Great video. Fascinating seeing these things come to pass before our eyes. Lord have mercy.
Jay Dyer Thread
- Thread starter JCSteel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- public figures
Is he actually married to Jamie?
They got married a few years ago.
Don’t want to derail Jay’s thread, so I’ll just say: Serro should have his own thread. I’ve been following him for years. He was an instrumental figure in reshaping the way I look at the Bible.
Once again I've just watched a whole video from Jay on how the Anglo-American establishment planned our destruction and the tribe are not mentioned, even by inference. It's Huxley, Milner, HG Wells, Rhodes, even Mother Theresa, but not a *stein or a *berg. Even Alex is piping up now there's a pile on, but not Jay. Time and again he offers up the bankrolled but not the bankrollers.
StanWildman
Orthodox Inquirer
All I have watched of Jay have been apparently snippets of some of his talks on Orthodoxy and related issues in the 10-30 minute range which have been excellent. Very educational.
However, most of his programs are long, two hours or even more. People must just put this on in the background while doing other things, right? Our household routine includes stints of video but rarely over an hour unless it's a rare occasion of watching a movie.
Do people really just watch internet talk programs for hours at a time?
However, most of his programs are long, two hours or even more. People must just put this on in the background while doing other things, right? Our household routine includes stints of video but rarely over an hour unless it's a rare occasion of watching a movie.
Do people really just watch internet talk programs for hours at a time?
Yeah, I drive a lot for work so a good hour or two show that's engaging is really great to help pass the time. A lot of Jay's orthodox arguments aren't for me, but his media/conspiracy and film reviews are good.
I saw one of his 10 minute talks recently that I thought was pretty good. Here he's giving a summary of a book that was a big source for a lot of the "conspiracy theory" ideas that are passed around communities like this one
The 10 minute length hits the right spot. He utilizes the time well where he gives you enough information to where you have a general understanding but too much where you get bogged down in details.
If anyone is interested in the book he discusses he actually has an entire series dedicated to it. It's something on my watchlist.
Jay is a great source of information but he does seem to go on certain tangents that can be off putting. He also just throws in random songs and jokes that have nothing to do with the subject discussed and the volume can be 10x higher than when he uses his speaking voice. He also shadow banned me for a trivial thing years ago and from what I've heard I'm not the only one.
I wish he did more conspiracy stuff like he used to.
Overall I think he's helped a lot of young men to stay on the right path and his "Hollywood decoded" books are excellent.
I wish he did more conspiracy stuff like he used to.
Overall I think he's helped a lot of young men to stay on the right path and his "Hollywood decoded" books are excellent.
Me too. IIRC, alI I wrote was that his content was interesting, but I didn't find him to be funny. I've been shadow banned ever since. For someone so sensitive, Jay sure can dish it out though.
Well, he used to introduce himself as a "cringe comedian" for a while. I used to get annoyed at his endless movie references and half baked bits, but I think it's just part of his personality and it's a lot of fun for him and it's part of the package to a degree.
Since he started debates, he's given a great deal of his life to apologetics and philosophical content and taken a lot of flak for it. The comedy and impressions stuff seems to be some sort of outlet for him.
Being trigger happy about banning is something that can be explained if you look at the outright freaks and psychos that have been trying to shame, attack and slander him over the years. If you just look at the people he put up with twice a week on Dyercord when it still had that name, I understand that one has to find a way to shield themselves against that sort of stuff.
Nick Fuentes rarely bans chatters, but I've seen him slapping them around quite brutally, especially considering that some of them are just socially awkward teenagers who make bad attempts at jokes and comments.
Such is the nature of fringe internet politics & apologetics.
StanWildman
Orthodox Inquirer
Tried to watch one of his shows that had an interesting title one night, while I was sitting with the wife looking for something educational. Jay began with at least 15 minutes of joking around, singing some kind of songs that I guess were humorous, shooting the sh-t with a woman who seems to be the co-host. He never got anywhere near the topic that was the title of the program. Finally I said "Well honey that was Jay Dyer" and we moved on.
Fan or not fan though, you gotta admit, he knows his theological debate stuff
I've heard Jay Dyer attack Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is the idea that Christ bears the penalty for sin on behalf of the Church. From my perspective, there is no salvation without PSA. If PSA is wrong, can someone explain to me why it is wrong and what I am to believe regarding the Atonement instead? Not interested in videos or links, give me an argument and back it up with Scripture.
What the Orthodox believe about the atonement is that Christ took on the penalty of sin, which is death, so that we can die with Him, unite with Him, and resurrect with Him. Christ didn't just take on the penalty of sin, He destroys the sins of those who unite with Him. Christ wasn't punished by the action of wrath of God The Father. With regards to scripture, there is no scripture that would suggest that The Father separated from The Son, all else that I'll mention is Christianity 101. Wrath is the effect felt by unhealed sinners in the hands of God, and Christ had no sin, the cross was an act of love between all the members of the Trinity. The Father did not desire wrath for sinners, The Son did not desire wrath for sinners, and The Spirit did not desire wrath for sinners, as there is One Divine Will. It's important to note that Christ is both Perfect Man and Perfect God, so the whole purpose of the cross is that Christ condescended in the form of a servant, so that as servants, we become united to Him and become sons.
So we would say that while the sacrifice of Christ fulfills the types of animal sacrifice, the cross wasn't an appeasement to The Father who needed the sacrifice. The One Divine Will willed that through The Son incarnate, His sacrifice on behalf of sinners would bring about a new creation, because sinners can now enter into that sacrifice through the life in His Church. And that's how one is reconciled with God, not because The Father needed it, but because sinners needed it to enter into the redeeming life of the cross through baptism.
We're on the same boat so far. We have true union with Christ in His death and so we will have true union with Him in resurrection. That is Paul.
This is the contention that is nonsensical to me. How can the Son be bearing penalty for sin that is not being accounted to Him by the Father? Why does the Son taking on a distinct operation, namely the incarnation, not count as "splitting the Trinity" but Him bearing sin and it's penalty does? Moreover, what do you do with a passage like Isaiah 53:10-12? "It pleased Yahweh to crush Him, He will bear their iniquities, He bore the sin of many."
You don't believe God has wrath against sinners? I propose that the cross shows both the wrath of God against sin and the mercy of God to His chosen ones.
The types of animal sacrifice are one of the biggest reasons I am convinced of PSA, that is one of the big points in Hebrews. And it is not the claim of PSA that the Father "needs" sacrifice. He only "needs" sacrifice in the sense that His justice towards our sin has to be carried out if we are to enter into His presence.