Oh well, thats are hello and welcome to the show. This is the Cult of Conspiracy, and my name is Jonathan, I'm Jacob and today we have a long awaited show that has been in the works for quite some time. And I don't know if we could have thought of a better person to get on this show than Robert mordem from True Devil Worship on TikTok if you want to go check them out. I see you go live all the time, and I love when people are coming
and battling you. It is the best. Dude. Could we kind of go down the path of understanding how you got here?
Yeah? I get as that every day a lot.
Well, actually start off forgive me what brand of Satanists are you? Because we have so many different nuances. We just did an episode last week where there was like ten different types that we were speaking about a lot of them were very Levey, you know, spin offs or transhumanism, worship of oneself or the divine being within us and all of these things and not shitting on those. But for your specific brand of Satanism or devil worship, I've heard you use both of these interchangeably.
What specifically would you classify yourself.
As yeah, yeah, this is this is actual devil worship. So that's theistic satanism, which is the earliest form in the term itself. Like I don't agree with Anton Leavay or atheistic satanism. I think that's like a self contradicted concept earliest sources. I mean I got Arthur Waite, for instance, in nineteen eleven reference to Satanism under the umbrell of Satanism coinciding with the grim warrion barm, which is a
Latin tex where we get the sigial elucifer from. So that's where I'm part of that as far as I know all other uses of the word satanism, as it's after the pantheistic form.
Okay, so when you are worshiping your higher power, you are in fact talking to the dark Lord. You're talking to the bad guy from the Bible, not like a metaphor of the bad entity, like you fully are speaking to that guy.
Correct.
That is actually right of the Greek term Satinus, which coincides with the same root prefix and our word for Saturn Greece before that. So we don't worship the biblical satan. I think the way Christians view gods is a lot different kind of view them. Like people, we are animists, we are pantheism, so we look to nature's mystical attribute for like the divine and any pantheistic theology wook.
So how would this differ from wicca or nation a nature worship so to speak, or even gnosticism. How does this kind of differ from that?
Well, I'd say it's all matter for me. For like sources like who was doing this the earliest as far as we take it back to the earliest pantheistic cultures worship devil statues, as far as we could take it back. Now, as far as gnosticism, I think that that could just go hand in hand as devil worship, just like you could kind of have witches practice in astrology practice and magic. It all goes hand in hand. So gnosticism, devil worship, occultism, and actual satanism all coincide.
I would say, So you put astrology also in the realm of satanistic.
Yes, absolutely, being a pantheist, and so that's how we tap into nature. And now I would say that some brand like a lot of pagans come in my chat in my lives of all time, and we love it. You know what, We're very eclectic. We go to all cultures theology to look for Satanism, and so yeah, yeah, I think it's a great perspective.
So to uh, let's say a Nordic pagan who's reaching out to you and is asking about how your beliefs might coincide with their beliefs, you might draw comparisons to what.
Yeah, I got, buddy. In the Nordic they love the show Loki. Of course, many people familiar with it described as what many would admit as kind of like a devil figure. But I would also say, with the sky wolf Skull, you have a motif tapped into of the solar ecliptic lunar worship of Skull the skywolf, which fits with Rahuik serpentine worship in the East practiced by Hindus invaders. So to me, that's very satanic and rooted in the
same kind of stuff we see. So would I would draw the parallels in Norse veganism, the nature focus things like that I think we see.
Old I might have missed this when you said that you compare the the sun wolf and lunar wolf in the Nordics to did you say a serpent to the east.
Yea Rahu is a solar ecliptic sky serpent, coinciding with all devil theology, that all of these Satanistic cultures that were dating back, like I said, all view like the solar eclips the lunar clips as, like the centrality of nature, the equilibrin of correspondence. That's what the baphomet really entails, is that kind of balancing process of me.
So yes, okay, so you brought the baph met. I've heard a lot of people say that that is not true satan worship. That is more of a hermaphroditic sigil or symbol, if you will, that people have kind of taken and made into a thing.
Where are you at on this?
I said, That's why I love source work. I go back to eighteen fifty four, the guy who actually drew that famous, the most famous drawing of the Bathmint Bribe as a pantheistic the explanation of the figures right in the beginning of the book. This would coincide with the goat of Mendez, which I would say, I'd argue was Ahmit, And just like the clip thing I told you moment ago that the notion of baptism we're so accustomed to you today is derivative in the Greek term baptizzo and
other inflectuble forms. So what I would say is that was to immerge and cover the bap of omits in the sky is the Bafomet. It is the immersion of the sun and moon. And this was also had to do something called kansu, which was the moon and water element in Egypt. So the goat of Mendez, the bafa Met, the sun and moon are all esoteric and animistic depictions. People who take this picture and just turn it into like a guy that they worship, and it's like, yeah,
that's a perversion of the batman. But the initial stuff makes sense.
I would say, now, who is the devil to you? Just out of curiosity. I mean, I know that you mentioned the book earlier. So is the devil not properly depicted within any of the religious books?
Well, not in the Abrahamic religions, because they're too late in the game. We have the term devils derivative in the stands for it dev diva, which had to do with the light bear like Lucifer again with comparisons, and the Debies and Devas were a masculine, feminine application of the Baphomet. You could say, which is the all encompassing reality of nature itself. So we look at that the
same I would say the term Satan likewise prefixed. You have the Greek, you have some Hebrew and later forms that would argue all this stuff is going before the Christians. So the elites, I get asked that all the time in life. What about the Playboy cardy? What about the government? What about all this stuff? I'm not convinced as ran by satan is. Look at Looching Greece in the Satanic Temple,
which I'm not a part of. But that whole thing they're making about the Ten Commandments in Washington, That's what I mean is this is a Christian country.
You could say, no doubt, no doubt. You said earlier that it was mentioned in Sanskrit. Now most scholars would argue that Hebrew predates Sanskrit.
So Aaron I agree with scholars like I'm in Hilman for instance, who's also studied the Cony Greek language. Over I think like fifteen along with me, and we say, guys like that We're gonna put the Greek before that.
It's got a why I think Greek predates Hebrew. The Greeks took over Israel. Bro, Like, what do you mean?
Well, look at the sophistication in the etymology, at each breaking down from Greek, Latin and English. There's a takeaway. You cannot get the sophistication and meticulous details of the Greek language out of what the Hebrew gets. You can get the Hebrew detailed out of the Greek, though, And so when you're understanding how transliterative process of transmitting text works, I'd say the Greek goes before that. And all the guys who actually take the courses in Greek or teach
Greek agree with me on that. Like I'm and Hillman for instance. You know, the guy may be into whatever, but as a Greek scholar, he knows his stuff too.
That is one common Hillman's the guy that went on saying Christos was the ointment thing correct.
He was the one that basically said that Jesus was a pedophile leading little kids into a park.
Oh my god, that was Danny Jones show.
I think is when I first heard him speak on it, and then later there was like five scholars that broke downe. That is actually where the example of like how language traverses. Even within the Greek language, words don't mean the same thing every single time they're being used the same way that in our language we have a butt dial in
a booty call. Somebody reading American English two thousand years from now would look at these texts and think somehow these are the exact same thing because the words combined.
But that's not how language works.
Yeah. The reason that I'm in Hillman when my mod sentence. Never heard of a guy before. But what caught my attention. But he said is that the sept tuigen predates the Hebrew. Now, I've been saying that for fifteen years that there's no evidence to the sept two agents of translation. There's no underlying text. It doesn't match them as a retic or.
That's these grows exactly. There's a lot of textual variance there that lends credence and I'd say balance in our direction that the Greek is earlier than the Hebrew.
So the septuagen is written in Greek. Argument, Okay, the.
Sept tuigin is written in Greek.
Yeah, but I mean you also have to keep in mind and when the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt, like before Greece was even what we even think of is Greece. They were using the Hebrew language, they were speaking the same That's okay, fair enough.
We can we can go in there the Egypt the Greco Egyptian connection, like you brought up her Meticism, Hermes Tursm of Justices a Greco. It was the Greek magic papyrus.
And that was all well after the Hebrews left Egypt.
Not necessarily, because the earliest sources we have of the Hebrews is presumably three hundred PCE or so in the Dead Sea scrolls. I would argue way before that we have evidence with the Egyptians with the cuneiform tablets, even with the Canaanites with the cycle of bail tablets. El Elion, this was their deity. It pops up in Genesis fourteen. You know, we could root it back there. Just like we wouldn't say that Greek comes out of the Canaan language. We wouldn't argue that, we'd say no.
But we would also say that the Egyptians didn't use cuneiform b the Samerians.
Did the Egyptians use their own version of.
Hieroglyphsifix though, which is of the same branch, I would argue, so it's very similar. And I'd say a lot of people are traveling back and forth to Greece and Egypt, and we have a lot of evidence and manuscripts for that.
This is true.
But I mean even still, we didn't even know how to read cuneiform b until the nineteen fifties. We've learned how to read hieroglyphics since Napoleon. And it's not like those are a one to one comparison by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah, I think that the Rosetta Stone's a good example that at any point in time an etymologists could tap into parallelism in a language, especially as a comparative theologian, where you could draw theology matching it as well. And that's often, like the means, I rely on a lot of scholars just rely on maybe like one method, I've seen the barge well, you know, like you say, the Hebrew this is famous. Here we have some Greeks translating
in the culture here. Here's the issue with that. Why in the hell would they be translating a Hebrew monotheistic language into a pagan encoded polytheistic language. Keep in mind, like you said, words today or not like back then. Back then they were used sacredly, They were used cannotatingly with their spirits. So Hebrews cannot intermingle in this strict Hebrew only God, these pagan words. I would think, that's.
I hear you, But the Rosetta Stone is not a religious text, Like, there's nothing on it that speaks about God. It is hieroglyphs, it's Hebrew, and it's Greek, and I mean, none of that speaks about any kind of deities or after life of that stuff. We use that as a way to break down the code of these languages that we couldn't understand before.
So you know, it's it's not the same like.
A polyglod is. What i'mant is that methodology could be used to figure that out. I would say, I mean, but they.
Weren't translating the Hebrew into pagan languages for the purpose of proselytizing. If anything, the Hebrews and the Jews have been famously not into the whole proselytizing thing.
They don't really take many conference.
It's a whole process that doesn't work. Isaiah fourteen twelve as a graphic example. Hebrews repudiate the notion that Lucifer does that translation justice there of Hallau in the Hebrew, but like you just said, they take in the Hebrew and going to pagan languages like Latin. I don't see how that's consistent, but you know, some people see it.
And I'm glad that you brought up the Book of Isaiah, because there's examples of the Old Testament where they bring up Satan and Lucifer, and then later on they even use these words interchangeably. Hell, the Book of Enoch uses snake and Saraphim almost interchangeably at times, and Saraham is a rank of angel and snake. They meant to mean, at least in the context and all that to mean one of the dark lords of not Satan or one of his demons or something.
I would have to look at the direct quote.
But they use this interchangeably a lot, and a lot of that goes back to the like you said, the etymology and the symbolism that was used. A lot of the I would even say not Christian obviously, but the early Hebrew sigils that they would use to refer to Yahweh. One of them, I'm drawing to blankle the name, but he was a scribe for a has the King. His schigul for Yahweh actually was like a circle with a crown on top of it, with two winged serpents on
either side. But those were meant to be seraphim, the angels that would be on either side of God, not wing snakes type of thing.
That's from Isaiah chapter six. The Sarah are serpents there. In fact, the assumption I'd say being made, if anything, at least in a compound form of the suffix, is that, hello, there's something called a nominous sacra, which is more of an abbreviated utilization of the letter in these manuscripts, to
save space, to save time, what have you. You could argue technically that the hallel saraf that the howling serpent is depicted and included there, and hence Lelucifer and Lucifer would fit to the Latin at least as far as the phonetics and the constant.
It depends on the context, right, because Lucifer in some cases means light bringer, and sometimes it does refer to the dude running hell.
If you're according to the story and all that. So it depends on in what context.
That is true, of course in all cases. And I would say at least a word in Latin, because keep in mind, Jesus is called Lucifer in the Latin vulcate and Second Peter, chapter one, verse nineteen, kind of hard to translate these Christian values into these Pagan words because it caused a lot of confusion.
He's referred to as the morning star. That's that's not the word for that would be Lucifer, but it's not calling him the name of but it does.
Call him the name of Lucifer in the Latin bulgate. You got to check the Latin vulgate though it's Second Peter one nineteen.
I think, okay, I'll definitely check this out.
But okay, so let me let me ask you this, how did you get into this? And you know, not the whole backstory of your childhood, although if you want to go that route, we can no doubt, but most people don't get brought into this type of thinking, this type of would you call it worship?
Yes, that's on, you know, with that Greek term plasta net owent tales as far as worship, Like you said, I have nothing to do with the way the Christians are using that term. I'd argue, okay.
So how did you get started in this and get as concrete in your beliefs as you did or as you are I should say.
Christian theologian or fifteen years ago and coming, you know, just a debating basically every single denomination we could come across, every single religion we can, and just knowing it. Eventually, you know, you just start getting used to it and realize that you start expanding. I guess what happened. So gnosticism and ancient Egypt is exactly what I started looking into, as well as Elfis Levi, which was very influential on me, and the occult and the association of the bathman and
how everything that these likewise former theologians. So I can relate to these guys on that Heiner Cornelie is the grip, but elf Is Levi, you know, even Alista Crowley's writings that caught my attentions as a guy coming out of Christianity. So that's how I got into it. And I'd say the occult and just taking it serious and knowing how people bullshit around in the church, I was able to kind of diverge through the bullshit of like pseudo occultism
that's on the internet very early on as well. So that's how i'd say I got more advanced disperspective faster.
Okay, at what age were you really starting to become interested in learning about this?
Well, I was raised Christian, so since I was born, so about age twenty or so, I started, you know, hopping into the stuff serious, debating guys like from different parts of the world on an app called Paltov that's actually software on a computer and start you know, debating the Bible, debating the Muslims, debating the Jews and everything. And we were just doing this for like sometimes twelve hours a day. So that's probably back in like two thousand and eight or so sevento and eight. So you
know the stages. And I say that I'm confident that the fear that promotes the subjugating process of staying to Jesus not going to other demons and spirits, I didn't have that fear because I know the bullshit involved with the Bible translations. I know that word for hell is like five different breaking words, and they're fucking around. So that had me more open to say, like looking into the devil and noticing a lot of weird things. Since Jesus, in this Bible I was believing at the time, says
to be wise his serpents? Why not wise is God? Whis his angels? Why is the prophet? Why is his serpents? The serpent is a very prodatory term in the Bible and emphasized for that reason. So this was a contradiction in me. I'd say that Adam and Eve knowledge and Genesis and God got mad at that fact, the fact that he apparently lied and said they would die in that day lam in the Hebrew, in the day they eat of it, they would die. They didn't lie, serpent
told the truth. They would become like God's and meaning in the narrative at least they did Genesis three twenty two. So that also was more examples of just how bad is the serpent? The gnostic or Marciones eating of that, I could say, is what had me open my mind more to the serpent Satan think from the right perspective.
Now, what is your argument towards us. Now we're bringing up the Gnostics here. They didn't even come around util the first or second century a d. And all they did was basically plagiarize certain books of the Bible and throat on their own deities and their own pantheons to it. They took a little snippet here and a little snippet there, but most, if actually all, of the Gnostic texts were understood to be not canon and not based in any
kind of reality. Literally before like the first Christians got together at their first meeting here.
Well, the first meeting with the canon was Council of Carthage and the Council of Hippo, and the late three hundreds before that, Marci started the whole can. The pre eminent Gnostic, if you will, he was, if anything, influencing the Antoniciene early Church fathers to do a canon, because he had a different idea of a cannon, and he was teaching the same things I was just saying, So I disagree with scholars that couldn't keep in mind at for a time the sources from Gnostic for a while
were simply based on the Catholic Church fathers. That's like asking the joker about the Batman for a good source of fucked the motherfucker God. I don't agree with him.
Gotta get this, but I mean, the Catholic Church didn't start in the late three hundreds. They can argue that because the first meeting happened, but the u the stan Neil Binn said, all the shebang of the Catholic Church didn't come around until way later.
Well, what I'm saying is there is that they were relying on the Catholic Church of sources, Gnosticism, the heresiologists and people writing against them, and doctism in the practice time, these are the sources. My point is when they discovered the Nagamadi, that is when we actually have first hand tapping into the gnostics own sources. And that's what matters. Saying there was a meeting, there could be a meeting of a bunch of pagan candle burning guys at the
Christian sea. I don't think the Christians will take those meetings to series. It's not them, it's their enemies. In fact, cultures like that.
I hear you, but I mean even the Nagamati texts perfect example that was there discovering nineteen forty five by Muhammad Ali in Egypt. And when they were discovered, no one really it wasn't earth shattering information. Now granted, in nineteen forty five when they were discovered and brought forward, like, okay, there was other shit going on on earth at that time.
There was a whole Hitler situation. So like people weren't worried about ancient texts, and I get that, but all of the texts within the Nagamatis, that all of it was known about the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Jesus Wives, the whole nine. They already knew these to be forgeries and fakes. And hell, half of those didn't even exist until the fourteen hundreds.
A d well, I would dispute a lot of us. For instance, the ascension of Isaiah's quarterly first century, and that's coded as dulis. I would say that the Gospel of Thomas. Some juggle that this is not gnostic. I disagree. I'd say that you have in the very first complete New Testament Codex Codex ana Atticus, you have the Epistle of Barnabas. People actually say that this is not gnostic. The entire thing is worst being sacred notices. Basically anyone
read it for themselves. They removed that from their own New Testament. So these inconsistencies showed that we don't have like the Gospels really how they say it until the fourth century after those canonizations. Coincidentally, we don't really have that in the papyri. Those are just little fragments in public he says, with no cannotated context. We could argue that was Gnostic. I agree with Robert M. Price that he put a lot of his Paul stuff being written
before that influenced by Gnostic teachings. Based on the fact that A Paul says the Arkans crucified the Lord first Garuthians two eight. I believe in the Greek and these are the arcticons that are not flesh and blood and effhesion sticks. We could argue arctent time, and so therefore we know that that ship was just something going on there,
It was not an actual crucifixion. I could argue many of the arguments in the Knakaimodi and the Gnostic texts show that whoever's writing the Gospels, it's a better argument to say they're influenced by the gnostics by it for that reason because inclusions of people like Simon the Sirene who carries his cross makes no sense. God pops out of nowhere, just like it's his cue to hop in a scene. Go ahead, Mel Gibson hops in and that in uh is it the Great Spirit text or whatever?
The treaty is a great step. This is this is like gnostic intentitism that Jesus is not actually Christmas by someone else. Right.
I believe that as a matter of fact, they are a very Gnostic based which is why they weren't added in the Bible. They were in nowhere. This clearly why they shouldn't. Gospel of Thomas perfect example. You look at the way it's written. It is a conversation for one hundred and fourteen lines and two extra sideddendums. None of it goes into the pattern of how Jesus spoke, how
he teached, how he worked at any of that. And the very early Christians knew about the Gospel of Thomas and knew that it was heretical and threw it out. The Gospel of Peter, for instance, the entire Gospel of Peter makes it seem like Jesus wasn't even there. He floated from place to place, which is why when he was on the cross, he wasn't bugging, because like he wasn't actually there. It was like a hologram. Clearly that wasn't true. Jesus worked on people, He touched people, Thomas
put his fingers in the hands in the whole nine. So, like there's clear reasons why these weren't added to the Bible. Like it's not even a point of contention. It's very clear. If anybody would like to read these for yourselves, go for it. I'm not saying people shouldn't read them, but yeah, it's clear why these wouldn't be included.
It's a completely different level of understanding. If you can read the Bible and you know, kind of get through it, it's it's very different than than whenever you're reading the nostig I actually got to say that I believe that there is a more spiritual understanding to the Gnostic text than there is throughout most of the verses in the Bible. Bro Like there is a certain present, there's a certain resonance that whenever you read it, you're like, Okay, I
get this, it makes sense. But that's just my own personal understanding. I'm not judging one way or another, but I did have a question for you though. What is very interesting to me is that the nagamadis Yes, they were found in nineteen forty five, was it? Yeah, out in Egypt? And yeah, dude, these these were originally written between the second and fourth century.
Okay, some of them are than thirteen and fourteen hundred, but continued, most of them were older, Yes.
Mostly translated. Yeah, mostly written between the second and fourth century. But either way, let's just say that they were Let's just say hypothetically they were all written in between the second and fourth century. Okay, don't you find it interesting that this was an original let's call it a gnostic plagiarism that somehow survived that many centuries. But the original Bible, like quotes and books and works and all that stuff, nobody can get their hands on that because it just
withered to time. Nobody could get there.
Like you know what I'm saying, It's not weird scholars that are dealing with the ancient original versions of the Bible, like Codex Sinetica. Billy Carson went on and on about the Sinai Bible. It's Codex Sinetica, and yeah, people work with that daily.
What do you mean, bro, like the original book that was written, I'm talking about the guy that wrote the book.
The Bible isn't a book. It is a compilation of books and books. It's it's combinations of things, and it was written over you know, hundreds, if not arguably over a thousand years.
Yeah, they date those biasedly though, like they're separating all the Gnostic findings into different datas, and the Bible in the fourth century they found on Codex. So I say it's inconsistent. What I'd say is what I was reference. There was the actual Snoptic Gospels, Gospel John, things like this, not the Gospel Thomas necessarily earlier that those sources are
drawing off gnism. And of course any any people that I've seen actually show a tremendous gnosticism based knowledge, like doctor Robert M. Price, who was mocked by bart Erman as Bardierman mocked the nunciations of Zoroastrian language in their debate Whenever a Goo. My point being is that the people take the subject serious agree with me, and there's reason for that too. There's things like saying, hey, this is obviously not with the teachings of Jesus. It's dosstism.
It wasn't natural crucifixion in the gospels. That shows otherwise that Simunce slides in replaces Jesus. That first Christian Is fifteen described the cruise of fiction as this spiritual based concept for First Christians too accurate, and that is a different type when they say, oh, those who deny Christ in the flesh are the gnostics. Even Christians fifteen shows christ flesh was not of this same nature that it was.
He was half to vine.
Yeahsta, that's nastic.
Is How was that gnostic? Though?
That First Christians emphatic and Robert Price would agree with that as an emphatic example of gnosticism influencing Paul. I'd say, and so that's why I'm going to go back to there, and people who disagree have to get past barriers like that. The other thing I think he was asking about, what was I'm sorry, sir, the other Uh didn't he say he was asking something? I thought there was one more point one to address. I'm sorry, Oh, I.
Mean, I was just kind of talking about like how the Nagamadi was able to stand the test of time. But somehow the original books of the Bible weren't able to which I just find interesting.
They have all right, go on, because yeah, I was just addressing what he was mentioned before. I believe like Nasis. So it's a very good, healthy dispute that a lot of scholars have changed their minds on over more recent discoveries.
Like he said, now, talk to me about Paul. How are you saying that he was gnostically inspired? You said it a few times now. Paul was a rabbi, and not just a lower level rabbi. He was seen before he had his epiphany and all these things. This wrote most of the New Testament and got thrown in jail and all these things. For what he was saying before that he was a very righteous dude per the Hebrew Law.
He was a rabbi.
He was actually the one burning Christians in their churches at one point in time. Then did a whole phase change. You're saying that what he did after that was very gnostically inspired.
Break this down for me.
Elements with hex I'm not saying there's no Christian theology in there. At the same time, the guys just seriously saying that the Arkans, which are not a flesh and being concept.
But he sticks I thought he was calling the Pharisees the arcons like he was like calling them a bad word, so to speak.
Well, not based on this, the first Christ called the rulers of this eon, I believe, which is a specific application siding on the darker side of things John twelve thirty one. For instance, the ruler of the world, Satan got it as world. Some embark you, So I would say at that point those are spiritual concepts crucifying Jesus.
It comes down in Ephesian six. If the arc and tie the alleged authorities and archons, like the hyposthesis text teaches us as anosena, if these are the ones crucifind Jesus, it can't be a flesh and blood crucifixion unless we're going to say they're flesh and blood like Ephesian six says they're not. And so that's Paul's usage consistently, and anyone saying otherwise I just don't think is being fair with that.
So it's not just him calling them evil dwellers. Same as how Jesus told he literally said Peter would be the guy that I built my church upon then the next line said get behind me, Satan.
That that was something else.
Addiction that I would say, uh is going to put the crucifixion to Peter if any in that kind of Satanic We see this with things like Samuel one text and the grimare Barmadale. He's a nice arcane Alex Sigel over here, Samel is the Satanic cabalistic character banging Lilith the pride of Satan, which in my opinion, that just demonstrates that.
Okay, so we kind of got off here. How did you get started all this? You said it was you were You said you got involved with a theologian or you worry theologian.
I could know it was a It was a software program that he had that he had on his computer and basically he was on there twelve hours a day and they were basically debating, which I think is a really good way of learning other religions and different types of philosophies. And you know, and that's uh, that's interesting that that was kind of like the gateway, if you will, to what led you to, uh to devil worship?
Were you raised with some sort of a religious uh flavoring in your household growing up.
Yeah, Christian, he said what brand.
Applic initially later Protestant. What I was going to say, Theologian. All the theologians are two thousand and seven. And even the most famous Christian YouTubers like Venom fang X and the Amazing Atheist will go to Pound Talk to debate, And so I was there debating Keith Thompson, another famous old YouTuber, one of the smartest Christians Calvinists. I was debating in three hours twenty ten and so yeah, we would go on there to doctor White, was there, Matt Slake.
A lot of guys are on that software and we would debate all the time, and some guys that were not known were just really fucking good and New Greek. Some guy in Australia would just hop on bring up shit I've never heard before as a twenty year old at the time, and so I'd say that was kind of the gateway of how I got started. But being aware of that kind of environment is when I delt into the occult side of things. Have me for the occult I did at a much speedier level.
I guess, okay, okay, So when would you say you really did the whole phase change, like you completely left behind any kind of Christian.
I don't know.
How you worshiped back when you would consider yourself a Christian, if you prayed daily or however you did. But at what point did you fully say all right, no longer praying to that guy.
Two thousand and eight where I draw the line. I thought I was saved, and I talked to some guys who really knew to Bob good there now you're not saved, and they were like, you know, God's very wrathfuling God does all this stuff. You better fear it. In the fact, that was a false God. Your files just like that's what shattered to like start questioning to like false like prophets, false teachers, all this shit. To see that early on I just backed office saw it was all like bullshit.
But in that strong Christian upbring, I think it was like gradually just coming off me around that time. And then that's no fear and study in the occult, because keep in mind, Christians are afraid to look in the occult me and don't want to go to Hell. I was a big believer of Hell at the time, no doubt.
Okay, So worshiping and you don't pray to Satan, do.
You, Lord?
But I asked this out of ignorance.
I completely asked this out of ignorance, because again, the only types of Satanists or Luciferians or whatever else are.
The leavey type.
I've actually, to my knowledge, never spoken to a true Satan worshiper. So I don't even know what the mechanics look like of how you worship, how you would pray, how you would ask for intervening, intervening into your life. I have no idea how that looks like.
On this side of the coin antative ceremonial evocationalism, some authors like as Conley and the book, they'll get invocations, evocations just trying to need someone writing on it on Amazon.
But I would say even the LaVeyans that Anton Lavay had a book called the Satanic Rituals right after next playing that one to me, atheistic ritualism that right, And I would say that's why Aquenna left the Church of Satan informed the Temple of set which I'm not saying I agree with him necessarily on everything, but I'd say at least he's going to a more pagan description to Satan. There It shows exactly what I would argue that we don't worship the Christianity state for that kind of reason.
So you're worshiping more or less the all encompassing across all platforms, all paganistic, all whatever versions of it. They've got a dark lord that they talk about. That's the guy you're talking to.
Also polytheistic demonologists a cultd But you know in that in the midst there's a lot of devil worship, and that's the initial form of Satanism was devil worship. And there's a great devils and evil spirits and Babylonia I think from like nineteen oh three or so, and ken Waite for antonmib was putting out Stantic Bible and sources like that. You know, use the term devils. In fact, the pseudo to monarchy uses they spelt the div e l and that's archaic English that's going to come side back.
The Sanskrit diva says, you know, the the light bearing kind of one that we see with lucifer, phosphorus, hesters, et cetera.
Okay, So fascinating, dude, Like just learning all of the almost like the etymology of all these words is like it's crazy because we know that that the Bible and a lot of Christianity has been kind of a grouping, a bringing together of sorts of all different cultures and and and beliefs and paganistic beliefs and stuff like that. Right. It's the reason why we we uh celebrate Christmas. That's
the reason why we celebrate Easter. It's like, you know, they had to bring in all of these other cultures for one, in order to squash those cultures, and for two, in order to kind of bring everybody together almost like a like a like a cattle corral.
Yes, and no, dude, but I mean, okay, for instance, Easter being celebrated as the you know, good Friday and the Resurrection all that, that's not based in paganism. That's because Jesus was taken after Passover, which is around that time of year, December twenty fifth being used as to celebrate his birthday. Yeah, we understand that we don't actually have his birth date. We have a lot of beliefs
on that. But if you look at like how Christmas to celebrate the Christmas Tree, everybody swears up and down that that's paidagan but it's actually based in Christianity that the Pagans took from the Christians, and then the Christians retook it from the Pagans.
The Pagans took the Christian the Christians tree from the Christian.
Show around I say it was three hundred to four hundred to five hundred a d.
There was a a not a.
Ritual, but there'd be a celebration that would happen. It was kind of a They would have a pole in their home and they would decorate it with little trinkets, little ornaments and whatever. Right, this was done as a way to celebrate Jesus. The Pagans had a version of that of their own, and they took it. And that's when the evergreen trees came into the mix, and all these things that wasn't a Christian thing, but celebrating with some sort of a gift giving and all these things
around that time was Christian based. The Pagans did something with that, and then later on the Catholic Church appropriated their version of it from them. So yeah, I mean, it's it's not like Christianity is a amalgamation of paganistic beliefs. If anything, it's one of the only on the theistic religions that there's ever been ever on earth.
So you know, man, what I'd say is that, well, I would say, you know, Mythrism the whole December twenty fifteen, that's Rsia.
Myth, no doubt Mythrism was if you're not mistaking the Silk Road religion, which is fascinating to look at. Not gonna lie, but I mean the Persians are more into Zoraster. They had their Mythra people, but they were more into Heramazda and and that's.
Why these guys like Richard was it Richard Carrier are pointing out like in these presentations with the fucking projector out like that. That was that kind of dualism, that polarity at the time. And then out of nowhere in Isaiah. You know, you got all these gods like God's just getting like oc about it. Numb besides me. I'm the only one by the way that I mentioned there's numb besides me. Where these come from? You know, yeah, we know that God Israel types of you know, the God
is one here. He's just popping out of nowhere as if there's some competitor or something like that. So I'd say they're tons of and staff the Pagans say. At the end of the day, like you said, certain things could be added to Christmas, clearly Christian things. I could sader Christian holiday utilizing a lot of pagan esthetic for some of those reasons of like we were saying, the tree Jeremiah tendsay is not to do ship like that OVA's witnesses did. We were like strict Christians back in
the day. So yeah, it's an interesting topic.
It is, especially when you look at what the early Christians I'm talking about, the ones that actually were being persecuted in ethicis and shit, what.
Their practices and rituals looked like.
Yeah, the Catholic Church isn't a fan of that because it has nothing to do with the mechanics of the mass at all.
That was all added on way later.
The early Christians were, you know, just worshiping the dude who just died and shit, and it was they were dealing with first and if not second, if not third hand accounts of what happened. They weren't going off of a written word. Some of them later were going off for written words, but a lot of them were going off of you know, the grandfather of this Church who
literally walked with Jesus in his grouping. Shit, what polycarp Well, I mean, sure we could go that route, but I mean we can even look at Antioch, We could even look at uh John, John the Young, that John the Beloved excuse me, because he was the only one that died of old age, and of course because he was writing the narrative, he always mentioned how Jesus loved him the most.
That's why we know him as John Beloved.
I get it, all right, there's there's things with this, but like, that's not to say that the the like I said, the adoption of a lot of these pagan beliefs and these types of envelopments of it. I believe that's also why the Catholic Church believed in starting to praying to saints and things like that, because they wanted to appeal to a wider audience of like, oh, you got a pagan god that does this, and this, dude, we got a saint that has a very similar story.
It's wild, but and I don't agree with that by any means.
But I also don't believe that is indicative of the entire Christian faith. I believe that's one denomination. You know, Sunnis and Sheites are still fighting over one misunderstanding of the same fucking.
Kuran's Martin Luther came out I think in the fifteen Hunters, right. I mean, it was just like it was. It was a rat. Now there was a different kind. But the Catholics were kind of the Christians throughout history, and then you had some Orthodox but I would say that they were those early church fathers teaching the Eucharist, and anyone who studied the Antonicene Church Fathers knows they do that.
Now some Protestants get upset with that because they want those church fathers, so they'll say, no, that was them right into the Gnostics ear this and that, and Catholic theologians go, no, it wasn't. Here's why and things. And that was always interesting to see too. As the Satan is looking back, I see a lot of Catholic Christian history taken from pagan shit, and I see Protestants coming out at the Catholics. At the end of the day.
The Bible, I would say, it's a very contradictory, problematic source at the end of the day, and that's kind of the basis of the Abrahamic.
Is it the Bible that is contradictory or is it the humans that are working with it that are contradicting themselves? Because Martin Luther is a perfect example of that. Of his ninety nine ethos that he nailed on the door, fifty four of them, the Catholic Church changed the rules for they agreed with what he was saying, and they actually made changes like over half of what he said. It was the other shit that he wouldn't let go that they said, all right, fine, dude, fuck you.
And let's keep in mind Martin Luther wasn't exactly.
A great guy. He wrote a very very controversial book on the Truth on the Jews, which good luck finding that. It's actually kind of a hard book to find. You can buy it, you can get it. It's difficult. But even Martin Luther, the guy really really was an anti Semite as well. A lot of people don't know this, but it's like, you got to draw your sources from
where you can. And a lot of what he had nailed on the door was about buying your way into heaven, which the Catholic Church was like, yeah, all right, you got a point on that.
That's kind of fucked.
I think like guys like John Calvin were coming out and when his Bible's getting translated, you know, William Tindale, all that jazz. You know, you start getting these reformers in there going, whoa God, We're just hands like clay and he's just predestined in us, and shit, roma's not early guys. I think like, uh, fucking what's his name was? Was kind of Augustine was when some of the convinist
kind of shit you could earn. But like E reading that, I don't think it was just his interpretation personally, you know, if anyone reads a lot of that shit, that plainly says And so for me, that's what I mean, is like the character that God is very opposing in certain
spots that if you could justify reconcile contradictions. I used to be pro with that with atheism, like two thousand and seven, but some of them being honest with just the opposite of each other, and it's very conflicting and the answers are very desperate, And so that's what I mean. Like you said earlier moment, you said that the Bible is not a book, it's a compilation of sources exactly.
So it's no surprise for the contradictions, and I think it's mythology we could learn from where they took a lot of that stuff.
Well in contradicting as far as the Old Testament the New Testament, yeah, they're supposed to. They're not supposed to necessarily jive together. They're supposed to lead one into the other. There's a lot of things that Jesus spoke about that the Hebrews disagreed with, even though they couldn't disagree with it per.
Their own law.
There was ways of why he spoke the way he did, why he preached the way he did, But yeah, he was there to the New Testament was the new way that we're supposed to live. And yet there's even Jews, I forget what it's called the uh not Kavanaugh, what's their book that's actually like their Bible, And they have less books than us because they don't have like first and second Kings or first and second chronicles. They just have kings and chronicles and Samulans. I'm trying to remember the name of it.
Shit. Well, the Jewzis tore the Penitude source.
Well, that's the first five books of the Bible. But they still have the rest of the Old Testament in their texts. They just don't see it as necessarily canon, the same way that the Book of Enoch is referenced later on in the Book of Jude in the New Testament, but it's not in the Bible, reason being it was a very well known and understood text that pretty much
everybody of the day and age would have known. So it wasn't like you necessarily needed to reference it in the like to have it in the Bible for people to understand it the way he saw it.
Everybody knew what.
It was tradictions, not just hey, God's given a new covenant and it's going to be the opposite of the last one or whatever. We're kind of showing them a subjectivity in morality. In my opinion, I would say that what this shows is like, for instance, I think Isaiah sixty five gets this display just like Revelation, one of those glints back in times that God's can crate a new avenue earth and after that there is death for
one hundred years. In Revelation, after the first heaven first earth, there's no more death, and he wipes the tears, and this is a big problem that I know not because we're just picking up because as a Christian, we would sit down and try to figure ones like that out. We would see, does God lie in the Bible when Titus says he can't, I'd say he does by any honest, non liar reading it. That's how I see it, though.
But you're also referencing books that are meant to be interpretive. The Book of Isaiah and the Book of Revelations. These are meant to be interpreted and dug deeper, and they're not supposed to be so clear cut.
Brought our best to get the best interpretations, but at the end of the day, I'd say, the way it's worded just kind of traps things, let's say, And that's a couple examples I was given with godline as well as about getting me. But these things, to me are not like a problem for like truth seekers. I think it's just some people are raised or spend a lot of time Christian or for whatever reason their bias and
just need to somehow make all that hit. And I say, if you just let it go, it just it doesn't. And that's just an honest view a mount it.
So all right, I know you have to roll here in a bit, and I appreciate the time that you've given us today for sure. So all right, And then again this is I'm asking this completely out of ignorance to a person who is, let's say, no religious bias whatsoever, very agnostic towards things. Why would they want to get involved in Satanism or at least your brand of it,
Like what's the end goal? There's a lot of speculation to say that, like, oh, well, Satanists are doing what they're doing so that they can achieve.
Power and wealth on earth, or they're.
Doing it so that they can have a set of hierarchy when they get to Hell, because they know the book and they know where they're going at the end. They just want to be in the like the smoking section of Hell, not the non smoke It's it's something I'm joking on that one, but you see what I'm saying.
What would be like the end goal on this one?
I want luxury in the back could burn me a little out, that's it though. No, No, A few with Satanisms that never study it usually and everyone in my live stream every day knows that. But the point is is, like, why should they do it, I'd say for the knowledge aspect of it, they're going to get much better results. Being a pantheis and the earliest pantheas worship devil statues as far as the evidence goes from my studies, and so many people are coming side for that reason. Seeing yep,
I don't have to have faith. It's not based on faith. Like the Gnostics, we utilize sacred knowledge. Keep in mind the heresiologists called them evil for that. Keep in mind the serpent got at them and need knowledge. It's going to help people advance them. And I think the more we step back and are skeptical, those agnostics and atheists that are sitting there like I'm examining, I'm examining that, but I'm just going to trust whatever this thing said
without sourcing sciences work for it. Satanists are there to go. You should have questioned this too and found this source. Actually, it's kind of like the speed of it, I would say, because we live as our own gods and that's an application many call sin and stay away from that mentality, you're going to get difficult of that mind.
So it's basically for the knowledge that you can gain from it and therefore you can apply to your life and just live a better life as a result of it.
Statanisms for people that care about this life yet, and I would say, the end goal is the now goal, and in the now, live in the now, live with a wise mind. The future is the future. It's in their mind as far as we can tell, we're in the press. And the more people just worry about the end day Buyer pit Pool party of the Lake of Fire, have anxiety and fear and get vulnerable and start getting down to just believe the stuff and a mere fact that just escape a fire sentence, not because it's true.
Yeah, a lot of people really take that whole Lake of Fire thing to think that hell is a giant oven like nah, that that is mentioned only a couple of times, and it's you look at the context, that's not what it is. But that hole has brought up a couple of times, and that's also a whole other other thing.
But just to ask you something first, uh there, Robert, just out of curiosity, I know that a lot of people will attach uh satanic ritual abuse to your brand of Satanism or really Edd.
On the show talk about performing abortions in the name of satan to get things one hundred percent brow.
What are your thoughts on that whenever that's going on, Is that's really going on, or there's some people that you know, maybe you don't claim as far as all that shit kind of goes, or is it is it misconstrued?
If the human sacrifice comes from the Bible Actually Genesis twenty two, godm a had this idea to take your son at sacrifice them, and evidently, being ignorant the obvious morality of being the person, actually goes to go along with this. I think perhaps knowing it's a bad idea, things like that, I would say from the Bible, JPS sacrifice his daughter to God. It was done. This culture is doing animal sacrifice. I would say it's cruelty to do things like that to animals to appease from God.
In your head's read, we don't do that. Satanism. People doing those things, those are not Satanist sources, None of us sort of this seeks to do those things. Those people saying that are from the Satanic temple. A Catholic guy the other day, as we went to the page it said what it said, this is the Satanic Temple doing. I think the Abordin that's them. We're not the Satanic Temple. And really I don't know what the hell they're doing behind the scenes.
I mean, I'm with you to a degree here, but Abraham didn't do that just out of nowhere. Every tribe around where he lived, we're sacrificing their firstborn sons to ball and that was a whole thing. There was a whole ovens that they would throw their children into. That's not indicative of just that region of the world. For instance, the Astechs also sacrifice their children to their rain God. It was a very painful thing. The more the baby scream,
the more rain would come. That's been done for many cultures around the world. That's never heard of the Bible.
The source is that what people do is they'll take like Kronos for instance, they look, he's eating the planet. The planet's eating something. Raho eats the sun. It's called an eclipse. People reading those texts, like Christian texts, are not sourcing improperly. The Christians say this is historical. They say God told Abraham go into the mountain and do this,
and so that idea to do something like that. As far as we can source it this from the Christians or at least the Hebrew and then the Christians have Jesus have a douicinal sacrifice that he laid his own life down on. And so in my opinion that as long as they keep it in the Bible, that's them. Satanists have no sources teaching you stuff like that, and at a people like I was just going to say one more point is that that's like me saying, David
Koresh the Heaven's Gate cult, the People's Temple. Look what the Christians did. We are so fair in the debate. We're not going to source that as Christians, and to try to be fair, go to the Bible debate. I think people doing that trying to pin on us is from like the Satanic panic bullshit. They were banned at horror movies in the eighties as well.
Fair enough, fair enough, the Satanic panic was a big thing with you.
So okay, yeah, you're saying that it's about living in the now, and I could understand that on a humanistic or not humanistic, on a human aspect.
As a dude living and talking to you right now, I get where you're coming from. You do believe that you have a soul.
Correct, Well, soul is the Hebrew word in the fashion has to do with living consciousness. I think consciousness of Buddhism and cyclic consistence incarnation makes more sense personally.
Okay, so you don't believe that after we die we go somewhere else. You think we just kind of rinse and repeat.
Well, the resurrection thing, now that means like to walk in dead. I like the idea for movie aspect of it. I don't believe.
Yeah, not resurrection, just you personally take away all the other what people believe. When you die, you believe that you get reincarnated.
I'm saying this, This Abrahamic idea of heaven has to do it a resurrection, and for things like this, we're going to make stuff up and believe in it. What are we really doing in heaven for getting bored? If not, I guess we got a non boredom. Shot what I would say psyclic existence. Things like deja vous are very intrigued. I think death is very mysterious. I think studying necromancy and spiraitistic seances is appropriate. Ecdoplasms, medium ship, things like
this is fine. I think the fact Christians call stuff like this evil is atrocious, And although I agree with the Bible, thou out murder those statements, right, I would say that at the same damn time, we don't need Caveman to tell us that we don't need the rest of the Bible. That's a very atrocious things.
So you say that the necromancy, perfect example, you're talking about communing with the dead.
You're talking about not to varying degrees.
Maybe it's a weigi board, maybe it's a full on SaaS to talk to you, mama, to whatever level.
Fine, I also.
Agree with you, by the way, that that is real, one hundred percent acknowledge that is real shit. But how does that tie into reincarnation? Because if you die and go right back into or do you go to like a waiting room for a little while and then come back down, and like in that waiting room is when people can holler at you, like, how does this go?
Oh no, there's an elevator. I swear I don't just make shit up on that. I'm just saying that that a lot of the stuff in the Borrow total that book did makes more sense and the resurrection stuff to me, So I leave more in that direction, necromancy is practicing those cultures. That's tapping into nature's animism. I would argue, Elfis Levi writes great on that stuff, very skeptical, very
esoterically scientific. Just read what I was going to say is I don't just make up beliefs, like if I do this, I'll come back as one of those lines, go around and get those zebras Nature's cyclic consciousness. I don't see how it's just going to diminish, Okay.
And I'm not saying you make up something. I mean, but you have dug into so many books, You've dung into so many beliefs, and you have formed at least a belief structure for yourself personally. So you're saying that a reincarnation just makes more sense based off of the the information that you have found across all all regions, all cultures, all religions.
That's what I like to belief on it, because the term belief in religious stuff usually needs assumption like I proof of God, believe in uh not like that. It seems more like an ideology, like an application experience this kind of way. I'd say that its yeah, it seems to fit with the alchemical cycle of nature. Seasons are cycling, the sun and moon cycling. Why all these things like I'm a new regrets and a guy, you know, getting
a job at the lawn. It's all gonna work out for every sense to me, and and dharma and things like that. And that's just an honest view mine.
So it's not a this is a belief that you have, but do you have faith in this?
Really?
Where are you at with the belief versus faith debate?
I wouldn't say I believe I'm coming back as a or B. No, I don't think science necessarily even works that way. We have tr to be consistent, have an hypothesis and a conclusion. That's it. Other than now, it's a mystery and so.
Near that the experiences. For instance, when somebody and depending on.
The culture, there's people that born and raised in India, they have a near death experience, they see Vishnub, they're raised in Germany they have a near death experience, and they meet Jesus and everything in between. Oh, what do you personally attribute these two? Because I mean, on this and there's really no wrong answers. I'm just curious.
I'm just really not sure, and I think that just gloss on them over here, say, wouldn't be the best way to go about it. We know that the Amity Bill horror sounded like there was some truth to the actual stories until skeptics came in and started saying, oh, yeah, what happened with dead child's he and well the windows fail and then he went to the hospital. Where could we check the records? You know what? We put bandiates on them? Actually, how do I know it's not? People
like that saying fact? I think for these testimonies the fact they're contradicting may show, just like when Christians say, hey, there's a bunch of red water like revelation. People apparently looked into some of those locations, though it had to do with algae in certain cases and iron inclusion of waters and others. I'd say that people that I you could see what they say about it high consciousness into it.
Perhaps similar to a coma. There's a lot of people that appear to be dead come back and claim have experience.
Who knows, no doubt we I actually know a couple of coma Uh I would say victims, but people that were in a coma and when they came out there pineal Gland had been decalcified, and they were clearly seeing angels and demons around them, and they only a couple of days later recalcified because adults do that and they couldn't see it anymore. But absolutely, coming out of a coma is something that people have a lot of experiences with, for sure, and.
Stuff like that just give examples of the mind states that who knows what other mind states and not have tapped into for a while. People may not have been aware of how, you know, cognition works. So we're just being ship and so in the Bible. And then when they saw desert with an angel a I saw, wasn't it.
But at the end of the day, yeah, I think it's great study these things, question them and if we're just going to just make up hell and be afraid, like a lot of people didn't know if they're going to get the best results in that study.
If you're living in fear, then you're living the right way, that's for sure. And I say that to a lot of Christians too, like, yo, if you're living this way and you're doing this because you're afraid of the alternative, then you're you miss the fucking point by a long shot.
Yeah, I feel the same way because people will ask you, are you a god fearing man? It's like, I mean, should that be how you are viewing God as fearful? First off? Like that's the first thing that you think of whenever you're thinking about God?
Is that?
Dad?
He don't hit me?
Like it shouldn't be like that. It should be like he's a loving god, He's a caring god. He created this world, he created this universe. But for some reason, he wants us to know that, Like he's a fearful guy. Right, It's weird.
It's fear and respect.
I mean again, even the ancient Greeks feared and respected all of their gods, like you should like at least acknowledged. It's the same as like, Okay, a dude that is three times your size. You don't need to be afraid of him, but you need to acknowledge that he could fuck your world up if he so chose.
Oh, I welcome living in welcome that what it is.
No, I love the challenge. That's how I look at it. Though that's just from a football standpoint. I'm not saying in a fight, I'm just saying, you know, I always like taking on the bigger boys, just for the challenge of it.
Nature is very fearful. Look at thunder, look at a lightning bolt, striking the lightning bolt the same as a person doing it. No, nature is fearful. I have no problem with you, I'd say. The Bible promotes fear in the way of light people believed to be kind of like a person away. The Bible promotes hey, the fear
of the lord's beginning of knowledge. Proverbs one seven. Job describes this being afraid and terrified in the Book of Job, and Jesus says, not to fear those who killed the body, but he cast you hanner fear beyond people killing the boxy error and afraid they were flying am it God? At least in served passes, because other ones, Jesus says, do not fear it, go away and me or is I? And and then they think it was a fantasma, which is something the Greek fashion.
That's a fair point though the Book of Job old test and also we know that it's a story and not a true story that happened. It was like a parable because the very beginning of it Satan goes up to God and communes with him and makes a deal with him. God doesn't make deals, and Satan can't be in the same room as God. That's the whole reason
he's not allowed within God's presence. So, like we know, the Book of Job is in fact just a story, and there's an argument to say that it's actually the earliest written book in the Bible, because that goes back before the actual transcribing of the Book of Genesis.
There's an argument to say that it was a part of.
The oral Torah, because there's an oral Torah in a written Torah, and they always said that you had to have both to understand the entirety of it. The oral Torah was passed down orally as it does. And I think that the Original or the Old Testament mentions Job so much, and the New Testament mentions Job's enough times where they were like.
Okay, we actually have to add the entire story to the book.
I think that even if it's like some kind of metaphor, I'm not sure what that will be teaching as a metaphor if God looking like that, But at the end, to have.
Faith, to have faith and trust in God, and no matter what the circumstances, I.
Guess the way they painting him was evil in the process, be cause Joe forty two to eleven. It says God's one brought all the evil upon it on Job. Even though this alleged abolvement of Satan, it seems to be God got his hands with bloody there. But what I was going to say is that at the end of the day, I think that the New Testament Jesus statement as well saying don't fear those who killed the body to fear him. And then if you look at the Book of Job, you could see that they were terrified
God like a healthy thing in their mind. People today I often hear say, no, it just means respect, like your parents or something. I just don't see some of those pastors.
And to that point about in the Book of Job where they're saying like God's the one that did all this to you. That was his wife who was talking shit and basically saying like, why are you still praying when all this is happening to you.
God's the one that did it to you.
At the end of the narrative talking Joe forty two eleventh. The narrative in the beginning. Yeah, the wife was one talking shit too, but I think she was right in a sense. But that's just my opinions, to be honest.
Though there's not many times where women are brought up with reverence, there's a few. There's a few, the Book of Ruth, Book of Vester, I get it. But there's also a lot of u there's a lot of old school ways of thinking as far as like dealing with women and dealing with your wives and shit. And then you look at how Paul wrote about them, and I think he kind of had to stick up his ass as far as how women should be treated. But I mean,
you know, that's that's its own thing. Because he was a traditional rabbi and so he was of the belief that women were supposed to be basically silent and submissive and all these things. And it's like, Okay, who was he writing that to, because we know that the Bible wasn't written to us. It was written for us, but it wasn't written to us. The Bible was written to the people of the day and age that it was
being written to. Right, Like when in Timothy when he talks about women being silent, submissive, he wasn't speaking to all of womenkind. He was talking about the exact church because the women of that church were acting in ass and he was telling them to chill the fuck out. But people will take that and be like, yep, we're supposed to just no, no, no, look at the context, look at the time, place and audience.
It's very important to get the meaning from it.
I think when when we look at that too, like as somebody's I think they still hold them accountable for the stories, don't they. They're like, you know, for instance, like just telling a story like yeah, Abraham and all this stuff happened, happened in Hades burning and here's a story, and you know you're accountable for that. What happened with them two? Or you know is that the Christians us?
So I think sometimes like reference in Old Testament stories, they're supposed to be some fine value like Jesus like you will be given the Sign of Jonah, like have you not read the scriptures? Type of shit, like like are you not accountable? In other words, I think they were holding them accountable even though they were writing about stories to other people like you said, but I just
want to see more. Thing is I think that even though you could argue some stuff like that, I think Christians and choose that conveniently sometimes, like which commandments there to obey and which ones are written at the time. I think because today people are more smarter than no misogyny for obvious reasons that I figured they should have known that. They say that was just for the time. You know, we argue that, But I do have to
get out of here soon. So if you guys wrap it up with me involved, and I don't know how to tap me out of here, but we give you out.
Yeah, brother, Well, look, we appreciate you coming to hang out with us, and we hope that we can maybe get you on again sometime and maybe we can go a little bit longer, get weird on here, dude, like, because I feel like you do. You've done your research. You bring a lot of knowledge, a lot of great perspectives,
and I like the idea. Actually, I'm not saying that I'm going to be converting to devil worship by any means, but that being said, But that being said, I like the idea behind It's it not being a faith based thing, that it actually being a more gnostic kind of way
of understanding. That's kind of the way that I've always really been pulled to is just more of the nosis, more of the understanding and knowing rather than just like being I don't know, kinda led by what other people have said to be led by I don't know either way. Love you, man, and this was great and we can't wait to do it again. If you could, could you tell our cult members where they can find you.
Well, we're waiting on to see what TikTok does with the whole thing with the band, but you know that's that true devil worship is the main account on TikTok the Instagram's Robert Mortem and so those two you could go to.
Awesome.
Hell yeah, bro, I appreciate your time today and I really look forward to having you back on here here hopefully soon.
Man. Yeah, I had a lot of fun discussing topics. You guys seem to be into them a shit, and most people aren't, you know. They come to the mic and people bitch at me like I'll bring some you know, smart people aware, open to discussions with anybody as you see them right here, and so we try to get more people into these concussions, even those who disagree with us, You're welcome to them all the time and love it because they although they may not agree with everything, they
understand a lot of shit, I'm saying. At least it's making a lot of sense. That's the value of it.
Oh dude, you learn a lot more from people you disagree with then people you do agree with. Right, very well said, thank you, thank you, So all right, well yeah we'll do it again. But anyhow, Yeah, Robert, we'll see you next time. Brother. Those books that were found in nineteen forty five are the books from the second century. It's not like a replica, it's not like a reprint. It's literally that was from that time, right.
Yeah, I'm not denying that, but that's my point. Whenever these are discovered in the forties, it's not like, oh, we found this new thing. It's like no, no, no, you found this old thing that has already been talked about and debated and thrown out.
Like yeah, I mean known.
My point being is that how could that survive? But the most important book ever created couldn't?
Did the Dead Sea Scrolls not survive?
Sir?
I mean, and that's not the original I'm talking about the original Bible. That was put to put together of the sixty six books, I could see the Old Testament the New Testament. You couldn't keep some of that shit around.
They're more of the New Testament is in existence than the Old.
None.
There's zero like the original.
Yeah, there's zero of it. There's not a single book that is still around that. That's what that page that just said, hold.
On, hold on, you're all right, let's fucking do this I put in.
Do the original books of the Bible still exist? Even Google AI says no, the original manuscripts of the Bible do not exist, but there are many copies of the Bible that are considered to be accurate. They're all gone.
Well, now it makes sense seeing as to how the Romans did everything they could to kill the Christian cult before it could spring, and then just Sinian finally made it legal to be a Christian, then the next year made it hey was a Christian, and then the next year it made it the national religion of Rome. But like, up until that point, they were seen as enemies by Rome, so it makes sense that they were like torching them alive in their.
Books and all that stuff.
But the Bible didn't say anywhere in there that the original words, the original scrolls will be preserved.
It said the original word would be preserved.
But don't you find that fucking weird? Like the the literal original, the original print. I mean, you want to talk about whoa what was the Bible originally written as? Was it Hebrew? Was it Greek? Was it Latin? Was it English? Who gives? I mean, was it Spanish? A fucking knows. We'll never know. Nobody has probation.
Okay, yes, but we also know that it was referenced from the people of the day and age that were looking at the original, the original if you.
Can believe those people, and we.
Can because it's all been verified. How do you verify something that's not around. Okay, we're gonna have to do a deep dive on that one if you want, dude, because that's very convoluted and I get it, But the words themselves, and then when it did these grolls are found, it's like, wait a minute, it is a perfect representation of the King James by but it predated all of this. It's like, wait a minute, So the real words did
get preserved. Yeah, the books maybe not, but like the message was preserved.
When did the Dead Sea scroll date back to? When was that book originally written from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Well, it's a it's a copper scroll. I'm trying to remember now because they did carbon dating on it. And again, carbon dating's very yeah, I know, up to conjecture. But if I'm not mistaken, because the Dead Sea Scrolls, they they knew their whereabouts the entire time, I think they might have had a decent shot at carbon dating it.
Well, yeah, I don't.
It says carbon dating says between the third century BC and the first century AD.
So we're around the time when Jesus was alive. So these these things survived that long somehow. And then we look at it compared to the King James Bible converted to Greek, and it's a perfect one to one translation.
Dead Sea Scrolls were written in what language?
I want to say, Aramaic or Hebrew. Maybe it could have been Greek. I could believe it if it was Greek, But for some reason, off the top of my head, I want to say they were written in Hebrew, which is the oldest spoken language on Earth.
And he's saying Sanskrit predates that, and it's like bro calm down with that one.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were written in multiple languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and Arabic.
Okay, great, so I was on some of that anyway.
Some scrolls are written in Aramaic, the language spoken by many Jews between the sixth century BC and the Siege of Jerusalem in seventy eighty.
Yeah, that was the language that was mostly spoken. Hebrew.
The language itself was more of the like proper language that would be spoken of or spoken in synagogues or when you're praying and stuff like that. It's more it's like the difference between like the King's English and American English.
Jesus is not in the Dead Sea scrolls?
Is it mostly Old Testament?
It says, is Jesus mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls? Uh? No, Jesus is not in the scrolls, nor is the uniqueness of Christianity in doubt. But the scrolls do tell us a great deal that we had not previously known about the situation of Judaism at the dawn of Christianity.
Yeah, so, I mean, now it makes sense. Jesus wasn't mentioned in the Torah. So it's you know, they said the Savior would come, but they didn't like name him.
So it's mainly Old Testament.
Then, yeah, And you were just saying like none of that survived? Are you saying the New Testament? None that survived? I'm trying to think the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't. They wouldn't have New Testament in them because most of that was written by Paul after Jesus died and his disciples after his death.
Right, So it makes sense, But isn't that interesting?
Didn't we just read that the Dead Sea Scrolls were dating back to what was it, three.
Four hundred BC before Jesus?
So how could have it wouldn't have had the New Testament?
Then that's what I'm saying, It wouldn't have mentioned Jesus. That makes sense, right?
And also, I mean, are we to believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls were the first version of that book that was written that was put together.
I don't think so.
I mean that'd be like saying, well, where's the Jews original Torah? Where's their original big fat scroll? They have them in all the Senagogue, where's the original? Probably was burned by the Romans or the Phoenicians or the Egyptians or the Babylonians or the Persians.
It could be a number of people who did this. I don't know.
I mean, we're talking about the most hated group of people historically ever, and the Christians are kind of the second cousins to them.
There are several ancient Torah scrolls and fragments that have been discovered, but the original Tora is not known to have survived.
There you go, at least, where's the original Vedics, where's the original Vedic texts? Where's the original Buddhist texts? And it's like, well, Buddha came. It's a bad comparison. Buddha was a Hindi, so that's a bad one. That was a spinoff.
It doesn't matter. What point saying is that, Like, you know, it's like the Jews and the Christians and everybody is is so like, well here it was documented and see this is the actual proof and all this, and it's like all this proof you say you have, but you don't have the og fucking book that was put together. Like that would make me question my entire belief that there's not a original, you know what I'm saying, Like, because what if the original was nothing like what you're reading today.
Well, this is where we have faith, especially when you look at the writing of people from three hundred and four hundred AD that were like two or three generations removed from.
The disciples themselves, you know what I mean.
Like, it's not like this was a written text handed down for like three thousand years and like they're trying to decipher it. No, these dudes were talking with the people that walked with Jesus and they were writing down what they said. This guy took those writings and then passed it down to that next guy. That guy wrote about it. That's not like that far of a source. Hell, even the Book of a Thessalonians they mentioned some that we now believe was like three years after the death
of Jesus. I mean, how much more of a first person account do we really need other than the dudes that you know walked with him.
Uh.
The oldest surviving text of the Christian Bible is the Codex Sinatiicus, which dates back to the fourth century CE, the Old test No, I'm not talking about what specific version. I'm talking about like the oldest one in life.
That's the oldest one that we currently have. As far as the New Testament's concerned because it was written in Greek.
Reason why it was written in.
Greek is because because of Alexander the Great and his massive conquest, Greek was the understood spoken language across People in Egypt spoke Greek, People in Pursias spoke Greek, people in India spoke Greek. People in Greece spoke Greek because that's where he conquered. Why did Latin become the next language over, because that's where Rome conquered.
Well, this was a shorter episode. We wanted to go a little bit longer with your boy Robert Mordom. He was somebody who we were trying to get on here for a while. We were trying to find somebody who was an actual devil worshiper. And I gotta say, I mean, maybe you didn't agree with his understandings or philosophies, but you know, he came with it, and that's all we wanted from him in the first place. He was he was really cool, and you know, in having us on here,
I think that he kept us cool. Anytime somebody disagreed with him, he didn't get but hurt or anything like that. That's that's good. That's that's good for him, and a debate, not saying this was a debate, but you know there were people disagreeing and bouncing off ideas back and forth, and that was cool of him.
But that's also what he does, you know what I mean for the content that he puts out. He has a lot of people, like he said, jump in, some of them agree what he says, some of them come at him, and he's here for all of it.
And so yeah, man, that was fun.
Absolutely, and I'm bummed that we couldn't get longer out of it, But we will be having him back on good cult members, I promise you. I cannot wait to talk more about the gnostic texts. I cannot wait to talk about original translations. I can't wait to talk about other pagan entities that he also is like drawing in and bringing into to compile what he sees and what he believes.
I thought this was fascinating, bro.
Yeah dude, Yeah he was. He was pretty cool. I feel like, you know, could could could really just be like one of the homies. I like him. But anyway, I think we're gonna wrap it up right there, and uh, look, if you want to be able to come join us on Patreon. That is the best way to be able to support the ship and to have completely commercial free time. And if you want to be able to join us every Tuesday night at nine pm Central for the Cult Live shows is that is also at patreon dot com
slash Cult of Conspiracy Podcasts. You just got to sign up for the third Eye all the Way Open tier and uh yeah, how about some Knife fans Jacob.
Absolutely, if you haven't already good Cult members, please do this for us, especially as we're bringing in these types of guests and we are talking about these controversial topics and maybe you want to let us know what your thoughts are on this, then please let us know. And at this time hit the five stars, sit the shares, the like, subscribes to comments, leave a post, leave review, shares with the friends and family, shares everywhere. Here's the deal.
The more activity the algorithm sees across all of our listening platforms, the more we get promoted to more potential listeners who could that become potential Cult members.
Like the rest of you, fine ladies and.
Gentlemen, and why you're ready to go check out Metamisteries, Jonathan's other show and give it the five star reviews, the positivity, the comments, the shares, the likes, and the subscribes. Go check out OK Tonight YouTube channel and give me all the follows and the subscribes over there. And we thank you for everybody's already gone and done so.
And with that being said, this was another beautiful episode of the Cult of Conspiracy. And my name is Jonathan, I'm Jacob and there's one very important, extremely vital piece of information we need you to learn just as soon as humanly possible.
No bed off that are seen s