, son of Kush or rather his descendants, after Babel
* speakers of Dravidian, later displaced by and mingled with Aryans.
Now, "10 000 BC" - we have no chronicle that states this. The carbon date of Harappa itself is actually from the time of the stay in Egypt:
_"The Harappan Civilisation has its earliest roots in cultures such as that of Mehrgarh, approximately 6000 BC. The two greatest cities, Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, emerged circa 2600 BC along the Indus River valley in Punjab and Sindh."_
The carbon date 6000 BC, like earliest parts of Niniveh, as opposed to near Qermez Dere, is from the life of Sarug, from c. real 2400~2200 BC.
6:08 No, it does _not_ antedate the Hebrews by about 7000 years.
That kind of time would place not just Adam, but even Noah, 7000 years before Abraham, and probably involve extending even more times between Adam and Noah.
This in turn, leads to:
* genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 being no longer genealogies with possibly one person left out (and if so probably for ritual purity reasons, like the three generations after Athalia), nor even Swiss Cheese genealogies, but genealogies with more holes than cheese, i e downgraded to basically worthless as historic document;
* and so many generations with so many issues of transmitting collective memory between Genesis 3 and Abraham, that Genesis 3 would be myth rather then history or even legend.
You are attacking the privileges of the Blessed Virgin, indirectly, by stating (though not in so many words) that there was no _historic_ memory of God's threat to the serpent, meaning we would be historically agnostic about whether God actually put enmities between Mary and the serpent, and there is no recorded event in which Genesis 3 was revealed to Moses. Tradition has that the six days were revealed to Moses on Sinai, but Genesis 3 is after the six days.
You are also undermining, by so doing, § 3 of Dei Verbum, in case you believe that to be a document of a real canonic council. At least § 3 is unimpeachable, and it is an impeachment of every old earth compromiser. Why so?
_3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. __1:19__-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. __3:15__) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries._
From the start = ab initio, confer, *in initio Deus creavit caelum et terram.*
and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care = ceaselessly, meaning, for one thing, giving no time for early history to become a very unsafe bet or more myth, and for another, the care would also have prevented radical history loss as you are presuming and need to presume to compress over 7000 years of actual history into less than 1000 years of remembered history. Pretending otherwise is attacking Logos.
_You_ are the one attacking Logos. *Sale also lived thirty years, and begot Heber.* or *And Sala lived an hundred and thirty years, and begot Heber.* - that is a logos. And THE Logos could not have allowed such logoi to become meaningless, while taking care of mankind, nor could He have allowed them to do so while knowing they would be in the Bible.
4:59 _"much older than the Hebrews"_
No. The same lines of evidence which would lead you to place Abraham in c. 3000 BC leads me to place early Pharaonic Egypt more recently than usually accepted in academia.
Historia scholastica states that the kingdoms started to form in the time of Abraham (the oldest one in Greece being Sicyon, later known as Corinth). George Syncellus - it means George the Cellmate, it is about monastic cells, though - tends to agree pretty much. Except perhaps for Egypt, which I might tend to disagree with. What archaeology digs up as "early dynastic" or immediately "pre-dynastic" is dated to c. 3200 BC at the oldest, _within_ Abraham's lifetime, since 1935 BC (a space of 11 years of error margin, if you fix his birth to 2015 BC) is, as per archaeology of En Geddi, carbon dated to 3500 BC.
@4:49 "The Jews didn't come into being until 3,000BC with Abraham."
Huh? Abraham lived around 1850 BC.
Most governments are an attempt to evade the law.
We live i a world of unforeseen circumstances and death.
When a nation finds itself bankrupt, whether by its own fault, or by an accident like a drought, it moves abroad in search of game, resources - whatever - and it finds neighbors, maybe also suffering, that resent its incursion on their lands and resources. There is war.
But people observed the dynamic and decided that it was better to anticipate the conflicts and act preemptively to control the outcomes. War became a thing to plan, even over generations.
The Great Depression that preceded World War Two looks as if it were planned to make America go to war. The British Empire was collapsing, and they needed another empire to replace it.
America wasn't in a depression because it had no resources, no labor, and no creativity or innovation. If it were so, how were we able to bound out of chronic unemployment and spring into building a massive war machine. We must have blown up a million tons of explosives, and sank a million tons of steel to the bottom of the ocean. But we are expected to believe that just years before that, we weren't even able to feed and house or employ our own people. It was a deliberate plan to halt the economy and drive people to the kind of desperation that could be led to war, and it was carried out a decade before the war. They needed people to be as desperate as an ancient people fleeing from famine.
It's the observation and manipulation of human behavior on a grand scale and using generations of advance planning.
They probably even look at time plans and ask themselves what they will do with the generation after the next generation, and they design it like waves. They plan the war for the next generation and the generation after that, and they know how to create the economic and cultural and emotional conditions to make it happen as planned.
The way of logos is law enforcement, not war, not revolution.
When they want to talk war and revolution, we remind them to enforce the law.
First, find the liars and murderers and kill them.
God set the penalty for murder, bearing false witness, cheating or adultery, theft, and coveting as death.
Every government sets itself up to commit those crimes and get away with it.
Every government refuses to execute people who do those things, and more often seeks to employ them for profit.
People refuse to execute governments that break those laws.
It is all one big evasion of the law, and all very illogical.
Obey the law and enforce it.
That's the demand of logos.
No loopholes, or your logos goes leaking.
One form of law enforcement is natural law enforcement - not allowing money and banking.
Wider distribution of land and resources is also natural law enforcement, because land ownership is not so much real and permanent, as it is an agreement among living people. The ancient basis of it was no more than an agreement among the people of the time to divide the available land among the available people. It is no more to us than agreements between dead men's bones. Because population changes and the available land and resources change, the agreements to land use need to be re-assessed and re-negotiated every generation, which I believe is why there was a jubilee. God or logos knows that land ownership cannot be allowed to accumulate generation after generation until one man claims ownership of everything. "Do not lay house against house, or field against field until there is nowhere for people to live."
People are supposed to have ownership rights over their houses and the land they live and work on. The division of land is always a matter of sensible agreements. People alive today have as much a right to demand property agreements that serve their needs as people originally did a thousand or thousands of years ago. Most people know it isn't right that a few people own everything and we all have to pay them taxes and rents to live.
It isn't a natural or reasonable system, and it leads to spectacular waste as the wealthy seek to spend a fortune to fly into space or put their brains into cyborgs, as they destroy the environment and burn through the world's resources, and everyone else can die in the streets.
It is the kind of unnatural division of land and resources that would not be possible at all without enormous intervention by government, regulations, banking, rule and monopoly enforcement, etc.
Limited Liability Corporations are a lie and a fiction, created to evade the law.
And we have seen how well they do it.
No one can sue the medical profession for experimenting on them.
Can no one execute the murderers?
Emj proved right ❤
5:23 Are you referring to Giambattista Vico, 23 June 1668 - 23 January 1744?
His generalities about rise of civilisation seem so steeped in an idea which led to Engels and came from Cicero. And St. Thomas said Cicero was wrong.
Where exactly did St. Thomas refute Cicero and prefute Vico and Engels?
III Suppl, Q 41, A 1 - whether matrimony is of natural law. The relevant passages are objection 2 and its answer.
_Objection 2. Further, that which is of natural law is found in all men with regard to their every state. But matrimony was not in every state of man, for as Tully says (De Inv. Rhet.), "at the beginning men were savages and then no man knew his own children, nor was he bound by any marriage tie," wherein matrimony consists. Therefore it is not natural._
...
_Reply to Objection 2. The assertion of Tully may be true of some particular nation, provided we understand it as referring to the proximate beginning of that nation when it became a nation distinct from others; for that to which natural reason inclines is not realized in all things, and this statement is not universally true, since Holy Writ states that there has been matrimony from the beginning of the human race._
Hope you didn't give Vico too much credit, we'll see.
Is this from the present, fam?
Did Jones say he had a conversation with the president of Iran??
Aye. Jones swaggered into the presidential palace like John Wayne and told the president what's up with Logos and anti-logos and also gave him him a stern warning about the dangers of beauty
He had a conversation with president Mahmud Ahmadinejad, yes that's true; but Ahmadinejad was the president of Iran 8 years ago.
Aren’t all of the -isms Jewish movements?
I hope he is wrong about Fr Martin .
Where in the story of the Fall is there any mention of a change in nature? It only describes getting kicked out of the garden and God leaving, and we ultimately die.
In Romans, there is no mention of inheriting guilt from Adam. Again, we just die as a result when we sin.
His proposition doesn't tie to the fall as far as I can tell.
I was with him until he said the catholic christians are the children of Moses.
Put into words what my perception is on what I have always felt
…Holly Ghost…Amen
4:46 I am on the one hand happy that you place, correctly, Abraham before the grave sacrifice in Ur, but on the other hand, you are denying post-Abrahamic genealogies, including those of Matthew 1 and Luke 3. In case you say the genealogies aren't complete, true for the one of Matthew, three generations immediately descending from Jezebels daughter Athalia are omitted - for ritual reasons. Damnatio memoriae.
You cannot extrapolate from such cases that genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are incomplete, let alone that post-Abrahamic ones are so, the one omission one could find probable is Kenan between Arphaxad and Saleh. Both LXX and Luke do have manuscripts without him, though.
And when you say Abraham lived about 3000 BC, you are in fact calling post-Abrahamic genealogies incomplete. You are saying there aren't 14 generations from Abraham to David, but more.
6:20 - 6:30 Human _culture_ struggling to get back to what Adam had by nature before the fall.
False. All _individuals_ with very few exceptions are invited to such a struggle, but changes in culture are not (generally) a struggle to come up from bestial or satanic human relations, as if these were ever universal, nor are all inviduals in the position to need _such a_ level of struggle.
Culture involved the spiritual culture, namely the memory (in non-Hebrews more and more distorted, especially around them, much less so in Amerindians) of the Original Revelation, which obviously invited individuals to take on such a struggle. But unless a culture is first perverted - over and beyond the fall - there is no struggle to restore the culture to Edenic ideals.
Once for instance Guaranís had lost agriculture and taken on nakedness and cannibalism, yes, Jesuits had to struggle to bring back their culture to Edenic ideals. That is why they called their missions with reservations Reducciones - reducir or reducere meaning "bring back"
The caste system in India came about because of race darker skin lower caste.
Does it not appear to anyone else disingenuous to begin a conversation stating clearly that the definition of “Jew” is not a biological distinction but a theological one, and then to go on for the next hour explaining how the Jewish people themselves, the ethnic group specifically, those who call themselves Jewish and who follow rabbinical Judaism are at the root of all the miseries visited upon Christendom and non-Jews only become “Jewish” when they conform to their revolutionary world view (eg by having an abortion).
16:45 there is a distinction
A common critique of EMJ's thesis is to just point out the Islamic golden age, but if you actually examines the fruits of the Islamic golden age you would find that most advances were in mathematics and astronomy. In other words, the study of the fixed things. Stable and unchanging things resemble more the heavenly than the earthly, the one more than the many, and Islam's God is a strict monad.
I disagree! What 'god'? They don't believe in 'god' they worship idols.
@@teddy74 You’re wrong and obviously no nothing about Islam… and I’m not a Muslim.
You’re not saying anything other than pointing out a period of enlightenment reflected in the Islamic history.
Islam is false.
Catholicism is false as well.
@@eugenaionesca Action follows belief, if you believe God is a strict monad then don't expect to evolve intellectually beyond the totally fixed.
The thing to remember about our knowledge of Islam is that it was specifically developed in the 17th and 18th centuries as a propaganda tool to argue in favour of the enlightenment by projecting the Utopia a future enlightened Europe into Islam’s past.
The truth is that the Arabian Empires were scientifically and culturally stagnant. The knowledge they had came entirely from the communities they conquered, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Visigoths. The Islamic Empire would get a boost for the first 100 years after conquering the un Islamic peoples but as the dimmi communities shrank or converted the dynamism faded. Islamic polities we’re never able to self generate innovation or leaning, this image we have of them as “Golden” especially Spain is entirely fictitious and propagandistic. Incidentally new research in archaeology backs up the sterile Islam thesis by showing that there were no large cities or great works in the periods described as the Golden Age in fact the evidence shows burnt layers of city sacking followed by no activity until about 1150.
3:54 No, Adam and Eve were not Revolutionaries.
By a Revolutionary, I understand a person perpetrating and handing on a Revolution.
In a sense, yes, they were, Original Sin is how they handed down theirs.
But in the sense that is concerned with the will while they were raising Cain and Abel, they were anything but Revolutionary, they were penitent ex-Rebels.
Robert E Lee (if you agree with calling the South Rebels) had more pride in his past after handing over his sword to Ulysses Grant, than Adam and Eve had of their past act.
In fact, child sacrifice to Moloch and Aztek sunworship hanker back to two revolutions thousands of years after Genesis 3.
In Genesis 11, the technocratic revolution of Nimrod is mentioned.
A bit later, some of the nations that were separated from Hebrews by God's remedy made a religious one involving apostasy from parts of what Original Revelation taught.
But before we get to Azteks and Molochists, there has to be yet _another_ Satanistic Revolution, and that one involved hankering back to the worst of both technocracy and "Classic Paganism" if one may so term it.
In carbon dated 2400 BC, a king of Ur sacrificed servants in the grave of his father. That's Satanic. Now, carbon dated 2400 BC would in actual fact be some time after Joseph (who came to Egypt before the actual year 1700 BC) but before Moses (who left Egypt the second time, with his people, 1510 BC). This means, the third revolution, starting trends of human sacrifice was a reaction of demons against God taking Abraham, Isaac and Jacob very visibly out of the gentile communities.
In Genesis, the Canaaneans don't seem to be child sacrificers. In some of the other books of Moses, Moses had at least heard of it, and it remained in place with such neighbours into the time of King Solomon and beyond. So, during the Israelite stay in Egypt. Like the building of a new city, politically identified with Nimrod's, though not in the same spot, by the Amorrheans or Amorrhites. Babylon.
3:21 EMJ admits my point (see my debate with EMJ on my channel) that we ALL have a “Revolutionary Spirit”, thus refuting his own claim that this spirit is uniquely present in the Jewish people. This is the problem with a self-trained scholar who publishes his own material and lacks any editorial structure to filter out incoherencies. Let’s, here on the Internet, help this sincere man develop a more coherent and Catholic understandic of history, and eschew his Edgelord tendencies.
Just subscribed but it be interesting if you do more theology and other things outside debates.
@@vaderkurt7848 Thanks man! Yeah I want to get away from the family-drama and back into Theology. Tomorrow: the dismissal of Fr. Pavone fron the clerical state.
No, it doesn't because Jones correctly points out, that it is inherent in the identities of the Jew; the Jew is a Jew solely because of his revolutionary spirit since his revolutionary spirit is the reason why Judaism even exists.
@@konterrevolutionbeginnt1457 That’s a point that has SOME truth but overstates the case. Not all Jews are anti-logos and there are aspects of Jewish culture and Judaism that are neutral or postive in regard to Logos. Equally, there are many aspects of European culture that are anti-logos and “revolutionary”. Jones simoly paints with too broad a brush. As an eccentric intellectual, he’s interesting and sometimes brilliant. As an historian or Catholic theologian ir philosopher, he’s a rank amateur and his work is extraordinarily sloppy.
@@BenThorpAkaAbel That's pure semantics right there, and who are you to say that Jones is an eccentric intellectual and that he does a sloppy job? Have you even read his books?
Anyway, what you stated about the Jews is pure semantics and is only to distort from a general fact; the general fact is that the entire Jewish identity starts with the murder of the Logos incarnated; no other identity is connected to deicide the way it is with the Jews. All European revolutionary activities are connected to Jews and their activities; even the revolutionaries before the reformation were driven to revolution by the OT and a Judaized understanding of the Bible; the reformation itself was completely based on Judaized ideas, starting with Reuchlin and his affinity towards the writings of the Cabbal. Therefore, Jones correctly points out, that any European, or anybody else for that matter, that engages in Judaizing revolutions does so because they too have become Jews. Not every Jew has to partake in every Judaizing and revolutionary activity in order to make a general, objective observation of the Jewish revolutionary spirit. Or are you claiming, that one cannot make general statements about anything and anybody, because one can always find one exception to the rule?
This guys a horrible interviewer, he’ll wait till he answers something for several minutes then not even acknowledge or respond to any points he just starts reading another question.. sigh
sorry I'm not a natural interviewer, I'll see if I can get better at it, thanks for the feedback
I have never heard so much rambling and stuttering.