The E. Michael Jones thread

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
E. Michael Jones goes back to 1950s Iran as the original colour revolution to draw similarities to the current situation in the US.

He predicts Supreme Court will win in Court, DJT will be elected, rioting in the streets will ensue.

Dilemna is if you give up, you hand power over to the Dems, if you hold to power, they try to burn the cities.

I always enjoy his chats with based Peter Helland, who keeps his Bible at the ready in front of him on the table. Sounds like Helland will be at the Million MAGA March. EMJ laments it won't get coverage in the media.

 
Last edited:

Feyoder

Kingfisher
E. Michael Jones goes back to 1950s Iran as the original colour revolution to draw similarities to the current situation in the US.

He predicts Supreme Court will win in Court, DJT will be elected, rioting in the streets will ensue.

Dilemna is if you give up, you hand power over to the Dems, if you hold to power, they try to burn the cities.

I always enjoy his chats with based Peter Helland, who keeps his Bible at the ready in front of him on the table. Sounds like Helland will be at the Million MAGA March. EMJ laments it won't get coverage in the media.


Wow, fascinating. Probably the best video I've seen on this topic yet. Brilliant link. Thanks!
 

Mountaineer

Pelican
Gold Member
Mike posted a stream where he viciously clashed with a guy who had a completely different theory on Christianity and Judaism. It couldn't be more polarized.

Is there any merit to what the other guy is saying or is it pure blasphemy?

 
Last edited:

Grow Bag

Woodpecker
Mike posted a stream where he viciously clashed with a guy who had a completely different theory on Christianity and Judaism. It couldn't be more polarized.

Is there any merit to what the other guy is saying or is it pure blasphemy?

I'm not theologian, so I can't speak to the issues raised. What I would say is that in debates, when one party interrupts repeatedly, as Bjerkenes did here, especially in the early stages, then they're using spoiling tactics to wrong foot their opponent. Also I think that Jay Dyer would've perhaps done a better job than EMJ, as he's well versed in Gnosticism and other heresies. Poor debate though.
 

Rush87

Hummingbird
Basically riffing on the theory that Jesus was (((grabbler))) psyop. Christianity basically crippled grabbler influence up until the French Revolution which blow a big hole in any “Jesus was s psyop” theory.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Skip The Man and get it straight from the man at his publishing house, Fidelity Press, for $30!

 

Blade Runner

Pelican
It's sad when the utter blasphemer guy can at least say the word Logos correctly.

I appreciate EMJ to a degree, but he is a stereotype of the strident Catholic who has no clue about how heretical the Franco Roman church is - and how many really bad teachings and practices it has. I say this because it is a true statement, fully aware that personally he may be a holier man than I.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
What part of the Franco Roman church do you find heretical, the thomist/neo-thomist aspects, or its base? I have a hard time seeing that, then again I'm biased being from that cultural and religious current. I can understand where you're coming from if you're Protestant, though I will certainly disagree with that.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
I am not protestant, I am eastern orthodox. The protestants (crypto papists) share far more than they realize with the Franco Roman church. Of course they must, since they are the wayward daughters/children of it. The essence and energies debate, the practice of and teachings of the liturgy and Eucharist, and perhaps the most impactful in the mind of the modern westerner that led him astray - atonement soteriology - are all examples of heresy. Quite bad ones, too. We don't even have to get into ecclesiology. The formation of western christian juridical concepts skews their theology and anthropology in a direction that is clear and sadly, corrupted.
 

Blade Runner

Pelican
What type, Sitting Bull? ;)

Of course, I'm getting at the various juridical ways of thinking about atonement, such as the "Satisfaction theory of atonement" as a classic example of heresy.
 

NoMoreTO

Ostrich
I'm not theologian, so I can't speak to the issues raised. What I would say is that in debates, when one party interrupts repeatedly, as Bjerkenes did here, especially in the early stages, then they're using spoiling tactics to wrong foot their opponent. Also I think that Jay Dyer would've perhaps done a better job than EMJ, as he's well versed in Gnosticism and other heresies. Poor debate though.

I agree with you that EMJ wasn't really prepared for these gnostic theories out of left field. The debate was pretty poor. The issue with assertions like this is that a guy like EMJ who is more of a historian than a theologian isn't the right guy for the debate.

EMJ I felt interrupted more or was less helpful in keeping the discussion fruitful. The CBJ guy was pretty emotional when EMJ balked "Preposterous!". To his credit he apologized at the end. He probably wanted more time to debate EMJ and more air time. EMJs' dismissive mentality towards him is deserved.

The question: How would gentiles be saved if the Jews didn't kill them? .... it did get my whole mind spinning to be honest. There were a couple of moments like that, where you would need a biblical scholar to correct such things as a quote from Leviticus about a curse on he who hangs from a tree or the theology behind the scape goat.

Many of CBJ's points did rely on these little historical anectdotes which I haven't ever heard of and there is no way to prove.

This belief that Christianity is a 2000 year conspiracy was put forward by Nietczhe and there are some pagan LARPers who are thinking like this I find.
 
Top