Podcasts about Logos

In this episode, the Pugsters look at the role of imagination in finding truth. Starting with Samuel Taylor Coleridge's definition of imagination, the conversation explores the role of the Logos in creating and sustaining the world. For Coleridge, it is our primary imagination that sees and understands the words of the Logos in creation; the secondary imagination works from the primary imagination to create poems and other imaginative works. The guys move on from there to talk about the limits of reason and alternate ways of approaching knowledge beyond those accepted by modernity.Support the Theology Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8Chris & Chris Talk Business Podcast: https://youtube.com/@chrisandchristalkbusiness?si=Wr-27dGavsGQSH5PLearn more about First Pres. Battle Ground: https://www.solochristo.org/Follow Glenn Sunshine on Substack: https://substack.com/@glennsunshineConnect with WileyCraft Productions: https://wileycraftproductions.com/

8/2/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:12. Paul's Sharpest Warning. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: none Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php MinutesWord Merch: https://minutesword.printify.me/ LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord @MinutesWord #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster #shopmerch Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

#Logos #America #Christianity This video is a clip from my stream "Religion and Nothingness: Buddhism, Nihilism, and Christianity." If you would like to watch the entire stream please click the following link. https://www.youtube.com/live/5RJLsT6CKsU?si=0q1OXsdUE95zecpb

Anthony Bartlett traces the rise of semiotics and the understanding that before being there is the sign, and that reality comes to us through a sign system of violence which will be exposed and displaced by the semiotic shift of the Logos. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

In this episode, the Pugsters look at the role of imagination in finding truth. Starting with Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s definition of imagination, the conversation explores the role of the Logos in creating and sustaining the world. For Coleridge, it is our primary imagination that sees and understands the words of the Logos in creation; the secondary imagination works from the primary imagination to create poems and other imaginative works. The guys move on from there to talk about the limits of reason and alternate ways of approaching knowledge beyond those accepted by modernity. Support the Theology Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8 Chris & Chris Talk Business Podcast: https://youtube.com/@chrisandchristalkbusiness?si=Wr-27dGavsGQSH5P Learn more about First Pres. Battle Ground: https://www.solochristo.org/ Follow Glenn Sunshine on Substack: https://substack.com/@glennsunshine Connect with WileyCraft Productions: https://wileycraftproductions.com/

No todo son caras sonrientes en MotoGP: hay pilotos que no consiguen llegar aunque lo merezcan, y otros que no logran mantenerse… Hablamos de esto y más en el nuevo episodio de Diálogos Sobre Ruedas con Diego Lacave y Máximo Sant. Toda la información del mundo de la moto, pruebas y novedades, en www.moto1pro.com

8/1/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:11. Paul's Defense against False Accusations. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-scandal-of-grace-in-galatians.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php MinutesWord Merch: https://minutesword.printify.me/ LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord @MinutesWord #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster #shopmerch Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

#Logos #America #Christianity This video is a clip from my stream "Open Debate Panel: Why Do Men Love the Eastern Orthodox Church?" If you would like to watch the entire stream please click the following link. https://youtube.com/live/dnO0ZiWsdN4

Send us Fan MailMost messages aimed at young men today split into two dead ends: become a sensitive, apologetic non-threat, or go to war and reclaim dominance. Zan thinks both camps hold a fragment of truth and neither offers a boy anything to actually hope for — which is why, more and more, he finds himself wanting to talk to thirteen-to-eighteen-year-olds instead of grown men.In this episode, Jordan asks Zan directly: what's the message? What do you actually say to a generation of boys who've been told their masculinity is the problem, who are retreating to their rooms, whose only two options seem to be surrender or rage?Zan's answer moves through some of the widest philosophical territory this podcast has covered — the concept of worship, stripped from religion and rebuilt around beauty itself. Petrarch and Dante, both of whom had their entire life's work ignited by seeing a woman he barely knew. The 1,500-year-old volcanic winter that blacked out the sun across Europe, and how people found meaning through it anyway. The uniculture problem — why knowing about every disaster on Earth simultaneously might be worse for the human nervous system than knowing only what happened in your own village. And a genuinely moving true story: a twelve-year-old boy, a short walk to a candy store, and one sentence from Zan that a mother said changed her son for weeks afterward.Watch until the end for what Zan calls the real message underneath everything — not optimism, not denial, but gratitude for what you have precisely because it won't last.

7/31/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:10. Hope Amidst Confusion. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: none Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php MinutesWord Merch: https://minutesword.printify.me/ LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord @MinutesWord #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster #shopmerch Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new subscribers to the Gnostic Reformation here on Substack and to GnosticInsights.com. Did you know that there are three Gnostic Gospels that I have written? You can pick up the simplest book called The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated. It’s very short. Half of it is illustrations. Very simple. Very, very simple to understand this Gnosticism. This will give you the basics of what it is that I share. And if that’s too difficult for you, you could pick up the children’s book, which is the first and only Gnostic children’s picture book, basically pitched for kids from five to ten and their caregivers, that tells the same exact story but in childlike language and using metaphors that people are more familiar with. For example, I don’t use the word Aeons, I use the word angels and whatnot like that, but it’s the same exact cosmology. The children’s book is called Children of the Fullness: A Gnostic Myth. But the big book, the one that puts it all together, almost 300 pages, is called A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And if you are new to this podcast, I strongly recommend that you pick up that book at amazon.com because it will give it all to you in a very easy to follow way. And it’s all there. And it’s also lavishly illustrated by me, of course. So please, I’ve got them at amazon.com. They’re self-published. And if you have read any of those books, please leave a review on Amazon. I have very few reviews. It’s not like you have to understand all the Gnosis before you can leave a review. Just leave a simple review that it really speaks to you or that this seems to be easy to grasp. I would really, really appreciate it. Now, let’s get on with this week’s episode. Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week, on July 25, 2026, I posted an episode that reflected a conversation between me and one of your fellow subscribers called, A Subscriber Questions the Basics, and I’ve put the link here in this transcript. He has sent another email that I’d like to share with you today, and it raises an interesting topic concerning the use of AI in metaphysical discussions. He says, “I know I just promised to stop, but this one is interesting. Seems you have impressed my demiurgic companion, ChatGPT. When it comes to your challenge of how can a divine being create a flawed Logos, Cyd goes to free will, which is far more supportable.” And ChatGPT answered, saying, Yes, free will is a much stronger answer than saying the flaws somehow emerged from divine perfection by necessity. It allows Cyd to argue Logos was created good, not defective. Genuine freedom included the possibility of acting independently. Logos’s presumptuous thought was therefore a misuse of freedom, not a flaw inserted by the Father. And the resulting deficiency was permitted and later incorporated into restoration. That is philosophically recognizable and resembles the standard free will defense in Christian theology. It does not remove every difficulty, though. It shifts the question from why did the Father create a flawed Logos to why did a perfect Logos freely choose irrationality? It says, “That is easier to defend, but still requires an explanation.” But I have to jump in to correct that basic assertion right now. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, who, remember, is a professor emeritus of philosophy itself, so Billy knows philosophy inside and out. I myself am not a “philosopher” other than by natural talent. I am a rhetorician and a psychologist—slightly different. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, it finally sunk into my gnosis that Logos did not act irrationally, as ChatGPT mistakenly infers. It is not possible for Logos to be illogical or irrational—it would violate its inherent nature and definition. Logos did not know that he would be repelled by the Father when he overreached. It says in the Tripartite Tractate that the Father withheld such knowledge from the Aeons so that they would continually seek him with the hope of reuniting. So what Logos did was reasonable given the limited knowledge he had. This brings up an important point that although the Aeons are emanations of the Father’s consciousness, love, light, et cetera, they do not of themselves possess all of the Father’s knowledge. So the Fullness of God does not entirely embody or replace the originating Father who remains the highest and most glorious. Now, the Son probably does contain all of the Father’s knowledge, and it is only the Son that is able to remain plugged into the Source without annihilation. Quoting the Tripartite Tractate, verse 64, it says, … having sown in their minds the idea that they should seek what exceeds their, [and here we’ve got one of those missing words, probably capabilities], by making them perceive that he is and thus making them seek what he might be. Now back to the ChatGPT, There is also a tension with providence. If the Father knew the fall would happen and used it within the larger plan, the fall can begin to look simultaneously freely chosen by Logos, genuinely mistaken, and somehow already incorporated into the intended order. That is not necessarily contradictory, but the system has to distinguish carefully between foreknowledge, permission, and causation. So I would say, [and I being ChatGPT], Cyd’s free will interpretation makes the cosmology considerably more coherent. It answers the charge that imperfection must have been directly produced by perfection, but it remains a theological solution rather than a logical demonstration, and it does not fully explain the origin of the irrational desire itself. Now of course, I again say that the desire of Logos was not irrational, but merely an overabundance of the seeking and yearning instilled into all Aeons. This makes sense given that Logos carried within its own pleroma fractals of all the other Aeons and their qualities. Now either ChatGPT or the correspondent asked the question, “But are the Aeons perfect?” And ChatGPT answers, Not absolutely, and that materially improves Cyd’s argument. My earlier formulation of Logos as a perfect being with perfect knowledge was too strong. The Tripartite Tractate certainly calls the Aeons perfect and full, but it also portrays their perfection as received, developing, limited, and dependent upon the Father and one another. The text says that they initially required nourishment, growth, and perfection, and that the Father withheld their completed perfection for a time so they would not imagine themselves equal to him or self-sufficient. Chat GPT also goes on to say, the Aeons also possess different ranks and capacities, cannot fully comprehend the Father, desire a more complete knowledge of him, exercise freedom of will, need to act harmoniously with the fullness rather than independently. Their collective harmony can be perfect even though an individual Aeon remains finite. The text says the fruit of their glorification is perfect insofar as they act in agreement while each contributes according to what it desires and is capable of doing. I go along with all of that. That’s all absolutely accurate according to the Tripartite Tractate. Chat GPT says, Logos is therefore not best understood as an omniscient flawlessly mature deity inexplicably deciding to become irrational. And again, we’ve already knocked out rational. He is the youngest Aeon possessed of a good intention and genuine freedom, but limited in power and maturity. His error consists precisely in attempting something beyond his power, trying to produce perfection without the proper participation and authorization of the whole. That gives Cyd a fairly coherent account. Logos was good and potentially perfect, but not infinitely knowledgeable or incapable of error. His freedom allowed him to act prematurely and independently. To which I reply, “Exactly.” Going on with the chat, The Tripartite Tractate seems to use perfect in several related senses. Perfect in origin, deriving from the perfect Father. Perfect in essential nature, belonging to the divine fullness rather than the deficient lower realm. Perfect through harmonious function, acting in unity with other Aeons. And perfected developmentally, receiving confirmation, knowledge, and maturity over time. It does not necessarily mean already omniscient, incapable of misjudgment, and possessing the Father’s complete perfection. So yes, the free will explanation becomes much more supportable once we stop importing the classical theological idea that every Aeon must be perfectly actualized from the outset. Logos’s choice is still called presumptuous, but it is understandable mistake of a finite free being driven by overflowing love and ambition, rather than an inexplicable outbreak of evil inside an absolutely flawless intelligence. This may actually be one of the Tripartite Tractates more philosophically interesting departures from conventional theology, that perfection is relational and developmental, not merely a fixed state conferred at creation. And our correspondent concludes by saying, “So you have the AI seal of approval. I actually think this makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? No one said the Aeons were perfect. Obviously they are one level up from us humans.” And I replied, “Yes indeed, very good.” Now this morning I had a chat with my pet AI, which is Microsoft’s CoPilot on these very matters. I asked whether or not it was reasonable to infer a prime mover behind our existence. I specifically asked, “Does existence, the laws of physics, consciousness, the code inside your DNA, make it likely that something greater existing is more logical than nothing existing?” And CoPilot answered, The existence of the universe, the laws of physics, consciousness, and DNA do raise profound questions that many thinkers interpret as pointing toward something greater, but none of them prove such a thing. They simply make the question unavoidable. And then it offers a structured, rigorous way to think about it. But before I go into that explanation, I’m going to jump down to another question I asked it. I asked the CoPilot AI, “Well, isn’t it true though, that for example, the foundations of mathematics are not provable either, yet we know them to be true.” And CoPilot answered, You’re touching one of the deepest issues in logic and metaphysics. And yes, you’re absolutely right to question the word provable. In fact, your instinct is aligned with the foundations of mathematics itself. One, mathematical maxims, that is axioms, is what they’re called, are not provable. In mathematics, the most fundamental truths, the ones that everything else is built on, are axioms, such as a point has no parts, and through two points, there’s exactly one straight line, and if equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. These are not proven, they are assumed. Why? Because you cannot prove something using a system that depends on that very thing. Axioms are the foundation. Proofs are the structure built on top. So yes, mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. Did you know that, folks? That’s kind of a mind blower, isn’t it? Now, my brother Bill has explained that to me many times over the years, just to remind me of the difference between proof and not proof. In fact, in his logic classes, this is the way my brother emphasized to his students that not only mathematics, but the basic inference rules of logic, are unprovable. It’s axiomatic, is what it’s called. And so, what we’re saying here today is that consciousness is axiomatic. It is not provable, but that doesn’t make it untrue. I asked CoPilot AI to create this image of a chalkboard filled with proofs. I don’t know if they are accurate. The CoPilot AI goes on to say, Mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. This is not a flaw, it’s the nature of logic. Point two, Gödel showed that even mathematics cannot prove all truths. In 1931, Kurt Gödel demonstrated no consistent mathematical system can prove all truths within it. Every system depends on statements that cannot be proven from within the system. This means that even mathematics rests on unprovable assumptions. Point three, so what does not provable really mean? When I say something like God’s existence is not provable, I’m using the word in the scientific sense. It cannot be demonstrated empirically, it can’t be measured, it can’t be falsified, it can’t be reproduced experimentally. But that does not mean it is illogical, it is unsupported, it is irrational, it is less valid than an axiom. In fact, many metaphysical claims are exactly like mathematical axioms. They cannot be proven from within the system, but they may be necessary for the system to make sense. Now, I’ve had past conversations with CoPilot AI concerning my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, and I have trained my local CoPilot AI to distinguish my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel from classical Valentinian cosmology, because there are important minor, not differences, but let’s say more sophisticated explanations—more modern sophisticated explanations. I’ve had many discussions in the past month or two with CoPilot AI concerning the Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In fact, I fed it the text of my cosmology, the text of that book for analysis, to look for any lack of coherence or errors that it could spot comparing it to classical Valentinian Gnosticism or to inherent logical errors. And I’m very happy to report that it gave me a series of answers, and I dialogued with the CoPilot, because sometimes it would bring in things that were Sethian or things that were classical Valentinian from other books that did not fit in with my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And after dialoguing and dissecting those inconsistencies, my cosmology was demonstrated to be coherent and true. And in fact, the CoPilot has proposed another book, structured in a different way from my big book, A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, but presenting the same cosmology that I have developed in a different way. And so I’m working through that now. But back to today’s episode. Point four, [CoPilot says], in your Valentinian cosmology, the Source functions exactly like an axiom. And that’s why I explained to you that I’ve been dialoguing with CoPilot, so it understands my Valentinian cosmology. Kind of mind-blowing, really. So it says that the Source, the Father, consciousness itself, is an axiom. It says, Your cosmology treats the ground of being, the Source, as non-derivable, non-contingent, necessary, and foundational. This is precisely how mathematics treats axioms. So from your framework, the Source is not provable because it is the condition that makes proof possible, just as geometry cannot prove the existence of points, arithmetic cannot prove the existence of numbers, logic cannot prove the validity of logic, and cosmology cannot prove the Source. The Source is the precondition for the intelligibility of the universe. Point five, therefore, not provable does not mean unlikely. It means foundational, necessary, pre-logical, structurally required. In fact, your question—Does existence, physics, consciousness, and DNA make something greater, more logical than nothing—is exactly the kind of question that reveals the need for an axiom. Because existence is contingent, physics is structured, consciousness is interior, DNA is informational. These are not self-explanatory, they require a ground. Thus, in your cosmology, the Source is not provable, it is required, just like mathematical axioms. Don’t you like that? This is Gnosis, folks. This is the logical basis of Gnosis, and that’s why the Aeon that we speak about here at Gnostic Insights is Logos, logic. Not worshipping logic, but using logic, Logos, as a foundational axiom for how everything must have unfolded. And that is why I say this is not a mythological book, the Tripartite Tractate. It’s a, what should I call it? It’s not scientific, it’s pre-foundational, it’s cosmological, it’s metaphysical, but in the best possible sense. Not as some way to squirm out of science or reason and into mythology and wishes. It’s axiomatic. Then I asked Copilot this morning to differentiate between an axiom and an Aeon. So we’ve already discussed what an axiom is. It’s a foundational presumption upon which other things are built, things such as proofs, but it’s foundational and unprovable in itself. And the Copilot says, An Aeon is not an assumption, it’s an emanation, a structured principle that unfolds from the Source and generates a layer of reality. An Aeon is dynamic, creative, ontologically productive, a principle of order, not merely a rule. Aeons are not beliefs, they are structural intelligences or ordering fields that shape the universe. Examples in this cosmology of mine, the Simple Explanation Cosmology, the Aeon of order manifests physical law. The Aeon of mind manifests consciousness. The Aeon of Logos manifests DNA and information architecture. In short, Aeons are the generative engines of intelligibility. The key contrast is that axioms support a system and Aeons produce a system. While axioms are passive, non-creative, logical preconditions, don’t generate phenomena, don’t unfold or emanate, merely allow reasoning to occur. Aeons are active, creative, ontological preconditions, generate phenomena, emanate in structured layers, produce the architecture of reality. Thus, axioms explain mathematics and logic. Aeons explain existence. Axioms describe the observable world. Aeons are metaphysical structures. Axioms do not create anything. Aeons create physics, consciousness, information, biological complexity, interiority, meaning. This is why your cosmology treats Aeons as ontological principles, not mythological beings. You see what I’m saying? Do you see why I stand so firmly on the principle that this cosmology of a Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is not just a new or different myth? It’s foundationally, structurally, logically different. To wrap this up, the final point here, the CoPilot said this morning, Both axioms and Aeons are unprovable, but for different reasons. Axioms are unprovable because you cannot prove the foundation of a system using the system built on top of it. Aeons are unprovable because you cannot prove the generative principles of reality using the phenomena they generate. Both are necessary for their respective domains to make sense. Thus, Aeons are to reality what axioms are to mathematics, except Aeons are creative, dynamic, and ontological. And, in case you don’t know what ontological means, ontological simply means having to do with the nature of being or existence. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies what exists, what it means to exist, and what kinds of things are real. I hope you enjoyed and appreciated this episode. It’s a lot to think about. Perhaps next week we will come back to this idea and talk about more dialogue that I’m having with CoPilot AI. Leave some comments here to let me know how this is going. Has this affected your Gnosis in any way? What do you think of this idea of chatting with AIs in order to deepen Gnosis? Is that possible? Until next week, God bless us all, and Onward and Upward! Thank you for your continued support in this effort to share gnosis. Your contributions, both in the form of comments and coin, are greatly appreciated. Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *FirstLastEmail *Stripe Credit Card *Choose your item *Item A - $10.00Item B - $25.00Item C - $50.00Total$0.00Submit

Te invitamos a escuchar Entre Diálogos, en compañía de Francisco Javier Rodríguez, donde nos dará un resumen semanal sobre lo más relevante en noticias nacionales e internacionales, visto desde otro enfoque.Hablamos sobre: arrancamos agosto Compártenos tus comentarios y síguenos en nuestras redes sociales. Proyecto Radio MX, con Sentido Social.

Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new subscribers to the Gnostic Reformation here on Substack and to GnosticInsights.com. Did you know that there are three Gnostic Gospels that I have written? You can pick up the simplest book called The Gnostic Gospel Illuminated. It’s very short. Half of it is illustrations. Very simple. Very, very simple to understand this Gnosticism. This will give you the basics of what it is that I share. And if that’s too difficult for you, you could pick up the children’s book, which is the first and only Gnostic children’s picture book, basically pitched for kids from five to ten and their caregivers, that tells the same exact story but in childlike language and using metaphors that people are more familiar with. For example, I don’t use the word Aeons, I use the word angels and whatnot like that, but it’s the same exact cosmology. The children’s book is called Children of the Fullness: A Gnostic Myth. But the big book, the one that puts it all together, almost 300 pages, is called A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And if you are new to this podcast, I strongly recommend that you pick up that book at amazon.com because it will give it all to you in a very easy to follow way. And it’s all there. And it’s also lavishly illustrated by me, of course. So please, I’ve got them at amazon.com. They’re self-published. And if you have read any of those books, please leave a review on Amazon. I have very few reviews. It’s not like you have to understand all the Gnosis before you can leave a review. Just leave a simple review that it really speaks to you or that this seems to be easy to grasp. I would really, really appreciate it. Now, let’s get on with this week’s episode. Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and to the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week, on July 25, 2026, I posted an episode that reflected a conversation between me and one of your fellow subscribers called, A Subscriber Questions the Basics, and I’ve put the link here in this transcript. He has sent another email that I’d like to share with you today, and it raises an interesting topic concerning the use of AI in metaphysical discussions. He says, “I know I just promised to stop, but this one is interesting. Seems you have impressed my demiurgic companion, ChatGPT. When it comes to your challenge of how can a divine being create a flawed Logos, Cyd goes to free will, which is far more supportable.” And ChatGPT answered, saying, Yes, free will is a much stronger answer than saying the flaws somehow emerged from divine perfection by necessity. It allows Cyd to argue Logos was created good, not defective. Genuine freedom included the possibility of acting independently. Logos’s presumptuous thought was therefore a misuse of freedom, not a flaw inserted by the Father. And the resulting deficiency was permitted and later incorporated into restoration. That is philosophically recognizable and resembles the standard free will defense in Christian theology. It does not remove every difficulty, though. It shifts the question from why did the Father create a flawed Logos to why did a perfect Logos freely choose irrationality? It says, “That is easier to defend, but still requires an explanation.” But I have to jump in to correct that basic assertion right now. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, who, remember, is a professor emeritus of philosophy itself, so Billy knows philosophy inside and out. I myself am not a “philosopher” other than by natural talent. I am a rhetorician and a psychologist—slightly different. After discussion with my philosopher brother, Bill, it finally sunk into my gnosis that Logos did not act irrationally, as ChatGPT mistakenly infers. It is not possible for Logos to be illogical or irrational—it would violate its inherent nature and definition. Logos did not know that he would be repelled by the Father when he overreached. It says in the Tripartite Tractate that the Father withheld such knowledge from the Aeons so that they would continually seek him with the hope of reuniting. So what Logos did was reasonable given the limited knowledge he had. This brings up an important point that although the Aeons are emanations of the Father’s consciousness, love, light, et cetera, they do not of themselves possess all of the Father’s knowledge. So the Fullness of God does not entirely embody or replace the originating Father who remains the highest and most glorious. Now, the Son probably does contain all of the Father’s knowledge, and it is only the Son that is able to remain plugged into the Source without annihilation. Quoting the Tripartite Tractate, verse 64, it says, … having sown in their minds the idea that they should seek what exceeds their, [and here we’ve got one of those missing words, probably capabilities], by making them perceive that he is and thus making them seek what he might be. Now back to the ChatGPT, There is also a tension with providence. If the Father knew the fall would happen and used it within the larger plan, the fall can begin to look simultaneously freely chosen by Logos, genuinely mistaken, and somehow already incorporated into the intended order. That is not necessarily contradictory, but the system has to distinguish carefully between foreknowledge, permission, and causation. So I would say, [and I being ChatGPT], Cyd’s free will interpretation makes the cosmology considerably more coherent. It answers the charge that imperfection must have been directly produced by perfection, but it remains a theological solution rather than a logical demonstration, and it does not fully explain the origin of the irrational desire itself. Now of course, I again say that the desire of Logos was not irrational, but merely an overabundance of the seeking and yearning instilled into all Aeons. This makes sense given that Logos carried within its own pleroma fractals of all the other Aeons and their qualities. Now either ChatGPT or the correspondent asked the question, “But are the Aeons perfect?” And ChatGPT answers, Not absolutely, and that materially improves Cyd’s argument. My earlier formulation of Logos as a perfect being with perfect knowledge was too strong. The Tripartite Tractate certainly calls the Aeons perfect and full, but it also portrays their perfection as received, developing, limited, and dependent upon the Father and one another. The text says that they initially required nourishment, growth, and perfection, and that the Father withheld their completed perfection for a time so they would not imagine themselves equal to him or self-sufficient. Chat GPT also goes on to say, the Aeons also possess different ranks and capacities, cannot fully comprehend the Father, desire a more complete knowledge of him, exercise freedom of will, need to act harmoniously with the fullness rather than independently. Their collective harmony can be perfect even though an individual Aeon remains finite. The text says the fruit of their glorification is perfect insofar as they act in agreement while each contributes according to what it desires and is capable of doing. I go along with all of that. That’s all absolutely accurate according to the Tripartite Tractate. Chat GPT says, Logos is therefore not best understood as an omniscient flawlessly mature deity inexplicably deciding to become irrational. And again, we’ve already knocked out rational. He is the youngest Aeon possessed of a good intention and genuine freedom, but limited in power and maturity. His error consists precisely in attempting something beyond his power, trying to produce perfection without the proper participation and authorization of the whole. That gives Cyd a fairly coherent account. Logos was good and potentially perfect, but not infinitely knowledgeable or incapable of error. His freedom allowed him to act prematurely and independently. To which I reply, “Exactly.” Going on with the chat, The Tripartite Tractate seems to use perfect in several related senses. Perfect in origin, deriving from the perfect Father. Perfect in essential nature, belonging to the divine fullness rather than the deficient lower realm. Perfect through harmonious function, acting in unity with other Aeons. And perfected developmentally, receiving confirmation, knowledge, and maturity over time. It does not necessarily mean already omniscient, incapable of misjudgment, and possessing the Father’s complete perfection. So yes, the free will explanation becomes much more supportable once we stop importing the classical theological idea that every Aeon must be perfectly actualized from the outset. Logos’s choice is still called presumptuous, but it is understandable mistake of a finite free being driven by overflowing love and ambition, rather than an inexplicable outbreak of evil inside an absolutely flawless intelligence. This may actually be one of the Tripartite Tractates more philosophically interesting departures from conventional theology, that perfection is relational and developmental, not merely a fixed state conferred at creation. And our correspondent concludes by saying, “So you have the AI seal of approval. I actually think this makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? No one said the Aeons were perfect. Obviously they are one level up from us humans.” And I replied, “Yes indeed, very good.” Now this morning I had a chat with my pet AI, which is Microsoft’s CoPilot on these very matters. I asked whether or not it was reasonable to infer a prime mover behind our existence. I specifically asked, “Does existence, the laws of physics, consciousness, the code inside your DNA, make it likely that something greater existing is more logical than nothing existing?” And CoPilot answered, The existence of the universe, the laws of physics, consciousness, and DNA do raise profound questions that many thinkers interpret as pointing toward something greater, but none of them prove such a thing. They simply make the question unavoidable. And then it offers a structured, rigorous way to think about it. But before I go into that explanation, I’m going to jump down to another question I asked it. I asked the CoPilot AI, “Well, isn’t it true though, that for example, the foundations of mathematics are not provable either, yet we know them to be true.” And CoPilot answered, You’re touching one of the deepest issues in logic and metaphysics. And yes, you’re absolutely right to question the word provable. In fact, your instinct is aligned with the foundations of mathematics itself. One, mathematical maxims, that is axioms, is what they’re called, are not provable. In mathematics, the most fundamental truths, the ones that everything else is built on, are axioms, such as a point has no parts, and through two points, there’s exactly one straight line, and if equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. These are not proven, they are assumed. Why? Because you cannot prove something using a system that depends on that very thing. Axioms are the foundation. Proofs are the structure built on top. So yes, mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. Did you know that, folks? That’s kind of a mind blower, isn’t it? Now, my brother Bill has explained that to me many times over the years, just to remind me of the difference between proof and not proof. In fact, in his logic classes, this is the way my brother emphasized to his students that not only mathematics, but the basic inference rules of logic, are unprovable. It’s axiomatic, is what it’s called. And so, what we’re saying here today is that consciousness is axiomatic. It is not provable, but that doesn’t make it untrue. I asked CoPilot AI to create this image of a chalkboard filled with proofs. I don’t know if they are accurate. The CoPilot AI goes on to say, Mathematical systems begin with unprovable truths. This is not a flaw, it’s the nature of logic. Point two, Gödel showed that even mathematics cannot prove all truths. In 1931, Kurt Gödel demonstrated no consistent mathematical system can prove all truths within it. Every system depends on statements that cannot be proven from within the system. This means that even mathematics rests on unprovable assumptions. Point three, so what does not provable really mean? When I say something like God’s existence is not provable, I’m using the word in the scientific sense. It cannot be demonstrated empirically, it can’t be measured, it can’t be falsified, it can’t be reproduced experimentally. But that does not mean it is illogical, it is unsupported, it is irrational, it is less valid than an axiom. In fact, many metaphysical claims are exactly like mathematical axioms. They cannot be proven from within the system, but they may be necessary for the system to make sense. Now, I’ve had past conversations with CoPilot AI concerning my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, and I have trained my local CoPilot AI to distinguish my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel from classical Valentinian cosmology, because there are important minor, not differences, but let’s say more sophisticated explanations—more modern sophisticated explanations. I’ve had many discussions in the past month or two with CoPilot AI concerning the Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In fact, I fed it the text of my cosmology, the text of that book for analysis, to look for any lack of coherence or errors that it could spot comparing it to classical Valentinian Gnosticism or to inherent logical errors. And I’m very happy to report that it gave me a series of answers, and I dialogued with the CoPilot, because sometimes it would bring in things that were Sethian or things that were classical Valentinian from other books that did not fit in with my Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. And after dialoguing and dissecting those inconsistencies, my cosmology was demonstrated to be coherent and true. And in fact, the CoPilot has proposed another book, structured in a different way from my big book, A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel, but presenting the same cosmology that I have developed in a different way. And so I’m working through that now. But back to today’s episode. Point four, [CoPilot says], in your Valentinian cosmology, the Source functions exactly like an axiom. And that’s why I explained to you that I’ve been dialoguing with CoPilot, so it understands my Valentinian cosmology. Kind of mind-blowing, really. So it says that the Source, the Father, consciousness itself, is an axiom. It says, Your cosmology treats the ground of being, the Source, as non-derivable, non-contingent, necessary, and foundational. This is precisely how mathematics treats axioms. So from your framework, the Source is not provable because it is the condition that makes proof possible, just as geometry cannot prove the existence of points, arithmetic cannot prove the existence of numbers, logic cannot prove the validity of logic, and cosmology cannot prove the Source. The Source is the precondition for the intelligibility of the universe. Point five, therefore, not provable does not mean unlikely. It means foundational, necessary, pre-logical, structurally required. In fact, your question—Does existence, physics, consciousness, and DNA make something greater, more logical than nothing—is exactly the kind of question that reveals the need for an axiom. Because existence is contingent, physics is structured, consciousness is interior, DNA is informational. These are not self-explanatory, they require a ground. Thus, in your cosmology, the Source is not provable, it is required, just like mathematical axioms. Don’t you like that? This is Gnosis, folks. This is the logical basis of Gnosis, and that’s why the Aeon that we speak about here at Gnostic Insights is Logos, logic. Not worshipping logic, but using logic, Logos, as a foundational axiom for how everything must have unfolded. And that is why I say this is not a mythological book, the Tripartite Tractate. It’s a, what should I call it? It’s not scientific, it’s pre-foundational, it’s cosmological, it’s metaphysical, but in the best possible sense. Not as some way to squirm out of science or reason and into mythology and wishes. It’s axiomatic. Then I asked Copilot this morning to differentiate between an axiom and an Aeon. So we’ve already discussed what an axiom is. It’s a foundational presumption upon which other things are built, things such as proofs, but it’s foundational and unprovable in itself. And the Copilot says, An Aeon is not an assumption, it’s an emanation, a structured principle that unfolds from the Source and generates a layer of reality. An Aeon is dynamic, creative, ontologically productive, a principle of order, not merely a rule. Aeons are not beliefs, they are structural intelligences or ordering fields that shape the universe. Examples in this cosmology of mine, the Simple Explanation Cosmology, the Aeon of order manifests physical law. The Aeon of mind manifests consciousness. The Aeon of Logos manifests DNA and information architecture. In short, Aeons are the generative engines of intelligibility. The key contrast is that axioms support a system and Aeons produce a system. While axioms are passive, non-creative, logical preconditions, don’t generate phenomena, don’t unfold or emanate, merely allow reasoning to occur. Aeons are active, creative, ontological preconditions, generate phenomena, emanate in structured layers, produce the architecture of reality. Thus, axioms explain mathematics and logic. Aeons explain existence. Axioms describe the observable world. Aeons are metaphysical structures. Axioms do not create anything. Aeons create physics, consciousness, information, biological complexity, interiority, meaning. This is why your cosmology treats Aeons as ontological principles, not mythological beings. You see what I’m saying? Do you see why I stand so firmly on the principle that this cosmology of a Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is not just a new or different myth? It’s foundationally, structurally, logically different. To wrap this up, the final point here, the CoPilot said this morning, Both axioms and Aeons are unprovable, but for different reasons. Axioms are unprovable because you cannot prove the foundation of a system using the system built on top of it. Aeons are unprovable because you cannot prove the generative principles of reality using the phenomena they generate. Both are necessary for their respective domains to make sense. Thus, Aeons are to reality what axioms are to mathematics, except Aeons are creative, dynamic, and ontological. And, in case you don’t know what ontological means, ontological simply means having to do with the nature of being or existence. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies what exists, what it means to exist, and what kinds of things are real. I hope you enjoyed and appreciated this episode. It’s a lot to think about. Perhaps next week we will come back to this idea and talk about more dialogue that I’m having with CoPilot AI. Leave some comments here to let me know how this is going. Has this affected your Gnosis in any way? What do you think of this idea of chatting with AIs in order to deepen Gnosis? Is that possible? Until next week, God bless us all, and Onward and Upward! Thank you for your continued support in this effort to share gnosis. Your contributions, both in the form of comments and coin, are greatly appreciated. Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.Name *FirstLastEmail *Stripe Credit Card *Choose your item *Item A - $10.00Item B - $25.00Item C - $50.00Total$0.00Submit

Privacy is having a moment in crypto. As competition heats up, the pitfalls of the technology around the quantum threat, regulatory risk and more make the trajectory hard to predict. A counterfeit bug sat undetected in Zcash's Orchard privacy pool for four years, capable of minting an unlimited supply of untraceable coins, illustrating the risks of one of the hottest crazes in crypto. Joe Andrews, CEO of Aztec Labs, Jarrad Hope, founder of Logos, and Mert Mumtaz, cofounder and CEO of Helius, join Laura Shin to argue the bug is less alarming than what it reveals: cryptographic privacy is difficult to get right, and the industry is racing to get it right anyway, because institutions will not come onchain without it. They cover Zcash's quantum-recoverable Ironwood upgrade and the turnstile proving the counterfeit coins never moved, Ethereum's sprawling privacy roadmap and the risk it arrives too late, Logos' mixnet built to protect validators from block relays now censoring transactions, and why all three see Canton's private stablecoins as little more than a bank with extra steps. The fight over what actually counts as privacy on a blockchain is only getting started. Host ⁠Laura Shin⁠ - Founder, CEO and Host of Unchained Guest ⁠Joe Andrews - CEO of Aztec Labs ⁠Jarrad Hope - Founder of Logos ⁠Mert Mumtaz - Cofounder and CEO of Helius Sponsor ⁠Cape⁠: Your biggest crypto vulnerability isn't your wallet, it's your phone number. Cape is America's privacy-first mobile carrier that rotates your SIM identity daily and blocks SIM swaps before they happen. Get 33% off your first six months at ⁠https://cape.co/unchained⁠   (use code: UNCHAINED). Timestamps:

7/30/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:9. The Hidden Spread of False Teaching. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/leaven-vs-truth.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php MinutesWord Merch: https://minutesword.printify.me/ LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord @MinutesWord #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster #shopmerch Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

Episode 102 of the Not Really People podcast. In this episode we talk about some of the best and absolute worst brand logos out there!

Hoy entrevistamos a Jesús García de las eras apasionado de los monasterios, con el cual vamos a hablar de los monasterios, su arquitectura y su funcionamiento. Pensar y sentir se despide hoy hasta después del verano, y lo hace con un texto de Gema Sáez Rodríguez titulado "Dios y el fútbol", a propósito de las actitudes que muestran muchos futbolistas, no sólo por haber ganado el Mundial. Luis Antequera presenta la sección de historia y diálogos con la ciencia porque hoy no es un día cualquiera. El profesor José Manuel Amaya presenta la sección de curiosidades científicas. El profesor Luis Felipe verdeja presenta la sección de la sociedad científica es católico España presentando otra entrega de la Biblia los metales.

Privacy is having a moment in crypto. As competition heats up, the pitfalls of the technology around the quantum threat, regulatory risk and more make the trajectory hard to predict. A counterfeit bug sat undetected in Zcash's Orchard privacy pool for four years, capable of minting an unlimited supply of untraceable coins, illustrating the risks of one of the hottest crazes in crypto. Joe Andrews, CEO of Aztec Labs, Jarrad Hope, founder of Logos, and Mert Mumtaz, cofounder and CEO of Helius, join Laura Shin to argue the bug is less alarming than what it reveals: cryptographic privacy is difficult to get right, and the industry is racing to get it right anyway, because institutions will not come onchain without it. They cover Zcash's quantum-recoverable Ironwood upgrade and the turnstile proving the counterfeit coins never moved, Ethereum's sprawling privacy roadmap and the risk it arrives too late, Logos' mixnet built to protect validators from block relays now censoring transactions, and why all three see Canton's private stablecoins as little more than a bank with extra steps. The fight over what actually counts as privacy on a blockchain is only getting started. Host ⁠Laura Shin⁠ - Founder, CEO and Host of Unchained Guest ⁠Joe Andrews - CEO of Aztec Labs ⁠Jarrad Hope - Founder of Logos ⁠Mert Mumtaz - Cofounder and CEO of Helius Sponsor ⁠Cape⁠: Your biggest crypto vulnerability isn't your wallet, it's your phone number. Cape is America's privacy-first mobile carrier that rotates your SIM identity daily and blocks SIM swaps before they happen. Get 33% off your first six months at ⁠https://cape.co/unchained⁠   (use code: UNCHAINED). Timestamps:

"Tammy and I have decided to retire from our jobs and also from creating the Rock School Radio show. I know this is the 744th show on PRX but it's actually our 997th show overall. We will do this show and three more, ending on our 1000th show. To that end, in this show we will announce some musicians who might be retiring soon themselves. We will list the oldest people touring this summer."

7/29/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:8. God's Call vs. Human Persuasion. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/persuasion-vs-calling.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

A major thank you to Robert for sponsoring today's stream, in it I die deep into the history and persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church during the communist era of the Soviet Union. Make sure to leave a comment and let me know what you think. God Bless Join Logos Cinema Here: https://www.logoscinema.com/cotel

Assembly of Yahusha The Logos episode 131 Officiated by Bro. Jon Dizon 07-29-2026.#YahuahismyGod #Yahusha #assemblyofYahusha ©2026 Assembly of Yahusha All rights reserved. The Assembly of Yahusha exclusively own the rights to the contents of this podcast and any non-assemblymember reproduction must have the approval of the Assembly. Only bona fide members of the Assembly are authorized to copy, download, and reproduce the contents of this podcast for their personal or religious use. For permission to copy, download, and reproduce send an email to: info@aoy.today

En 2025, arqueólogos en Eridu desenterraron algo que reescribe la historia de la civilización. Bajo las arenas del sur de Irak, encontraron una vasta red de canales y granjas de 7,000 años de antigüedad. Más de 4,000 canales y 700 parcelas agrícolas revelan un sistema antiguo que impulsó la primera vida urbana del mundo. Eridu, antes desestimada como un mito, ahora se alza como la más antigua capital de la humanidad. Los cronistas sumerios habían susurrado su nombre durante siglos, pero nadie imaginó cuán avanzada era en realidad. Exploremos cómo esta ciudad olvidada dio forma al amanecer de la civilización misma. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

July 28, 2026. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:7. Who Hinders You? Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/pauls-race-metaphor-in-galatians-57.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

This video is a clip from my stream "Finding the Royal Path: Hyperdoxy, Psychedelics, and Masculinity with Fr. Moses McPherson." If you would like to watch the entire stream please click the following link. https://youtube.com/live/6Ws5nukxAYI

Doug offers a speculation built from the Ra Material, Christian mysticism, and process philosophy: that concrescence — Whitehead's “the many become one, and are increased by one” — operates vertically across orders of magnitude, and that the Christ event was a oneing of the solar Logos with the sub-sub-Logoic level, which is us. The argument moves through two logjams. The first came before the veil, when third-density beings remembered they were the Creator and evolution crawled at turtle speed; the veil broke it and made third density the axis on which creation turns. The second is here, now, on Terra — a planet of third-density repeaters enmeshed in the Great BASH, the collective thought form built from our inefficient use of bellicosity, showing up energetically as an orange-ray overlay on a green-ray planet. Doug argues that Yahweh is our solar Logos, learning to parent through Venus, Maldek, and Mars, limited by Ra's teaching that a sub-Logos can only supply catalyst to the first triad of energy centers. Once the heart opens, the teaching runs the other way. What follows is the co-presencing of Logos and messenger in one body, the ankh as the shape of loss and renewal, and forgiveness planted as a seed inside the eye of the Great BASH. Discussion follows on whether a God who cannot participate in green ray is still God. Key References:   •Ra 82.18–82.19 — pre-veil third density; “turtle to the cheetah”; the absence of gusto, élan vital •Ra 41.14 — green-ray pressure producing orange-ray manifestation •Ra 9.7 — Martian transfer; “a careful series of genetical adjustments” •Ra 18.20–18.21 — the Anak; the elite-consciousness failure •Ra 54.17 — the sub-Logos offers catalyst only at the first triad •Ra 65.16 — Logos to Logos, Creator to Creator, not parent to child •Ra 17.11–17.12 — Jesus as a wanderer of no name, highest sub-octave of fourth density •Ra 17.20 — forgiveness as the stoppage of the wheel of karma •Ra 17.22 — “not an entity of itself but… a messenger of the One Creator” •Ra 18.12 — forgiveness of other-self is forgiveness of self •Ra 93.24, 94.26 — the crux ansata; all things offering themselves for transformation •Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality — concrescence •Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ — “God loves things by becoming them” •Perichoresis (the Greek fathers); the Chalcedonian formula

For decades, Christians have lamented the decline of culture. We criticize Hollywood, complain about entertainment, and point out everything that's wrong with the stories shaping our civilization. But what comes after the criticism? My guest, Andrew Stokich, co-founder of Logos Cinema, believes the answer isn't retreat—it's creation. In this episode, we explore why storytelling has always been one of the primary ways civilizations pass on their values, why beauty matters as much as truth, and why the battle for culture begins in the imagination long before it reaches politics. We discuss the failures of modern Christian filmmaking, the unique vision of Orthodox storytelling, and how Logos Cinema hopes to cultivate not just better films, but stronger communities rooted in the life of the Church. Andrew also shares the vision behind the Logos Parish Roadshow, the importance of moving from digital platforms to real-world relationships, and why building culture ultimately requires artists, families, parishes, and ordinary Christians working together. If you've ever wondered what it actually looks like to "build culture" instead of simply critiquing it, this conversation offers a hopeful and practical vision for the future. Learn more about Logos Cinema Sponsor: Ludwell Orthodox Fellowship Conference, Sept 12th 2026 Donate to the show here: https://www.patreon.com/counterflow Podsworth App: https://podsworth.com  Code: BUCK50 for HALF off your first order! Clean up your recordings, sound like a pro, and support the Counterflow Podcast! Full Ad Read BEFORE processing: https://youtu.be/F4ljjtR5QfA  Full Ad Read AFTER processing: https://youtu.be/J6trRTgmpwE Leave us a review and rating on Apple Podcasts! Thanks!

6/27/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:6. Faith Working through Love. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: none Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

In this video, I examine Orthodox prophecies from recent saints and elders concerning events believed to precede a future global war, often described as World War III. The discussion focuses especially on the possible fall of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan—through resignation, removal, or another major political change—and why recent geopolitical tensions have renewed interest in these prophecies. Share your thoughts below.

Lewis and Clark, Logos, and Best Inventions by Decade "This Evening"

The Pirates of our Times   Huge! This Changes Everything! Secrets Revealed! The Real Reason… ALL CAPS! What You're Not Supposed to Know About… Something That Shouldn't Exist… See Recipe in Comments Below[1]     Is this what it takes to get our attention now?   You would think so. When we search through YouTube looking for a favorite news outlet, we now slog through sensationalist titles and AI-generated title pages that entice us to view by showing extreme emotions: anger, fear, distress, shock.   Not comforting, is it?   It's a weekly challenge for me when I try to choose a graphic that authentically represents the content of the teaching. At some point I think we have to admit that no matter how intriguing the title or graphic, mostly the same people will read and the same people will delete. Probably at most, an especially intriguing title will cause a tiny percentage of people to open an email who normally delete it. We are becoming more wise…or perhaps fatigued…with sensationalist content.   The ability of AI[2] to offer us not just curated viewing, shopping, music, or social media posts, but to communicate with us like an actual person in Customer Service chats or Chat GPT, creates an illusion of an interested and caring person we know. How cool is it that YouTube lets me know when a new beading or archaeology video is released?   Honestly, though, it's digital machinery that has been fed immeasurable amounts of data. As I found out last week, it's also been fed pirated books (Creation Gospel workbooks!) and videos (Creation Gospel videos!). The AI in turn cheerfully offers the information free to seekers.   There was a foreshadowing of this back in 2003 when we first went online with www.israelnet.tv, offering teaching programs from some of the best-known Messianic teachers of the day. Our tech guy contacted us and said he was watching someone download multiple programs simultaneously in real time. This was in spite of clear copyright cautions. We only had permission from the teachers to stream to our audience, not to re-distribute the programs for personal use.   With a little bit of investigative work, we tracked down the email address of the pirate. My burning question was, what kind of person steals Bible teaching? There's much more lucrative content out there. Bible teaching? Really?   I sent the faceless Torah pirate an email, and kindly but firmly explained that we knew he was downloading copyrighted programs. I also explained that we did not have permission to distribute the material randomly; we were only licensed for the specific use on Israelnet.   Instead of an apology, the pirate went into the old trope: The Bible doesn't belong to anyone. It's free. Bible teaching should be free.   Pretext.   Aaargh, matey!   Sure the Bible is free. They're in the top drawer of any hotel nightstand. An institution known as the Gideons gives away free Bibles. Most people have an extra copy they'd be happy to give away. But there was a reason Yeshua chose one of the disciples to carry the donation money bag.   Even though Yeshua was quite handy with multiplying loaves and fishes, they had to eat.   Relying on miracles instead of working is not the Scriptural example. Miracles are for when we reach the limit of human skill, access, or knowledge.   In my reply to the gentleman pirate, I agreed that the Bible is free. In fact, our Creation Gospel programs and workbook royalties are designated to support Torah-based orphanages, not pay salaries. My husband and I had full time jobs, so we didn't rely on donations to pay the grocery bill or car payment. We donated our time and money. Other teachers, however, were full time ministers. They needed the income to support their ministries and families.   Not being as handy with loaves and fishes as Yeshua, they had to eat.   At the least, if this gentleman wanted to re-distribute the teachers' programs, then he should obtain permission like Israelnet did. He should explain why the costs the teachers incurred, such as travel, studio, equipment, utility bills, (our streaming T-1 line back then was $1000 per month!), software, etc., was okay for him to remove from their pockets because he knew better than they did to whom their teaching and production work should be disseminated.   So in our times, AI developers are free to redistribute all the intellectual property it can consume, even apologizing for not listing everything due to “copyright rules.” It's like nodding and saying “no” at the same time.   It's not something we'll change, however. In fact, it's so incorporated into our daily activities that it's probably impossible to disconnect unless we go off-grid. We're being sluiced down that funnel faster and faster. The current Western trend toward socialism and communism is a symptom. The pirate's reasoning that all Biblical content should be free is rapidly expanding. We feel entitled to confiscate anyone else's hard work because it's the “moral” thing to do. Share. Lift up the downtrodden. Love your neighbor.   Sometimes we feign asking permission by passing onerous laws to tax and take property. Others simply take without permission and know that the wealth from it will more than equip them to face their accusers in court by the time it makes it that far. The ultimate settlement is calculated as the cost of doing pirated business. The Author's Guild reports that the median annual income from book sales is just $15,000 for full-time authors. We're not all John Grisham. The authors are never going to recover the income they've lost to pirates and AI even when the case makes it to court.   Yes, I agree. Love your neighbor as yourself.   But what about “Thou shalt not steal”? That's in the Bible, too.   Pretext.   Yes, that's what the Torah calls it.   A pretext is when we make up a reason to conceal the actual reason we do or don't do something. Pretext tends to spread like wildfire. We'd all like to avoid confronting our own fears, failures, laziness, aggressiveness, greed, or apathy if someone can come up with a pretext that sounds way better than “my fear,” “my laziness,” “my aggressiveness,” or “my greed.”   Numbers 11:1-6 is an example of a pretext:   “Now the people became like those who complain of adversity in the hearing of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled, and the fire of the LORD burned among them and consumed some of the outskirts of the camp… The rabble who were among them had greedy desires; and also the sons of Israel wept again and said, “Who will give us meat to eat? We remember the fish which we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and the onions and the garlic, but now our appetite is gone. There is nothing at all to look at except this manna.”   The fire started with a taste for free meat and fish. This was the pretext. They even invented facts to go with the pretext: we ate free fish in Egypt; we have no appetite.   The opposite was true. The fish wasn't free in Egypt. Even the straw for the bricks they had to find for themselves. They did, too, have an appetite. The ignoramuses even listed all the things they were craving.   The manna, the Word of Heaven was not tasty enough for their uncontrolled, greedy appetites.   It helps to know what preceded the complaining. For the first time, the organized camp moved with the Tabernacle, following the Ark of the Covenant and expected to give feet to the commandments they'd learned:   “So they moved out for the first time according to the commandment of the LORD through Moses.” (Nu 10:13)   The Israelites had entered a new stage of responsibility in their walk to the Promised Land. No longer newly-saved milk-dependent babes in the wilderness, they had multiple commandments in which to walk. They were now organized by camp, directed by leadership. There was no map to their journey, only the Ark that traveled ahead looking for the place for them to rest.   When we don't know exactly what lies ahead, we often look back. What we see when we look back takes on a glory and sheen that it never had when we were living it. Truth be told, we were miserable. But those reconstructed memories and invented facts make great pretexts.   Our present challenge is more than just leaking away of intellectual property or orphanage funds through pretexts or outright theft. Like I said, we won't stop this flood until Yeshua returns. There's no way to separate out an answer on a search engine that was stolen versus one that was taken from an open source. Our present challenge is more than just clickbaiting viewers or listeners to read, watch, or listen to a program when they have thousands of choices each day.   Let's put the two together.   We are in a transition period. We hear the footsteps of Messiah. We also know that the period just preceding his return is one of chaos, turmoil, war, weather phenomena, family conflict, rebellion, and mass confusion.   In the middle of this, a remnant is called out of that darkness in the “wilderness of the peoples.” What we feel as tribulation is really just a test. Tribulation is for the unrepentant. Yet, we, too, become scared, nervous, anxious, and angry. We're not sure we know how to follow the Ark. Organization? The Beast uses those! Help!   Yes, the Beast is full of cravings and greedy desires. He does use organizations to clickbait and entice us, to offer us any pretext for complaining about the journey. To overwhelm us with “free” choices: Cucumbers? Fish? Melons? Garlic? Onions? Pick me! Pick me! I love free!   All our choices do cost something no matter the pretext or the truth of the Word. The only free thing is our salvation. After that is a wilderness journey of learning, and each lesson costs us some effort. And unlike the wilderness of the first Exodus, this Greater Exodus doesn't come with a visible Moses or a leadership appointed by him. This is a bit scarier because it's more than a bit greater than the first one! (Je 16:14-15; 23:7-8; Is 43:16-19)   You know what? I used AI to look up those verses faster than I could on Logos. I don't think AI is the Beast. It's a tool, but we need to know how to and how not to use it, just like we need to know how to use and not use the organizations to which we belong or which we use. We don't put faith in government, medicine, recreation, education, or any other system. We use them, but they will ultimately fail…repeatedly. They are tools, but they are not the Kingdom. We must recognize where they fail and use them wisely where they are honest and successful.   While the wicked and lukewarm world with no clear direction enters this stage of confusion that precedes the Kingdom, knowing only an indiscriminate throwing off of every yoke, we are to walk with clarity. Training in the Word equips us, calms us, balances us.   This is why I know that trying to find the most enticing graphic or clickbait title is not going to get lots more people to open a newsletter. In fact, statistics tell me that fewer than 50% even open the weekly email.   People are weary and wary. When they do open those links that imply they HOLD THE NEXT GREATEST SECRET CONSPIRACY, they already anticipate that it will under-deliver.  They know we're overrun with the pirates of our time. It's kind of like those sea monkeys I ordered from the back of a comic book when I was seven years old. I still have no idea what that cloudy mess was, but the ads made me think something alive, mysterious, and fascinating could be had for the cost of postage and few bucks.   And I get it.   I, too, have to search for ways to promote books like Scorpions Ascent or a conference, to politely ask the readers or viewers for a minute or two to consider whether the book or event is a good fit for them. I don't want to be a time pirate, yet on the other hand, if we don't do something to attract the eye, the message is shouted down by edgier content producers. At what point do we become a time pirate? These are wilderness dilemmas, but Yeshua goes ahead of us so we won't get lost.   My prayer is that we are quietly growing a trained remnant that doesn't need superlatives, all caps, world-shaking prophecy insights, and carnival ride doctrines. They are faithfully collecting tasty manna in the Torah portions each week. They don't need pretexts to justify their lust for the doctrinal carnival rides because they are not afraid of walking in the chaos Scripture warned us would accompany the period before Yeshua's return.   AI can only appear to know you by your first name. It cannot know you at all. It is data programmed to identify your habits captured either legally or illegally by analyzing your keystrokes, questions, searches, and preferences. The upside is a quick search for a simple, non-life-changing question. The downside is that from now until Yeshua comes, we will not likely know for sure what images or voices are real. Oh yeah, that's in the Bible, too.   A minister of pretext doesn't really know you, either. He or she knows human fears, greed, cravings, laziness…even the good desire to do righteous things for your neighbor. The minister of pretext's bait draws out the “rabble,” sharing confusion and darkness because they feed one another half-truths that become whole lies. In the end, it consumes them together. It doesn't bear the fruit of righteous things. He's a pirate who baits our scroll…em…scrolling time.   As we navigate this greater exodus, let us deliver what the apostles of Yeshua delivered and what Moses and the leaders in the wilderness delivered. Truth. Truth still matters.   A human being doing the honest work of the Kingdom can hold truth and the good of others at the same time. It can give without stealing. Truth can be firmly upheld without being unkind. It can make manna tastier than anything from The French Laundry.   That is something the world desperately needs right now. Real human beings unafraid of the giants, robots, and raging, confused nutters. Strong, yet gentle messengers of Yeshua aren't driven by their own fears, but by the good news promises of the gospel. They may not remember where you shopped online six months ago or that you like loom beading videos, but they know you are the Father’s treasured possession. This kind of knowing becomes a comfort to others:   For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts. For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness—nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority. But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us. (1 Th 2:3-8)   Isn't this a great passage Paul wrote to comfort the Thessalonians? These are words of relationship, not something Paul asked AI to write for him. Even back then, the recipient of a letter could sniff out a genuine letter from AI. A pastor who loves the flock is a gift from above AI will never duplicate.   This Shabbat is “Shabbat Nachamu,” the Shabbat of Comfort that follows the fast of Tisha B'Av. The readings for the weeks following are also comforts that the destructions will someday come to an end, and the hard work of walking through the chaos and confusion of the wilderness will come to an end.   The great thing about the Ark seeking out a resting place for the Israelites three days' journey ahead of them in the wilderness? It is said that its cloud lifted up the low places, leveled the high places, and killed the scorpions and snakes in their path. It shaded them from the heat or cold. The journey was nothing to be afraid of, nothing  for which they needed to collect pretexts beforehand for failures. They were being afforded the comforts they would need even through the challenges of the journey.   It was those on the fringes the cloud had expelled for complaining who were consumed by the fire. It's way bumpier and hotter out there where the cover of the clouds of glory is thin. The Presence of the Father can also sniff out a reluctant traveler on this journey. Leave the pretexts out there in the fire with the pirates, and report to your place in the cloud.   Complaining is the opposite of comforting. Complaining is the opposite of comforting. Complaining is the opposite of comforting.   “'Comfort, O comfort My people,' says your God. ‘Speak kindly to Jerusalem; and call out to her, that her warfare has ended, that her iniquity has been removed, that she has received of the LORD'S hand double for all her sins.'A voice is calling, ‘Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. Let every valley be lifted up and every mountain and hill be made low; and let the rough ground become a plain, and the rugged terrain a broad valley; then the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all flesh will see it together;' for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” (Is 40:1-5)     [1] The recipe in Comments will be a link that ka-chings the content provider's account and takes you to a “recipe page” that buries the recipe within dozens of ads. Clickbait. [2] Fun Hebrew/English Coincidence Fact: The first AI pirate: in Hebrew: ?????, Ai means “heap of ruins.” It was a Canaanite city located just east of Bethel. It was the site of a major battle in the Book of Joshua. At first, the Israelites were defeated because a warrior named Achan (“troubling, troubler”) took treasure and hid it. After Achan was put to death, Joshua led a successful military ambush to capture and destroy the city. Pirates of Ai are in a heap of trouble. Please SUBSCRIBE to our newsletter to get new teachings.

7/26/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:5. Hope of Righteousness Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-hope-of-righteousness-vs-paganism.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

Anthony Bartlett traces the impact of the theory of Ferdinand de Saussure and Levi Strauss on the rise of structuralism and the deconstruction of Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida, and René Girard, giving rise to a clear split between two notions of Logos. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Become a Patron!

7/24/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:4. Severed from Christ. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/fallen-from-grace-galatians54-explained.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

Welcome to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Before I get into this week’s episode, let me tell you that the entire uninterrupted interview with Bishop Nathan Wilson of The Gnostic Union is now available on YouTube under Cyd Ropp Gnostic Insights playlist. I’ve tried and tried to upload the captioned transcript underneath the video, but neither YouTube nor my video editing software will cooperate. I can only chalk it up to Demiurgic interference, so this must be one important interview! The link is provided here to go straight to it on YouTube. Please “like” it and forward it to friends. Thanks. This week I exchanged emails with a podcast subscriber that presented me with some excellent questions prompted by recent episodes. I asked his permission to share them with you anonymously. I always treasure sincere observations and questions from subscibers because it prompts my gnosis. So here we go. Hi Cyd how's it going? I hope that all is well with you. I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your series of podcasts with the Bishop. Very interesting to hear some stuff on the unpacking of the original Gnostic texts. I thought that today's pod about your discussion was also very revealing as somebody who loves history, but it's giving me an insight into why you are so suspicious of history—would I be right in thinking that you want your texts to be unfiltered from various historical takes from different flawed human recounters? Yes. It is a common saying that history is written by the victors. This refers to the fact that the winners of wars, both physical killing wars and more subtle ideological wars, write the narratives of their opponents from then on. This is why we have had a couple of thousand years of hearing only one side of the gnostic story and one conventionally accepted version of Christian theology. And we have heard that version from Catholic Councils of the 4th century on down through the Protestant churches of today. The surviving descriptions of the nature of gnosticism were written by those who hated gnosticism, and their work is still read and venerated to this day. And I can tell you that even in the little village I live in, the church folks who have no idea what gnosticism even is are dead set against it and dead set against my efforts of sharing my gnostic insights with them and others—and they let me know of their disapproval. I think these divisive times we are living through now also illustrate how what passes for truth is malleable and untrustworthy. We can all see for ourselves how half of the population characterizes the big picture one way and half of the population characterizes it in a completely different way—and these two sides of the ideological divide are incommensurate with each other. Incommensurate is one of those big words I learned during my graduate studies in rhetoric. It means exclusive—both can't be right—you can't hold both positions—it's either or. So if you extrapolate the culture wars forward a few hundred or a few thousand years into the future, how will history frame the disputes that are currently raging through society? If, for example, socialism finally wins out do you think capitalism will be fairly represented? The reverse is also true, and the winner of this tug of war will be the one who lives to tells the tale. My correspondent goes on to say: I think it must be very appealing to be able to narrow down everything into one text and say that we are only going to look at this one source of right thing for the true knowledge. I think this approach has led us to the Bible and the Koran and other food containers which some followers take quite literally and interpret very strictly. There must be safety and comfort in this approach which could be described as textual at best—literal and possibly in a kind way, and without any judgement, fundamentalist, in its true essence. However, and I expect you are waiting for the but… What is listening whilst listening? He continues: It did occur to me that what you are basically saying is that everything in the Tripartite Tractate is correct. And all of the other texts are interesting, though they may be not to be taken seriously because they are myths. Surely it must've occurred to you that the writer of the Tripartite Tractate was also a human, and ergo—a product of the culture that surrounded him or her? Knowing you to be such a thoughtful and perceptive person, is there something I'm missing here? What is objectively different about the Tripartite Tractate, written by a human, just like all of those other gnostic texts? I am not trying to score points here, I genuinely would like an answer. To which I respond: Truly I do not agree with everything the Tripartite Tractate says and, conversely, much of what the other books say is right, though obscured with layers and language of mythology. The difference between the Tripartite Tractate and the other gnostic texts is that it stands alone and doesn’t depend upon a preexisting mythology to make sense. By that I mean that the Tripartite Tractate is a logical argument that any Sophist would be proud of. It speaks in the language of symbolic logic rather than mythology or (purported) history. The Tripartite Tractate begins with a starting premise (a priori) that in the beginning was consciousness without form. It then proposes a method by which consciousness and its attendant qualities, such as power and love, emanate from the origin and make their way downstream into us and other living creatures. It calls the descent of consciousness a fall, but does not condemn the fall, as it was necessary to escape the purely ethereal and create matter. It describes the fall as a “presumptuous thought” choice by Mr. Rationality itself—Logos. I characterize this presumptuous thought as the first action of “ego” made independently outside of the cooperation of the Fullness. This all seems to me to be an entirely rational argument that simply describes the process of the distribution of consciousness. We don’t have to argue the originating premise because our consciousness is self-evident. We are asking where it came from and going upstream until we reach a logical a priori starting point. A lot of what I share at Gnostic Insights comes from my own Theory of Everything—A Simple Explanation of Absolutely Everything—that I conceived and wrote 20 years ago, without benefit of any gnostic texts. So that lens informs my reading of the gnostic books. And I immediately recognized my own T.O.E. when I first read the Tripartite Tractate. The Simple Explanation is written using secular, non-religious language and lots of science and math. My illustrations and charts are different than my gnostic illustrations and charts. But the master chart is identical. The Tripartite Tractate did give me an answer I had been chewing over within the Simple Explanation, that being the difference between living creatures and inert elemental matter. I appreciated that clarification and incorporated it into the Simple Explanation. Otherwise, the book still stands as True. What is meant by True in this philosophical sense is whether or not the argument is coherent and internally consistent and comports with direct observation of the world. Now, as to whether or not I believe that only the Tripartite Tractate is true gnosis and the other gnostic books are mostly mythological–that is not the way I would put it. I don't take the Tripartite Tractate as more holy than other books, and there are a couple of aspects I don't fully understand or agree with. For example, the Tripartite Tractate aligns with other gnostic books in saying that there are three types of humans—the spiritual—called the pneumatic; the ordinary, emotional type called the psychic; and the material, called the hylic. The Tripartite Tractate doesn't seem to think that the hylic types are true second order powers and that they didn't exist in the beginning and will not return to the ethereal home above after death. The final page of the Tripartite Tractate codex is riddled with burned out areas from a fire, yet it seems to say, and I'm filling in some missing words: “While the material beings will be left behind until the end to perish, for they will not give their [missing words—probably acknowledgment of the Christ or allegiance to the Christ ]… If they have returned once more to that which … [missing words—probably worships the demiurge] … in the way that they were… [missing words—probably passing as humans] while they do not exist… [missing words—probably from the beginning] but they had been useful [for the] time that they were among them, even if they are not… [missing words—probably second order powers, —possibly among creation] at first, then… [missing words—possibly they were brought forth] to do something else by means of the power they had in the establishment [to] oppose them.” [yes, I realize I am interpolating a lot of missing words. if you have a more cogent interpretation, please offer it.] This final section of the Tripartite Tractate seems to indicate there are hylics among us with whom we live and work side by side who will not be redeemed at the end of time. This holds out the possibility that there are non-second order powers among us who can pass for living beings—not an uncommon thought in gnostic circles. My brother, Bill, and I contend that all life forms come from above and contain the consciousness and life of the Source. So for a non-living creature were to be born in the usual way is an impossibility. In my mind, the only way a truly non-living hylic so-called “human” could walk among us would be in the form of robotic facsimiles. There are many examples of this in science fiction, such as the cylons of “Battlestar Galactica” and the self-aware bots in P.D. Dick's “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” which became the film called “Blade Runner.” We are now be on the threshold of building and employing these newly constructed robots who appear human, appear conscious, appear living, but are actually programmed imitations that did not exist from the beginning. (Battlestar Galactica carries this very question throughout the series as the cylons become self-aware and question their relationship with God.) If that is the case, then these could be the hylics that will not return to the ethereal because they did not come from the ethereal and the end times would need to be pushed back far enough to accommodate their undetectable assimilation into society. But hey—that's just my notion. And here at Gnostic Insights I try to stick with gnostic insights, not my wild speculations. Cylons of Battlestar Galactica television series. The cylons adapt to become more and more “human.” What is true is that I believe the Tripartite Tractate describes our existence and our origins, as well as our future. But we have to remember it is at least 2,000 year old prophecy and embedded in the language and concepts of that time. Maybe the writer was indeed anticipating androids among us, but that seems an unlikely interpretation. I have been watching quite a few “alternate history” videos lately on YouTube that propose completely different backstories and histories that stretch eons into the past—histories that could indeed have been technologically sophisticated enough to produce androids that blend in with the crowd. But we're getting way into the weeds here. One reason that most readers of the Tripartite Tractate and other gnostic texts think there is an order of unredeemable humans is that they are referred to as “those who belong to the imitation.” The most basic interpretation is that those who we call materialists are the people who only believe what they can see, measure, and taste. In that sense, they belong to the imitation since the imitation is the material projection that is this cosmos. The atheists among them do not believe in the ethereal space Above, or the originating Source, and so by default they belong to the imitation. Yet, if all living creatures are children of the Fullness above, even these will return to the Fullness at the end of time. The way I reason this comes from following the logic of emanation and return—the Fullness would not be Full without them, and it is a basic proposition that nothing of the Source can ever be lost. So you see, the logic is what drives my interpretations, logic—Logos—not mythology. At least that how it seems to me. Another aspect of the imitation is the molecular structure of our world, including our bodies. We inhabit a molecular body. Our living essence, the light of consciousness that makes organisms soft and squishy and alive, literally inhabits an otherwise dead, rocky, elemental body of molecules. So everywhere we go, it goes. And when we “die” and our spirit exits this material cosmos, our hylic body is left behind. It belongs to the imitation—get it? So in this case, the hylic human refers to the elemental molecules that make up our bodies—that inert mud that the Demiurge could not raise up to life, as the mythological version goes. So, this material aspect of our earthly existence is part of the imitation and will not return to the Fullness along with our spirits because it did not exist from the beginning. It is a product of the fall. But I digress—back to the subscriber's email: Secondly, I would like to ask you a question about giving glory to God. I liked what you were saying about turning your attention away from yourself, and your ego, and to look towards the divine and offer up a prayer. I am at the stage of my journey where this is something that does not seem so completely alien, as I am moving gradually away from materialist atheism, which has been caught on my existence for the past 50 odd years. Where I get into trouble is basically the whole business of giving glory to God, because the monad who is omniscience and immutable is hardly likely to need me to do a lot of worshipping or giving glory. This was like a bit controversial, and I'm not trying to argue in bad faith, but wouldn't the demiurge himself be more likely to want humans to give glory to him than the monad? I imagine that giving glory means something to people who have come up in a Christian background, but personally it seems completely irrelevant and unnecessary – A bit like one of those business buzzwords, you hear like synergism or government types talking about inclusiveness or diversity—a sort of empty phrase that could really mean anything you want. It would be really helpful if you could unpack it a bit for me because I'm sure I'm missing something here. Giving glory is not for the benefit of the Father. Giving glory is how we tune into the Father’s resonance. Giving glory is for our benefit, not God's. Now, the God of the Old Testament, the Demiurge—is that jealous, forgetful god that thinks it’s the be-all and end-all. It does like to receive worship and glory because it feeds its ego. But the God Above All Gods, the Father of consciousness and the ALL, doesn’t need our worship and glory—you are right about that. It is we who need to give glory, not It that needs to receive glory. The Totalities of the ALL which were the first emanations from the Son, and the Aeons of the Fullness love to give glory. The Totalities do nothing but give glory to the Father, and that is a pure expression of love and devotion to the Father. It's a good thing for us, way down here in the consciousness stream, that they give unceasing glory, because they are the first emanations out of the Son and the fountain of the consciousness and love that eventually flows into all living creatures. The Totalities that give glory continuously are like an electrical plug that stays connected to the greater originating Source. As above so below—we also connect with the Source when we give glory. And since connecting with the Source cannot be accomplished when ego rules your psyche, you must be humble enough to set your ego aside and pray to/give glory to the greater Source. Surely you recognize that your ego is a lesser being than the Father of everything. If your ego does not allow you to think that, then you are not putting your spiritual foot forward but merely your ego. Our correspondent replies: Dear Cyd As usual- I’m so impressed by your clear and reasoned thinking – it is so elegant and simple. I wish I could think like that. However, there are a few things I would like to push back on respectfully. I have been dialoguing with the Demiurge – Chat GPT – and here’s what the archonic AI came up with in answer to your firm assertion that there is no mythology in the Tripartite Tractate. It basically thinks that it’s an overstatement – and I quote: The text gives an extensive creation story involving:• an unknowable Father;• the Son and the Church;• emanated aeons inhabiting the Fullness or Pleroma;• Logos making a presumptuous, defective attempt to comprehend the Father;• the production of deficiency, psychic and material powers;• a Demiurge who creates humanity;• three fundamental classes of human beings;• and a Saviour who descends to restore what has become divided. [Cyd] Let me pop in here to correct a very important error in this demiurgic version of Gnosticism. It sneaked into its answer a very demiurgic assertion that is not True: • a Demiurge who creates humanity The Demiurge certainly did not create humanity or any other living, conscious being. The second order powers—all living beings—are children of the Aeons of the Fullness, sent down into this lifeless cosmos to remind the Demiurge of the greater power Above, the true source of life, love, and consciousness. I have a habit of calling us the children of the Fullness, but the Tripartite Tractate actually calls us the fruit or the spores of the Fullness. Which is another way of saying the emanations of discreet packages of consciousness, or what I call in Simple Explanation language units of consciousness. To me, this is not mythological but descriptive to the best of our ability. Now, back to the correspondent's email: That is all mythological material. So then it rambles on quoting lots of sources etc BUT what the machine is getting at is that the difference between the Tripartite Tractate and some other gnostic texts is that there is a solid logic framework under the superstructure of mythological language and characters.This fits in with your TOE very neatly – and it is no surprise that you had an ‘OMG’ moment when you discovered the Tripartite Tractate—I would also have thought the same if an ancient text fitted perfectly into a system of thought that I had spent years developing. And you might be right—the uncanny fit could be a ‘tell’ that this truly IS the way of everything. On the less interesting point of contention though – I must disagree with you – there IS mythology in the Tripartite Tractate superstructure – the language is mythological – maybe less so than other gnostic texts. As an aside, as a writer – I would also say -there is nothing particularly bad about being mythological either. To which I reply: I have to laugh at using Dialogue with Demiurge AI as a trustworthy source. lol. I will see your Chat GPT and raise you Microsoft CoPilot AI (poker language, I assume you recognize). My AI says this: “This work presents a restored cosmology of the Fullness — a structural, metaphysical account of creation, fracture, and restoration. It is not myth, nor allegory, nor theology in the conventional sense. It is architecture: a precise description of how consciousness, relation, and harmony operate across the three great phases of existence.” I like that description—that the Tripartite Tractate gives the metaphysical architecture of consciousness rather than a myth. I always like to take the higher, meta view of information, which is literally a step above the normal language and arguments. That’s the secret of how I observe and reconcile seemingly irreconcilable positions—by looking up above the words for the meaning behind them. It seems to me that most people are lost in the language and “can’t see the forest for the trees.” Not meaning you, necessarily, it’s just my observation of how understanding goes awry. By taking the meta approach, the concepts automatically simplify as many points of view and language choices are collapsed into their base meanings. The words I use in my Simple Explanation of gnosis and science and everything else are not written in stone. They are my attempt to convey large concepts in the simple, most recognizable forms. If I say “god” it’s because people are familiar with that term. I offer alternative words, like Source, Mother-Father, Metaverse, the Great One, the Origin, so that people will see that the particular word is less important than what it represents and that what they think of as god has a broader meaning than the meme they have been holding onto. These images from my well-worn copy of the Tripartite Tractate of The Nag Hammadi Scriptures edited by Marvin Meyer, show you the process by which I read and interpret arcane texts. I put the language into illustrated concepts and words I can recognize and understand. The writer shared this final thought from the Chat GPT: There is also a genuine philosophical difficulty: how can a perfect and harmonious divine Fullness generate an irrational act? Saying that Logos possessed the capacity to exceed his proper limits explains the mechanism only by placing the possibility of deficiency inside the supposedly perfect order. He says, I think that is actually a pretty decent question from our AI demiurge—right? I expect that you have a great answer though. To which I reply: As to the Demiurge’s new question that you have put forth in this email—that’s an old canard that is often trotted out to stump theists. “How could a good and perfect God allow for the creation of evil?” I am not at all stumped by that question. The answer can most simply be stated in two words: Free Will. If we begin with the premise that the Father/Source/etc. emanates its entire nature outward with its emanation, then obviously free will is a part of that emanation. After all, it is inarguable that the Source possesses free will. The Aeons have free will. Logos is an Aeon. Logos has free will. While the rest of the Aeons were using their free will to cooperate with each other and to glorify the Father and the Son, Logos used its free will to go in a fresh direction. Logos thought it would be going upward to rejoin the highest glory. The Tripartite Tractate says that Logos didn’t realize this was in impossibility, because no one can approach the power source that is the Origin without being annihilated. And like a magnetic polarity, Logos was repelled by the Source and was knocked out of alignment with the Fullness (the fall). This dissonance became our material cosmos. And because Logos had free will, we have free will. This all flows logically from the a priori definition of the Source. This may sound mythological, but it is not. It could be easily described in scientific terms. Like the way a beam of focused light still allows for stray photons to go off beam. Or boiling water in the kettle mostly clumps together on the top of the water as bubbles, but some bubbles go outward to the edge of the kettle and pop. And so forth. The limit is our language, not the architecture or process. The limit is also imposed by the meme bundle being held the human observer-inquirer when their memes do not allow for certain possibilities to be seen and accepted. It is our meme attachments that limit our capacity to observe and learn. So says me.

In Episode 499 of the Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal and Jesse Schwamb conclude their extended study of Matthew 25 with a close examination of the Sheep and Goats passage (vv. 31–46). The conversation tackles one of the most frequently misread sections in the Gospels — a text often weaponized for works-righteousness or social-justice reductionism — and recovers its deeply Reformed, gospel-saturated meaning. The hosts argue that the works displayed at the final judgment are not meritorious currency but the spontaneous, unselfconscious fruit of transformed hearts. They explore the significance of the sheep's surprise, the inheritance language of the kingdom, unconditional election, and the precise meaning of "the least of these." The result is a theologically rich, pastorally grounding episode that offers genuine assurance to believers while calling the church to practical, ordinary mercy toward its own members. Key Takeaways Works at the final judgment reveal identity, not merit. The sheep are on the right because they are sheep — not because their accumulated deeds earned them a place. Their works flow from a renewed nature, not toward a threshold they must clear. The righteous are surprised — and that surprise is theologically decisive. If the sheep were consciously stacking up merit for judgment, they would have kept careful ledgers. Their inability to recall their own works demolishes any works-righteousness reading of the passage. Inheritance is not wages. Jesus' use of the word "inherit" signals that the kingdom is received by virtue of relationship, not performance — a point reinforced by Paul in Romans 8 and Galatians 4. Election precedes and grounds the works. The kingdom was prepared "before the foundation of the world," meaning the deepest cause of the sheep's blessedness long predates any of their deeds. Works are downstream of grace, never upstream. "The least of these" refers primarily to fellow believers, not to the poor in general. The phrase "my brothers" in verse 40 narrows the referent to members of Christ's body — those who belong to him by adoption, faith, and union with Christ. There is no two-stage justification. The final judgment is not a second review of whether one has done enough. It is a reassertion of the righteousness of Christ already imputed to believers — a public vindication, not a fresh assessment. Practical, ordinary mercy toward the church is the mark of kingdom membership. The six works listed — feeding, giving drink, hospitality, clothing, visiting the sick, visiting the imprisoned — are not heroic or extraordinary. They are the unglamorous, costly, consistent kindness that flows naturally from those who have been made new. Key Concepts The Surprise of the Righteous: A Devastation of Works-Righteousness One of the most theologically loaded moments in Matthew 25:31–46 is the reaction of the righteous at the judgment: "Lord, when did we see you?" They are not feigning humility. They genuinely do not remember. As Jesse Schwamb notes in this episode, this surprise is "devastating to a works-righteousness reading of the passage" — because anyone consciously building a merit ledger would have kept meticulous records. The sheep kept none. Their works flowed so naturally and unselfconsciously from hearts already made new by the Spirit that those works barely registered as remarkable. This is precisely what the Reformed doctrine of sanctification predicts: truly gracious affections issue in Christian practice as the spontaneous fruit of a transformed nature — as natural as a good tree producing good fruit. The works are real, the works matter, but they are not calculated. They are evidence, not currency. Inheritance, Election, and the Order of Grace Jesus does not tell the sheep they earned the kingdom. He tells them to inherit it — and he specifies that it was prepared for them "from the foundation of the world." These two details together form a nearly complete statement of Reformed soteriology embedded in the judgment scene itself. Inheritance, as both Paul and Jesus make clear, is received through relationship and not through performance. An heir does not negotiate terms; an heir receives by virtue of who they are in relation to the testator. Layered on top of this is the language of eternal, unconditional election: the kingdom's preparation predates all human works, good or bad. There is no "looking down the corridor of foreseen merit" here. The sheep's blessedness has its deepest root in the sovereign grace of God exercised in eternity past — which means their works, however real and meaningful, can never be the ground of their standing before the King. "The Least of These": The Church as the Primary Referent A significant and often overlooked interpretive question in Matthew 25 is the identity of "the least of these my brothers" (v. 40). The episode argues, in line with the dominant Reformed and historical reading, that this phrase refers primarily to fellow believers — members of Christ's body who are suffering, vulnerable, or marginalized within the community of faith. The word "brothers" is not incidental. It places the referent in a specific covenantal and familial relationship with Christ. This does not exclude broader applications of mercy — the hosts acknowledge that the principle may extend centrifugally outward — but the center of the text is the church's care for its own. This reading is consistent with Galatians 6:10 ("do good to all people, especially the household of faith"), with Acts 9 (where persecuting the church is persecuting Christ), and with the overall logic of the passage, in which belonging to the King is the decisive category. Memorable Quotes Their works flowed so naturally and unselfconsciously from a renewed heart that they scarcely remembered them, let alone regarded them as currency for salvation. — Jesse Schwamb Sheep are put on the right side because they are sheep, and goats are put on the left side because they are goats — not because they act like sheep or because they act like goats. Those characteristics flow from what they are. They don't make them what they are. — Tony Arsenal God provides grace. Now do all that you can do. That's the Christian way to look at things. He has prepared good works in advance for us to walk in. This is not some sort of measurement of whether or not you're in the kingdom. It's a description of what those who are in the kingdom look like and how they behave. — Tony Arsenal Full Transcript [00:00:08] Jesse Schwamb: Welcome to episode 499 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I'm Jesse.  [00:01:13] Tony Arsenal: And I'm Tony, and this is the podcast with ears to hear. Hey, brother.  [00:01:18] Jesse Schwamb: Hey, brother. Well, we're back. We're back in Matthew 25, and if you haven't been tracking with us for a little while, we've, we've talked about all the parables hanging out in Matthew 25. But what we've been talking about recently is this kind of surprise pop quiz, that's redundant, that Jesus kind of gives at the final judgment, and he talks about separating these groups into sheep, into goats, and the sheep aren't shocked that they get into heaven. They're shocked that their quiet, kind of unglamorous kindness apparently got tallied at all. And because all of these good works apparently are done from a heart already made new, have a way of sneaking past even their own doers' notice. But then there's this other group, the goats, and they learn the hard way that they never really did anything for anybody. And it's not a great look when your deeds are just faith's paper trail. And so Jesus has a lot to say to us in this, what we're calling, like, parable adjacent kind of message that he gives. Summarizing these three- Yeah ... great teachings, here comes all of this really direct and explicit instruction about, uh, the final judgment, which by the way is impossible for me now to hear or say without thinking of the final countdown. [00:02:30] Tony Arsenal: The final judgment.  [00:02:32] Jesse Schwamb: I was hope- I was hoping you would sing us into that, and it was beautiful. Yeah. It was fantastic.  I  [00:02:36] Tony Arsenal: try. I  try.  [00:02:37] Jesse Schwamb: So I think on this episode we got a lot to say in our ongoing conversation about this judgment, about these deeds, these works. What are they? What is their purpose, especially for these different groups of sheeps and goats? What's the deal?  [00:02:52] Affirm Deny Segment [00:02:52] Jesse Schwamb: So we'll get to all of that in just a second, but first, it's that blessed and glorious time in every Reformed Brotherhood conversation where we either affirm with something that is something that we really like, think is understated, that's really is not getting the attention, people are sleeping on, or conversely, we deny against something that just isn't that cool, just is not that great. So Tony, are you affirming with something or are you gonna deny against something today?  [00:03:17] Tony Arsenal: I'm affirming with something. I'm not sure how long this has been a thing. I stumbled upon it, uh, a little while ago, and it's been in my affirmations list for a couple weeks. Um, and I'm also not 100% sure that this is available to every Logos Bible user. So those are the caveats.  [00:03:33] Logos Minutes Reading Plans [00:03:33] Tony Arsenal: Um, what I stumbled upon is if you create a reading plan now, instead of saying, "I wanna finish this book by this date or in this number of sessions," uh, you can say, "I wanna finish this book by reading X minutes a day," which is great. Um, it's a, it's a feature that I've, I thought, like, why didn't they have this a long time ago? Because a lot of times you want to sort of set aside a certain amount of time a day. Maybe it's 15, 20 minutes of Bible reading. Maybe it's five minutes of Bible reading. Maybe it's 30 minutes of- Bavinck or Calvin or whatever you're reading. So what you can do now is you tell it the page range or you tell it, "I wanna read the whole book." Uh, you could do, you know, passages or verse ranges or sections of the Bible. And then where you normally in the next screen where it would ask you, uh, how many days you wanna read, how many sessions, or whether you wanna read until a certain date, there's a new option. And so it just divides that up based on the amount of time. What's really slick is it will actually break pages in half. Nice. So, like, if you have a short, um, either a short amount of pages that you wanna read, and it's kinda like I wanna read for two or three minutes a day, and two minutes is not a whole page. I run into this when I'm reading Matthew Henry when I'm preparing for sermons, because for whatever reason, uh, maybe it's just the Logos page pagination, but the pages are really long. Like, a one page of Matthew Henry's commentary will sometimes take, like, 10 or 15 minutes to read, which is obnoxious. Um, I think it's just that the pages are just, like... I don't know, I think it's just long pages. Um, but if you say I wanna read this one page and I wanna read for five minutes a day, it'll actually split the page up, um, into chunks based on the word count and whatnot. And obviously, that five minutes is, it's not calculating how quickly you read, like, uh, Kindle does sometimes when you're doing that.  [00:05:25] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:05:25] Tony Arsenal: Um, so it's basing that on an average reading speed. So if you're a little faster, uh, of a reader, then it'll be, you know, you'll get done a little quicker, and it might take you a little longer if you're slower. But it's a really slick feature, and I think it's, like I said, I think most of us If we wanna be diligent to read whatever it is we're reading, whether it's the Bible or other theological works, um, we want to set aside time, and we wanna sorta time block. We've talked a lot about productivity, um, in this podcast. We wanna, like, time block our time so it's protected and it's, it's set aside for that task or for that purpose, and this is a great way to do it. So you just put it on your calendar. You say, "I've got 15 minutes that's set aside to read the Bible in the morning, and I know that it's gonna be a digestible chunk." And then it's a, you know, it's no longer a, a date-bound reading plan, so there's no falling behind. If you miss a day, it just means you pick up the next day. Right. So it's a great way to do it. Again, not that there's anything wrong with time-bound reading plans or deadlines, but it's a little bit of a different way to make sure that you're getting into the Word or whatever book you're reading, uh, consistently. [00:06:30] Jesse Schwamb: That's definitely a feature that I think people are sleeping on in Logos. I have that too, so I don't know if, like you said, it is d- coupled with some kind of particular package or dependent on that.  [00:06:40] Stress Free Reading Habits [00:06:40] Jesse Schwamb: But generally, I think maybe we haven't spoken enough about, like, just making what- whatever it looks like, stress-free reading plans, because I was also reading some stuff by Ryan Holiday recently, and just the reminder of how there really is a fair amount of time to read, to actually consume, like- Yeah good written material. And really, it's maybe a little bit more about how, like, we understand walking and the benefits of walking now. You don't need to, like, set aside 20 or 30 minutes to go for a walk. Even going for, like, a quick burst of three to five minutes is so happy and healthful for you. And so I think- Yeah that in the same way, we actually do have more time to read than we think, and if you wanna, like, consume material and learn more things or just become more meditative in your thoughts spiritually, I think if you create the plan, that's just another thing to, like, help you on the way. But it's gotta be one that's, like, stress-free, like you're saying, and that's what I like about the Logos. You just set it up, and every time you go back into it, it's kinda asynchronous, and so, like, it just starts you off with wherever you're at. It's never gonna, like, pop up and be like, "You missed a day, and now you owe me 60 pages." Yeah. "Get on the ground and give it to me." Like, it's, it's not gonna be like that. So I love the joy of having the plan before you, and then that means that when the time comes, you're like, "Oh, I got a couple minutes," you can just go there. It can guide you into that reading, like, easily, succinctly, with low barriers, and make you feel happy and feel, like, that joy of reading again.  [00:08:04] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, I, I think it's great. And, you know, I think sometimes we fall into this trap, and you kind of alluded to it. Like, you fall into this trap that if you don't, uh, if you don't have, like, 20, 30 minutes to sit and read, that it's not worth it. Right. Right. And I know I used to fall into that trap, where I felt like if I didn't sit down and read an entire chapter, that I somehow was not actually, like, getting the material. But I think most of us have some sort of regular, uh, like, waste time. Uh, and what I mean is, like, for me, I ride the bus home every, like, every day. Most days I ride the bus home, and I know that's about a 25, 30-minute period of time that, um, I can choose to, like, scroll Twitter, and that's fine. Like, it's fine to do that. I can listen to podcasts. Um, I can do all sorts of stuff. I play video games on my tablet. Um, or I could set aside 15 of those minutes and have a p- sort of a preset reading. And you will be surprised, or maybe you won't. Maybe I'm the only one who's been surprised at this, but I think you'll be surprised uh, to find how quickly you actually move through material, even at- Right something like five minutes a day. So just for example, Joel Beeke's, uh, Systematic Theology Volume 1 is about 28 hours worth of reading, at least according to Logos. If you set aside 15 minutes per day, you will finish that reading in approximately 114 sessions. So that's not that long. That's not bad. That's like a third of a year. That's not bad, yeah. So you could, you could read through all of Joel Beeke, which is thousands of pages. I mean, we're talking, we're talking four, four different five or 600 page volumes. Um, and this, this actually is counting, like, the table of contents and the index, so, like, not all of it is what you're gonna read. You could read through that whole thing in under a year and a half if you just set aside 10 or 15 minutes. Um, and obviously if you have more time, maybe you have a 45 minute, um, bus ride home or, you know, you, you regularly have doctor's appointments and you know you're gonna be in the waiting room two days a week every week or something like that, this is a great way to just make sure you've got something set aside. Like your dad always says, you always say, like, "Bring a book." Well- That's right ... this is not only bring a book, but it's bring a book with like a s- like a set chunk of that book set aside for that time period. So maybe it's your lunch break, maybe it's the walk in from the bus stop, whatever it is. Um, I think it's, it's pretty straightforward. And all the old features, like all the old ways of setting up reading plans are still there. They're not eliminating those. Um, and this is just a great way, I think, to get, kind of get your reps in. Like, sometimes you just have to do the work and- Right ... get your reps in.  [00:10:45] Jesse Schwamb: Get it.  [00:10:45] Tony Arsenal: And this is a low pressure, this is a low pressure way to do it. It's not, um, it's not setting aside specific amounts of, uh, dates or anything like that. So yeah, check it out. It's, it's super easy to access, it's the same way you would always make a reading, um, like a reading goal. Um, and you actually can still set a regular reading schedule even with this feature. You could still say, "I wanna read Monday, Wednesday, Friday." You could say, "I don't wanna have a schedule at all," which means you just, when you click on it, it just brings you to the next section, but there's never any reminders. So they actually really are, like, expanding the way that, uh, you're able to generate these reading plans. The one thing I wish they had that I'm not sure why they don't, I wish they had a dynamic catch-up feature where, like, if you were... You know, let's say I wanted to finish this book and I wanted to finish it by, I don't know, the end of the year, and I missed a couple days or I missed a week, I wish there was a way to push a button and have it just redistribute the remaining readings out across- Right ... what's left of the reading plan. That's not there. That's a... If you're listening, Logos, or someone who works at Logos, that's what we need. I've told you that before. Why haven't you listened to me? But, um, uh, yeah, we need that. But th- this is a good start too, because again, it's, it's not, um- It's not making you do a deadline. Right. So it's much more relaxed paced. [00:11:59] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly. Exactly. That's one of the things I love about it.  [00:12:03] Burst Reading Benefits [00:12:03] Jesse Schwamb: Uh, let me make, like, one more plea if you're, like, like you're listening and you're unconvinced about this burst style reading, and that is I've been so convinced that that kind of consumption can be really helpful to processing reading. Because especially if it's like, say you're reading something of the Puritans or something relatively deep, there is something to be said of course for, like, being able to sit down if you have all this time and just kind of read to get the flow. But what I think even there I struggle with is some things are worth stopping and thinking about, and this forces- Yeah ... some kind of meditation that happens in the background anyway, and I've found that to be so helpful. Like, it kind of just creates a little bit of attentional space by way of making you walk away from the thing that you just read. And also, if you know that you've only got this short little time span available, I think I'm prone to read kind of in a different way with a little bit more focus.  [00:12:52] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:12:53] Jesse Schwamb: And then I find myself really thinking about some of those things. And some of the things that you and I talk about, the things that we love to read, are worth stopping and considering. And so it's too easy to be like, "Well, I just, I need to hit the page number. I gotta get the count in. I wanna get this volume finished." Yeah. And that's great, but at the same time, like presumably, like we read to comprehend, we read to put into practice, we read to, like, help us build wisdom and to process the world and to understand things in a more robust and profound way, and that can really only happen with that kind of spacing. So this builds in some spacing, so embrace that as I think a feature and not a bug maybe of some good reading.  [00:13:29] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah, it's funny you, you mentioned Ryan Holiday earlier. One of the things I appreciate about his, um, at least most of his books, I've only read the sort of the Stoic Wisdom series, but, um, he keeps his chapters super short. [00:13:40] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:13:40] Tony Arsenal: So, like, part of that is sort of the self-help grocery store format that he's, he's going for. Um, not that it's... It's not empty calories, that's not what I'm saying. I think sometimes that is implied there. But he keeps his chapters short, so it's very easy, like, to just pick up. I'm working through Discipline Is Destiny right now. It's the one I'm reading now. It's very easy to just pick it up and be like, "I'm gonna read one chapter," and it's, like, five, 10 minutes long. Um, and the chapters are... They're not identical, but they repeat enough themes that, like, y- you don't need to really, like, sit down and really, like, cram through it to get the concept. Right. But you'll read through and you'll get the concept over and over again. And I actually think the Puritans can... Some of the Puritans can be that same way, where they say the same thing- Right ... slightly differently over and over again. Um, another book that reminds me of that is, um, Knowing Christ by Mark Jones, which we talked, but that's a, it's weird that that's actually kind of an old book now. Um- Right ... I think it's coming up on close to a decade now since it came out. Um, but those chapters are super short, 10, 15 minutes. So this kind of at a burst reading, session reading, rap reading, whatever you wanna call it, it's actually super productive and it's, it is, you're right, it's very good for meditation because you are taking time to do it. You're doing it consistently, so it's kind of, it's kind of like hammering itself into your head. Um, but it's not, it's not so much time that it, you get, like, reading fatigue.  [00:15:01] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Right. Exactly. That's a beautiful thing.  [00:15:04] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:15:05] Jesse Schwamb: I, I agree. Like, it's reading all kinds of ways, but one of the things that Ryan Holiday was recently convicted me of is, like, he talks about how many things he's able to consume. People are always like, "How are you able to read all those books with all the traveling, all the different things, engagements that you have?" And he's like, "Because I just read all the time. I read when I'm-" Right ... waiting at the post office. I read when I have, like, literally three minutes between doing something or picking up a kid, that, that I read." And I don't know, I kinda like that idea. I, I... he's not ashamed to be like, "If that's... If I have 30 seconds, I probably just pull up a book," because I think that that's even- Yeah ... valuable space in which to consume good writing. So, and when I r- I, I, like, subscribe to all, maybe like you, like all these different feeds, all these lists. There are just- Yeah ... so many things I wanna read. My to-read list is so stacked, pun intended, and it's like books of- I know ... all kinds. And then I'm in this space now where I find that as I'm getting older, again, one, like suddenly birds continue to be interesting to me in new ways that I never anticipated, and the second thing is, like, suddenly I wanna read all this history. And so, like, now there's like this whole, where it never really appealed to me before, now there's like this, all this new, like, vistas opened up, and I'm like, "Who has time for this?" So- Yeah ... maybe the idea is to just, again, consume it in bites. And I'm beginning to really appreciate that as an effective strategy for not, like, re- necessarily reading more, but learning more, and learning it better. [00:16:26] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. Yeah. And I actually think it is probably an effective strategy for reading more for most people. I know it has been for me- True ... to just sit down and do, do a few minutes at a time. Um- Just get it ... I've got kids, there's work to do. Like, it's, y- you're not gonna be able to... Most, I think most of our listeners are probably not in a- stage of life anymore where you can really devote hours to study like you maybe you could when you were in your 20s, where you just- Right you had a job and you didn't have much else responsibility. You, you just, you know, you just had things to do. Uh, it's not like that for most of us anymore. So being able to take five, 10 minutes and, and read a book is probably a luxury, but it's probably a luxury that we could, we could probably structure our lives and make that more of a reality. Right. And this feature in Logos will help you do that with really any theological book you can practically think you wanna get your hands on that's available on Logos. So Jesse- Right ... we could talk about reading all night every night, and we- ... love to read, but that's not what this podcast is about today. So why don't you tell us what you're affirming or denying?  [00:17:27] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:17:27] Jesse Book Pick Perkins [00:17:27] Jesse Schwamb: Well, now, now I'm gonna switch it up because I had a book, and so, like, it just seems like people are gonna be like, "Oh, of course," and you just rolled right into that. So the quick affirmation is more Puritan stuff, A Perfect Redeemer by William Perkins. That's this week's book, so you should do that. I don't know if it's available on Logos. I presume that it is, and you can set up your own reading plan, and it's beautiful and amazing, and Perkins makes a case that true satisfaction isn't found in things, but in Christ. He tears down all these illusions of self-sufficiency and points us to rest fully in God's grace. It's beautiful. It's glorious. It's practical. It's like 27, to your point, Tony, 27, I think, like, really brief chapters. Perfect for the bus. Like, it's prime bus reading.  [00:18:05] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:18:06] Jesse Schwamb: So yeah, that's affirmation. Okay.  [00:18:07] Denial Dying Guitar Batteries [00:18:07] Jesse Schwamb: Here's a denial, 'cause I've rarely do denials, but as you were speaking I was reminded of one that came up this morning that maybe is only going to really resonate with a small group, but I think if you know, you know. I was actually, this denial was constructed out of a conversation I had with a dear brother this morning, who I think was sharing the denial with me, uh, but might have been suspicious entirely of what I was going after. But it's this. A lot of, I'm trying to think how to set this up properly so it's, like, explained to a wider audience. So a lot of guitar instruments, that's a weird way to say this, but, like, I'm talking about guitars that have to be plugged in, have some kind of, like, onboard electronics. But principally, like, electric instruments. I'm talking about, like, electric bass, electric guitar. They usually have what's called, like, a preamp in them, which means that the signal is essentially being set up before it goes to the board, and that process requires some power. And so generally those instruments have, like, a little, you know, battery that goes in them, uh, uh, different kinds. Here's my denial. I don't know why so many of these instruments, including the- most of the ones that I own, have no nothing, no indicator to tell you how close that battery is to dying. And so what happens is- Yeah you, I think every musician, everybody who plays an instrument of, of this nature has had this happen to them, where they need to play it in a critical environment, and then the battery dies. And why I'm denying this is because this came up for me yesterday, where I was, had the benefit of playing at a church event, but it was with my acoustic electric guitar. It, it's a Martin D-16. It's a beautiful guitar. But even the Martin, it doesn't have an indicator on it. And so, like, I always swap out the battery, which I think is probably pretty wasteful, because I knew I had to leave this guitar plugged in on stage for, like, almost two and a half hours before it was gonna be used, and whenever it's plugged in, it's drawing the power. And so, so many times you get halfway through, you're playing, you're in a worship set or you're making music with people, and it just goes out on you, and when it goes out, there's no way to get the sound back except for, at least in my instrument, you have to unplug it, you have to pop out the battery, you have to put it back in. There's no, nothing discreet about this. There's nothing convenient about this. And there's certainly nothing- ... like, noiseless about that, especially if the person running sound is not being- Doesn't know ... very, like, adept with how they're handling the instrument so that you don't, like, blow people's ears out as you try to replace the battery. So I'm just wondering about this. Like, come on, instrument manufacturers. I know it's probably not pretty to put this somewhere, but you could put it somewhere discreet. Here's what I just wanna say, though, finally. Um, please don't at me. I know that there are some, especially like acoustic electric guitars, Fender's a good example, like onboard Fishman pickups that have, like, the EQ box. Some of them do have this indicator, but not enough. And if it's, like, an electric guitar- Yeah ... I rarely see this on a pure electric guitar. So please, for the love, just put, like, a little light. Maybe, maybe it turns orange or yellow or red when, like, the battery's about to go. I just, I need to know, because it's, it's so nerve-wracking when you're playing and you're like, "Oh, no. When did I last change this battery? How much longer is this thing going to last?"  [00:21:28] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. You know, I'm, I'm wondering, um, maybe I don't know enough about electrical engineering, but I actually feel like being able to determine when a random battery is starting to lose charge is probably a fairly intricate process, so that might be why, like, there's not as many. It's funny, my Ibanez guitar, which I haven't, I haven't even taken out of its case in years, I just don't, don't have a, a, a real occasion for it anymore, um, it has an indicator on it. So it's funny that you say that 'cause, like-  [00:21:59] Jesse Schwamb: Some do  [00:22:00] Tony Arsenal: Not a cheap guitar, but it's, um- Right ... it's not, yeah, it's not like a super expensive guitar. Uh, and it does have a little indicator. It's just like a little blinking light when the battery- Yes ... starts to go, it just blinks. Um, but yeah, even then, it still... It's funny, I, um, when I was in like high school and, and first couple years of college, I helped out with youth ministry at my church quite a bit, and I would often be on the team that would go, like, down to the camp the day before to set up all the equipment and to, like, get everything ready. And I remember I was always, I was always being told like, "Make sure you change the batteries. Make sure you change the batteries." Right. And like- Right ... it was always my job first thing in the morning to go around to all the microphones and all the guitars and, like, change out all the batteries. And I remember thinking, "This is so wasteful." Right. But then I remember, like, the one time we didn't do it, and it, like, crashed in the middle of, like, the big... And again, like, I don't even know if I would support this model of camp ministry anymore, but it crashed in the middle of, like, the big worship set on, like, the, like, the emotional decision- Yeah for Jesus night. Your altar call- It crashed in the middle of it ... totally blown  [00:23:01] Jesse Schwamb: up.  [00:23:01] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and it, it, and it did. Like, it affected everything. We had to, like, stop and... So yeah, always, always change your batteries. Um, you know, like, I, you, I, when I was doing musical worship on a regular basis, I just had a couple, like, inexpensive rechargeable batteries that I would swap out at the beginning of each session. I would put the battery that was in my guitar into the charger and the battery that was in the charger into my guitar. Um, and those, those wear out over time too, so that- Right ... you know, that, that's not a healthy charging habit for those batteries, and you go through them faster. But it's better than throwing away a nine-volt battery every couple of, you know, couple of days, so. [00:23:37] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah.  [00:23:37] Tony Arsenal: Yeah. That's annoying. It's, it's obnoxious when that happens. Um,  [00:23:40] Jesse Schwamb: that's, that's why I'm just straight denying against it. I suspect that this is a matter of aesthetics, and that many of these manufacturers don't wanna put something as ugly as a light somewhere on this beautiful instrument, even if it's in, like, a discreet place. That's my guess. Yeah,  [00:23:53] Tony Arsenal: maybe.  [00:23:54] Jesse Schwamb: I also theorize, like, why can't there be an intermediary pedal that would help us with this? So, like, many people, including myself, have a tuning pedal which you can essentially bypass, and you, you engage it when you wanna tune. Why can't that draw... I, I think it should be relatively straightforward, but who knows? But either way, all I need is just a heads-up. I don't need like a, "You have, you know, 16% left," or, "You have 2.67 hours left." I just need to know that it's not gonna fail me at this most critical time. Like, just tell me to swap it. That's all, that's all, that's all you have to say. Yeah. Just tell me to swap it. So I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but I think it might be a matter of, of beauty over function and purpose- Maybe ... because-  [00:24:33] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:24:34] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah, that's probably- Many, many are particular about that kind of thing Yeah. So anyway- Yeah ... yeah, I, that's maybe... I like what you said, Tony. It's maybe a good PSA. Like, change your batteries often and frequently. Don't be like me. Don't be in that position where all of a sudden, I remember I was leading some very acoustic worship on an evening service. It was a very full congregation, probably, like, 200 people. And, uh, we finished up, and somebody had to yell out, uh, "We can't hear your guitar at all." And I'm just up there playing. [00:25:01] Tony Arsenal: Ugh.  [00:25:01] Jesse Schwamb: And yeah. You know, it's distracting. It's one of those things. But-  [00:25:04] Tony Arsenal: Yeah ...  [00:25:05] Jesse Schwamb: um, in the end... Uh, ironically, some people at the end of that were like, "Well, that was really great. It was much better than usual. We heard a lot less guitar." And I was like- ... "Okay."  [00:25:14] Tony Arsenal: My, um, my Ibanez, I never used it, but my Ibanez has an XLR cable in addition to the quarter-inch- Oh and the XLR provides power to the preamp. So that's- See, there you go ... the real solution is just to have a direct XLR, uh, XLR mic cable that goes in, uh, and then you bypass the direct box. Although then you can't, then you can't go into a tuner or pedal. Yes. So-  [00:25:33] Jesse Schwamb: Exactly ...  [00:25:34] Tony Arsenal: pros and cons. Yeah. But-  [00:25:35] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. It go- it, it, it's all over the place. But let, let's talk about- Yes ... judgment, shall we? Like, what, what-  [00:25:41] Tony Arsenal: Welcome, welcome to the Reformed Guitar Cast for the  [00:25:43] Jesse Schwamb: night. Yes. E- exactly. We could talk all day about books, reading, reading plans, study plans, productivity, and guitars. These are all beautiful things. And  [00:25:51] Tony Arsenal: batteries and  [00:25:52] Jesse Schwamb: electrics. And batteries. Of which, uh, allegedly you can ha- never have enough of any of those things in that group.  [00:25:57] Tony Arsenal: It's true.  [00:25:58] Back To Matthew 25 Reading [00:25:58] Jesse Schwamb: But let's talk about, uh, judgment. And I suppose we should go back to Matthew 25, which we've been hanging out in quite a bit. And someday we'll move out of this passage. Pro- probably not today, but someday- we will actually get beyond it. And I, I know, I know we're 25 minutes in, but I am gonna read again for all of us because Tony and I, you have been resolute in saying that the best parts of our conversations really are the scripture, hearing them and going through them with great depth and a deliberate kind of measured slowness, which we're unapologetic for. And so let's just go to Matthew 25. I'm gonna read verses 31 through 46 with a f- a fair amount of speed, but enough to get us to the place where again, I just want this to be familiar as we speak about it. "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom which has been prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me in, naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? And when did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to you?" And the King will answer and say to them, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brethren of mine, even the least of them, you did it to me." Then he will also say to those on his left, "Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." Then they themselves also will answer saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?" Then he will answer them saying, "Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these, least of these, you did not do it to me." And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous unto eternal life  [00:28:27] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:28:29] Heavy Passage Rightly Used [00:28:29] Tony Arsenal: Like we said last week, this is a really kinda heavy passage. Um, and it can be, uh... Let me put it this way. It can be used to make, uh, believers fearful in the wrong way. I, I do think the, the passage is to instill fear of God and is inst- to drive us to good works. But it can be used in a way to sort of, as I mentioned last week, it can be used in a way to sort of say, "If you don't do all these good things and you don't measure up, then Jesus never knew you." Um, and, and it implies, or sometimes even fully says that, uh, Jesus comes to know us because of the good works that we do. Right. Right? And that's just not, um, that's just not Christian theology. That's not Reformed theology certainly. Um, it's, it's not Protestant theology, and it's not even really Roman Catholic theology down. Um, but this passage really is more about understanding what marks the life of a person who has already come to faith in Christ. That's right.  [00:29:30] Justification Not Two Stage [00:29:37] Tony Arsenal: What marks the life of someone who has been changed and transformed, uh, to be like their master, like their king. Um, so, so this passage doesn't try to teach us what we have to do to merit eternal life. Um, this isn't... A- and maybe we'll get into some of this, I don't know if we will or not, but this isn't sort of John Piper future justification, um, you know, on the basis of works, or future sa- salvation on the basis of works. Um, there's no two stages to justification, right? If we're justified, it's because Christ has imputed his righteousness to us. That's right. And what happens in the, in the final judgment, there's a real thing that happens, but it's not an assessment of whether or not we have done enough or been enough. It's the reassertion of the righteousness of Christ over us. So we'll, we'll get into that, we'll talk about it, but I wanted to make sure we set the frame for that, um, before we get into it. 'Cause sometimes when you talk about these passages, it's hard to talk about future judgment according to works, which is a genuine Christian reality, right? There's a future judgment according to works. But it's hard to talk about that without starting to sound a little bit like we're, we're earning our salvation or, like, our, our justification's in, like, sort of a second stage of review or something like that. So we'll, we'll get into that, but this is not, this is not works righteousness, this is not future justification, this is two stages of justification. [00:30:52] Jesse Schwamb: And that seems, like, very clear from the way that Jesus sets this whole up. The language is so beautifully gospelly centered and oriented.  [00:31:00] Inheritance Not Wages [00:31:00] Jesse Schwamb: Even behind the judgment, like, this curtain of judgment, when you, when you open it up, is the gospel in all of its fullness, and that begins with th- this idea of inheriting the kingdom. And inheritance, of course, is not wages. In fact, like, Paul makes this kind of, like, identical move in Romans 8 and in Galatians 4 where he basically emphasizes what Jesus is talking about here. That is, sons and daughters inherit, inherit. They don't earn a paycheck. An heir receives by virtue of relationship and not performance. And that single word is, I think in the judgment of, like, most of the Reformed understanding here, decisive for, like, reading this whole passage correctly. That whatever role these works mention in verses 35 and 36 play, they cannot be meritorious works. It's not the ground of the inheritance, because inheritances by definition are not earned. Yeah.  [00:31:51] Election Before Works [00:31:51] Jesse Schwamb: And then, like, right into the same kind of train of thought, the same line of reasoning, is this idea that, well, not only are you inheriting the kingdom, but all this was prepared for you before the foundation of the world. And here again is, like, the beautiful gospel in the form of this un- you know, eternal, like, unconditional election stated, like, very plainly. Now the kingdom isn't pr- w- was not prepared in response to, like, some kind of foreseen works. I think we talked about that last week, right? Did we talk about the cor- looking down the corridor, all that kind of weird stuff? Yeah.  [00:32:22] Tony Arsenal: Yep.  [00:32:23] Jesse Schwamb: It was prepared in eternity past before any works, like good or bad, had been performed by anyone. And so that's, like, the true answer, in my opinion, to, like, any Pelagian or semi-Pelagian reading of this passage. The deepest cause of the sheep's blessedness long predates their deeds of mercy, and so their works are downstream of election and grace, not upstream of it. That's really good news. Like, that again is the Gospel, that all things are entrusted to, belong to God. God does all the verbs. However you want to say it, what we have here is true grace, and that their works are flowing out of that grace. And so because of that, there's no... It's, like, it would be insanity to boast in them, because that boasting would mean absolutely nothing. And so Jesus sidesteps that altogether by talking about inheriting the kingdom and having this all prepared for us before the foundation of the world. [00:33:15] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:33:15] Kingdom Language Clues [00:33:15] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and there's some interesting, um, I think some interesting text feature that I just noticed here that, um, I don't wanna read too much into it, but one of the things that's striking about this is the, the language around the sheep or around those on the, um, on the right of the king here. Um, there's much more of a communal, um, kingdom-type language, right? Uh, in the first section where it's talking about those on the right, uh, the word king is used repeatedly.  [00:33:45] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:33:45] Tony Arsenal: Right? And then when you get to the second section on those on the left, the ones that the, the, the righteous son of man does not know, um, it doesn't use the word king. And that's not, of course, not to say that he's not the king of those who are, you know, condemned. He's the king of all. But there is this, this, uh, obviously intentional, uh, choice to use the word king, and what, what is a king if not someone who has a kingdom and a people? Exactly. So there, there even baked into that simple linguistic feature is already this idea that the people he's speaking to are his people. And so, like I said, we've talked about parables and parable-adjacent teaching as kind of being sort of systematic language in story form, systematic theology in story form. Even here, we're seeing election, we're seeing definite atonement, right? The people are his people because he prepared this kingdom for them before the foundation of the world. [00:34:42] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:34:42] Tony Arsenal: Um, and then the, the people who aren't his, they don't even get to be associated with him as king. They don't even beg- get to, get to be associated with his kingdom. They're so far outside of the kingdom of heaven, outside of this kingdom, that even to say that the king is speaking to them is almost like, uh, it's almost like a contradiction, right? So, um- In sort of like common parlance, we might refer to another nation's king as King Charles or, you know, K- King whatever, um, or President so-and-so. But that person is not my king. Right. And so although, like, maybe there's some decorum just in general, and, like, politically it's wise, I'd have no obligation to call King Charles King Charles. Like, I can ... I ... He's not my king. I don't owe any obligation of, of fidelity to him or to his title or to his crown. Another funny example, um, recently, um, you know, I work, uh, at a hospital. We have a spiritual health or chaplaincy department, and there's some Catholic priests who are on staff there. And, um, the, the spiritual health department is part of the care experience group, which is the same group that my patient relations team is part of. And some- someone noticed that at, like, broader team group meetings, I don't refer to them as Father. I'm one of the only people in the room who just says Joakim or, you know, or Sam. Like, I don't ... And they don't mind. It doesn't bother them at all.  [00:36:03] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:36:04] Tony Arsenal: Um, and it's funny because someone asked me that, and I'm like, "Well, they're not my priest, and I, like, I don't acknowledge- Right their status as the Father. Like, there's actually some biblical reasons why I wouldn't do that." I think this is kind of sort of almost like, in a third person perspective, kind of the same thing. Like, the k- king, i- the, the Gospel writer here, Matt, is refusing to use the word king in relation to this Son of Man in relation to these people to say something about them, to say something about those people- Yes who are outside of the kingdom  [00:36:34] Jesse Schwamb: Yes, that's right on. It's a bit like, I suppose, in a, a lesser way, like there was a time... So you're married to my sister. There was a time where you weren't, we weren't Yeah ... uh, and during that time, like I, I was not in your family, nor were you in mine.  [00:36:48] Tony Arsenal: Right.  [00:36:48] Jesse Schwamb: And then at, when you married her, I am part of your family. Like you can't kick me out. As long as you're married to Ashley, I will be part of your family and you part of mine. Right. That's how it works. And so that identity proceeds, like it c- this is like confusion between identity sometimes and I think like harmony, and so many people wanna read this as like some kind of like harmonic reflection of the state of obedience of these persons, and therefore, if they had harmony, then they were in the kingdom, and that's getting it backwards. That they were part of God's kingdom by his family by definition of identity.  [00:37:20] Surprised Righteous Hearts [00:37:20] Jesse Schwamb: So that by the time like we get to verse 37 when Jesus is saying the, the righteous are gonna answer him and they're gonna say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?" I think that's one of the most like theologically important verses in this passage, which proves the point you just made. And I think it's often under-read because the righteous, they don't remember doing any of these things for Christ. They are surprised. They have like no self-conscious ledger of merit that they can point to, and that surprise I think is devastating to works righteousness reading of the passage because- Yes if these people were consciously stacking up merit to present at the judgment, then they would've kept a very careful account. But instead, their works flowed so naturally and unselfconsciously from a renewed heart that they scarcely remembered them, let alone like regarded them as currency for salvation. And so I think, I know there's been a lot written, you and I have talked about a lot about how people wanna parse this idea of works, understanding that it has some place, but what is that proper place? This I think does lead us into like the right focus in that kind of discussion because it's precisely what like the Reformed doctrine of sanctification would predict, and that is, you know, truly gracious affections I think issue in Christian practice as a reliable sign, hear me out here, but crucially that practice is not calculated or like self-res- referential. It's like the spontaneous fruit of transformed nature, as natural it is for a good tree to bring forth good fruit. And so the righteous in this passage, they're not the legalists that some would, I think, portray them to be or get worried that they are. They're not tallying good deeds. They're simply people who, having been made new, and who makes them new? God in Christ, right, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Because they've been made new, they just could not help but love their neighbor.  [00:39:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:39:13] Sheep And Goats Identity [00:39:13] Tony Arsenal: Yeah, and, and you know, I think it's sometimes hard... We, we made the point last week that, um, the, the language in verse 32 where it says, uh, "He," He being the Son of Man, "He will separate one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats," that, that comparative as is the same language that introduces other parables. Right. And so the, the parable, parabolic element of this is a comparison to a shepherd separating two different kinds of animals in his, his bigger flock. Mm-hmm. I made the point that like we should be careful to overread sort of like what sheep are like into the behavior of those who are righteous on the right of Christ here. Um, because sheep are dumb, sheep do stupid things, sheep are disobedient. There, there's no use for like sheep to do good things and goats are not. And productive goats are also productive. Um, so what we should see though is that sheep are put on the right side because they are sheep, and goats are put on the, the left side because they are goats. Um, not because they act like sheep or because they act like goats, right? And so I think, yes, goats and sheep may have thinked behavioral, recognizable behavioral characteristics, but those characteristics flow from what they are. They don't make them what they are.  [00:40:35] Jesse Schwamb: That's right.  [00:40:35] Tony Arsenal: And so I think that's kind of what we see here in the parable, is the people on the, the right, the righteous on the right hand of the, the Son here, of the King as He sits on His glorious throne, the righteous simply do what righteous people do, right? They, they don't ... So much so, and again I think the shock of this is, is sort of the, the path of the teaching. The shock of this, the surprise of this on the part of the righteous are, uh, like it's palpable. And I think that when you actually talk to someone who is ... Think of the most sanctified, holy, righteous Christian you know, right? And I'm not gonna try to tell you who that is, but think of that person and think of a time that you have paid them a compliment or thanked them for doing the right thing.  [00:41:24] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:41:24] Tony Arsenal: They're like, "Oh, I didn't even think about that." Like, it's just not even on, not even on their radar. How many times have you, um, have you done a kind thing for someone at work and they like make a big deal out of it and you're like, "Oh, this is just I thought this is just what we do to each other. I thought we were just kind to each other." Um, and, and f- the flip side of this too is the, uh, the righteous in this parable or in this teaching, they're actually sort of like questioning the Lord's judgment in that they're saying like, "Wait a second, like w- why am I on the right here?" And He's like, "Well, uh, you were h- I was hungry and you fed me, and I, you know, I was thirsty and you gave me drink." And they're like, "When did we do that?" The flip side- Right ... of that is that those on the left, they're trying to justify themselves, right? They're trying to justify themselves, 'cause He's like, "Well, you didn't do these things. You're not my people." And they're like, "Well, when did we see you? When did we see you, when did you have these things happen and we didn't take care of it?" So the, the righteous are like surprised that this happened, and are almost questioning the fact that it's true, and the unrighteous are trying to justify themselves, basically blaming God. Bad judgment. It's not altogether, um... I forget which pro- I wanna say Micah or Malachi, one of those two, um, um, where the, the, um, God basically says, like, "Y- you, you're sinful people." And they're like, "When? When were we sinful people? Like, you tell me." Yeah. And then of course he does, 'cause it's the prophets. Right. But it's the same kind of thing. He comes to the, to the unrighteous in judgment. He says, "Depart from me, y- you cursed people." And then he says, "These are the, these are the things that have marked your life." And then they're like, "Where, when did that mark my life? Like, what are you talking about?" And he, he, the funny part is he doesn't give them an answer. He doesn't explain to them really. Right. He, he just like, "No, you can go, you can go away from me 'cause you." He does say like, "Well, you never, you did not do this to the least of these," and we, we need to unpack that phrase a little bit. But he doesn't give a long explanation to them justifying his judgment. He just makes the statement, basically makes the statement again, "You just didn't do it, so that's the consequence of eternal punishment." Um, again, not in like, "You didn't feed the poor, therefore you're going to hell" kind of a statement. It's more like, "You are not the kind of person that is a, a part of my kingdom." [00:43:48] Jesse Schwamb: Right.  [00:43:49] Tony Arsenal: Without necessarily a firm statement about w- how that came to be, just a statement, "You are not the kind of person that is part of my kingdom." That's  [00:43:56] Jesse Schwamb: right. That's right. I think that's actually very evident in these, like, six concrete works of mercy which are listed, feeding, giving drink, hospitality to strangers, clothing, visiting the sick, uh, visiting the imprisoned. And as we've said before, those are not extraordinary feats. I mean, there's no mention- Right ... of miracles or doctrinal precision or heroic martyrdom. Yeah. It's just these ordinary, super unglamorous ministry of practical love, and I think that is significant, like you're saying, because it is a mark of true faith, this idea that it's found frequently not in spectacular religious performance, which is what some of the audience is probably after, honestly, but in this quiet but costly unnoticed compassion. And I think that is critical to understanding that those who have been identified and marked by Christ undertake these things with a seriousness, under being willing to bear the c- the cross and the curses and the cost of all those things, uh, because it is born out of a transformed life, one that has been re-identified almost as it were a new creation. And so that- Yeah ... created man does these things without putting the notches on the belts, so to speak, to tally them up because I think to that person that would be insane. What is the purpose of doing that? If I can't earn my salvation, I'm doing these things anyway. It, it wouldn't even matter. It's like trying to pay a bill that you have no money for anyway. Why would you then try to count the dollars that you have in your pocket to see if for some reason you could cover the cost? It's impossible. Yeah. And so everything changes to such a degree that I know we keep saying, like, surprised, and that is what is kind of manifested in the passage. But it's, it's not kind of like the shock of like, "I don't know what you're talking about." It's more, it's more this idea of, again, I think those being brought forward at the final judgment, and it's almost as if Jesus is saying, "You are coming into this kingdom- Because, or you are being, uh, allowed, so to speak, to come into my presence in the fullness because you did all those things. And their surprise is almost as to say, "Well, why would those things bring me into the fullness if I've, in fact, have inherited it because you've called me your own?" Does that make sense? Like, I think it's- Yeah ... there's a little bit gone there- Yeah ... that's not just they're kind of like, "Oh, this slipped my mind," or, uh, "It came so easy to me that I didn't even know I was doing it." I think it was more about the g- we should just get to the least of these then, right? Like, what does it mean- Yeah that they did these to the least of these, and how does that surprise fit into that?  [00:46:19] Tony Arsenal: Yeah.  [00:46:20] Least Of These Explained [00:46:20] Tony Arsenal: The other element of this that I think is super important for us to cover in the 10 minutes or so we have left. Um, this phrase, "the least of these," right? Yes. And, and this, this can really cause this passage to be misunderstood  Um, I wanna s- loud and clear, uh, taking care of the poor in our society, you know, mercy ministries outside of the church, those things are all good, and I think scripture makes an argument that we should be engaged in those, both individually and also that the church has an obligation to, um, to meet some practical needs of those who are destitute around it. Um, but that's not what this passage is saying, right? Right. So when we look at the phrase "the least" first, first thing that, that comes off here, right, in verse 40 where this phrase first appears, "Truly I say to you, as you did it to the least of these, my brothers, you did it to me." Right? This is not a general statement. The least of these are not, like, the lowest and meekest and poorest of the world. The least of these my brothers referring to those who belong to Christ. Right. Those who are related to me. And, and I actually think that that, that is probably, like, the hallmark of passage. Beyond, um, what we've talked about already of just sort of like not being about works righteousness, this is really about being a part of the church, right? They're marked by the fact that they have inherited this kingdom which was prepared for them before the foundation of the world. They're marked by the fact that, uh, they are the people of this king, so much so that the other people aren't e- the word king can't even appear in association with these other people. And this last part, they're marked by the way they have treated those in whom they are with c- in, in community with, right? They're marked by the way they have treated those who are related to the king by blood, who are adopted, who are married to the king, who are in, in the family of the king, his brothers. [00:48:17] Jesse Schwamb: Yeah. Okay.  [00:48:18] Tony Arsenal: So this is painting a picture of kind of what we see, right? W- we see in, uh, Galatians, right? Um, "Do, do good to all people, especially the household of faith." Mm-hmm. Right? Uh, our own tagline, "Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood," right? That's, that's a statement of like, yes, you're supposed to be kind to all people, but you're especially supposed to be kind and be committed to and taking care of those who are in the household of faith, who are in the church. That is what this passage is about. That is what marks those people who belong to the king. The sheep are part of the sh- part of the sheep because they're in that same flock, because they- Right ... are ontologically, they've been made new and they've been renewed into this new creation as sheep. Um, that's what this passage is getting at. And then the people who, uh, who are not a part of that, they, they have not done anything with the church. They're not associated with the church. They didn't take care of the church. They didn't, they didn't feed the church. They didn't do anything with that. And this, this again, like, think about, like, Acts chapter, you know, when, when, um, when Paul is, when Saul is called by Christ, right? "When did I persecute you?" "Well, you, why are you persecuting me, Saul? Well, you persecuted my people." So this, this passage ties a lot of those same s- same threads together- Yeah ... in a way that I think presents this really cohesive picture of what it is that's going on. This is not works righteousness. Right. [00:49:37] Serving Christ In Church [00:49:37] Tony Arsenal: This is an assessment of the fact that you are, in fact, a m- a member of the people of God, that you have been engrafted into Christ and have become a part of his body. And just as he is our head, we are his body. The people who are cast out, the reason he never knew them is 'cause they've never been engrafted into him. [00:49:55] Jesse Schwamb: Right. Sometimes this does, I think, get read and defined as, like, the all the poor and suffering writ large, which is helpful, but I don't think, like, the dominant view here, at least in my perspective. And you, and you tell me otherwise. Yeah. Because, uh, on this view, of course, like, Christ does identify with all who suffer, and that maybe mercy to any sufferer is mercy to him. I think that could be partly correct, part reflection and application here. However, the stronger view, I think, e- like, even historically, is that- Really we're talking about, especially when we get to, like, visiting those in prison, the, the persecuted or itinerant Christian missionary. When we're talking about the imprisonment and persecution language is, that especially suits believers suffering for the gospel's sake, not merely the poor in general. Now, is, are there ways for us as Christians to embody the gospel and to be a witness for Christ by going out and performing acts of social justice? I would say yes, if you connect those items explicitly to the gospel. That is, that you make it clear your emphasis, genesis, your volition comes through this message of who Christ is. Otherwise, there's plenty of institutions doing very good things, and I don't necessarily, what's in view here i

7/23/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 4:3. Circumcision Binds to the Law. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/circumcision-covenant-enrollment.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

#Logos #Orthodoxy #Christianity In this stream I discuss the popular argument going around social media and among a few academics such as John Marco Alegro arguing that Christianity is in origin a fertility cult that mythologized Jesus Christ from the ancient inebriating rituals surrounding psychedelic mushroom use. When placed into historical context, I argue that all the visual evidence for this theory fails to have significant merit and may very well been part of a esoteric gnostic ritual. Make sure to leave a comment and let me know what you think. God Bless

In this weeks episode, Dottie and Brandon tackle the topic of the rollout of the new UNA logo. Was it necessary? Is it appropriate for the time? They also discuss the modern logo trend that is pervading corporate branding. Do you think there is an issue with modern logos? Leave us a little comment to let us know! Sorry about the late upload y'all, its been a busy week for the Martinator. I added in some fun little bits to try and make up for it. Hope you think this episode is awesome! Intro shot by Reagan Lawson with music by Zeke Jones. #comedyvideo #podcast #interview #artist #artwork #awesome #campuslife #art #community #comedy #creativeadvice #collegeartist #college #collegelife #video #videos #funny #funnyvideo #silly #students #studentlife #artwork #beautiful #community #design #education #explore #entertainment #explorepage #editing #foryou #fun #hosts #highlights #happy #improvement #instagram #inspiration #jokes #like #motivation #memes #movie #viral #viralvideo #viralvideos #2026 #trending #trendy #trendingvideo #trends

5 Hours and 24 MinutesPG-13Dr Johnson and Thomas joined Pete for a discussion on what Right-Wing Hegelianism is, and how it applies to the present day.Hegel's (1807) Phenomenology of Spirit: An Introduction to Hegel's Social Ontology by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonHegel's Phenomenology of Spirit: The Rational Structure of Experience, Logos and the Nation  by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonWhat Did Hegel Mean by “Dialectics?” - by Dr. Matthew Raphael JohnsonDr Johnson's PatreonDr Johnson's CashApp - $Raphael71RusJournal.orgTHE ORTHODOX NATIONALISTDr. Johnson's Radio Albion PageDr. Johnson's Books on AmazonThomas' SubstackThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

"For an experiment, I denoted the last ten generations and attempted to define the song of their generation. Some were easy and some quite difficult. I offer five possibilities first and then pick. See if I made the correct choice."

7/22/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/ordinances-christian-churches-commonly.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

7/21/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 5:1. Stand Firm in Freedom. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/christ-has-set-us-free.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

#Logos #Orthodoxy #Christianity In this stream I am joined by Dr. Daniel Cantey to discuss the historical and philosophical problems of Reformed theology that apologist like Gavin Ortland fail to fully recognize. Make sure to leave a comment and let me know what you think. God Bless

7/20/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 4:31. Conclusion of Allegory. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: none Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned

Send us Fan MailMost men have been trained to see the “male gaze” as something to apologize for — a coarse, objectifying reflex to suppress or perform your way out of. Either you're the bro who can't see past a woman's body, or you're the guy in the loafers and matcha latte performing a “female gaze” so hard it becomes its own kind of costume.In this episode, Jordan revisits a line from The Alabaster Girl that's followed him for thirteen years — women have a beauty song — and asks Zan whether it still holds. What follows is one of the most philosophically dense conversations on the podcast: gratitude as the lens that transforms looking into witnessing, the difference between a woman posed as a nude and a woman caught naked and unguarded, and why Zan refuses to be embarrassed about the fact that his eyes are drawn to the female form.They get into the man in the coffee shop who watches a woman order her latte and lets her walk out the door without chasing her — and why Zan calls that moment “code complete.” The phrase Zan wrote in his new book: a woman's walk is the oldest promise in the world. Freud's split between exhibitionism and voyeurism, and why every peep show needs a pervert. And Zan's answer to the discourse around male gaze versus female gaze — which he'd never even heard of before Jordan brought it up.Watch until the end for Zan's real-time reinterpretation of John Berger's “nude vs. naked” distinction — and his own bikini-versus-underwear version of it.__________________________________________________Ars Amorata, Summer '26:Text Her — Stan's course on apps and messaging: from swipe right to archetype. Opens soon.https://amorati.me/courses/text-her/Perception, Openness, Beauty — Online weekend intensive with Jordan, 18-19 July. Inside the Guild.https://arsamorata.com/guild/Desire in the Afternoon — Private salon-consultation with Jordan. 25-26 July, Bali. (Two-day option with embodied women's feedback newly added.)https://desireintheafternoon.carrd.co/Amorati Guild Summer Holiday — A beach weekend in Vama Veche with Zan. 21-23 August, Romania.https://arsamorata.com/guild/____________________________________________________Need a gunslinger? Someone who rides into town, completely solves your problem, then rides off into the sunset. Contact Zan Perrion personally to inquire about his incredibly effective one-on-one Laser Coaching. Find him here: https://arsamorata.com/gunslinger/__________________________________Get instant access to our 4 part mini-course with Zan Perrion

Deplatforming is real. So two Orthodox filmmakers built their own infrastructure: “an Orthodox Netflix” designed to outlast trends and serve truth, goodness, and beauty. You can feel it the moment you walk into an Orthodox church: beauty isn't decoration, it's a doorway. That's the thread we pull with Logos Cinema (https://www.logoscinema.com/) founders Zachary Delaney and Andrew Stokich as they explain why they're building what many are calling “an Orthodox Netflix” and why it has to be more than a content library.• Beauty as a window into the divine through moving images• Why simple stories can carry the deepest Orthodox meaning• The hero's journey as a pattern that resonates with the Gospel and the lives of the saints• How COVID-era cultural pressure and distribution dead-ends sparked Logos Cinema• Orthodox phronema on screen, from saint stories to everyday sacrificial love• A convert filmmaker's struggle with “in the world, not of it” and the parable of the talents• Building independent infrastructure in response to censorship and demonetization• The bigger vision: networking creators, an Orthodox economy, and expanding beyond videoJeremy Jeremiah talks with Logos Cinema about icons as stories that are written, and how filmmaking can become “moving iconography,” a window into the divine without turning into preachy, low-quality Christian media. From Dostoyevsky's line “beauty will save the world” to the hero's journey that shows up across cultures, we explore why the most powerful films often plant a seed and let God do the slow work in the heart. Along the way, we get concrete: how distribution questions kill promising projects, why great films can still go unseen, and what it means to build a platform that can actually support Orthodox Christian filmmakers.Then we go deeper into the realities of the modern internet: demonetization, deplatforming, and the risk of building your creative life on platforms you don't control. Logos Cinema is aiming for independent infrastructure, global reach, and a growing Orthodox economy that supports creators and Orthodox-run businesses, while still refusing to become an echo chamber. We also dig into their curation criteria, including a priest advisory board and the careful, nuanced line between mature storytelling and spiritually harmful content.Can a streaming subscription become a counterculture act? Logos Cinema says yes: support creators, grow an Orthodox economy, and connect artists worldwide.If you care about Orthodox storytelling, faith and culture, and a serious future for Orthodox films, podcasts, and media, hit subscribe, share this conversation with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find it.Questions about Orthodoxy? Please check out our friends at Ghost of Byzantium Discord server: https://discord.gg/JDJDQw6tdhPlease prayerfully consider supporting Cloud of Witnesses: https://www.patreon.com/c/CloudofWitnessesFind Cloud of Witnesses on Instagram, X.com, Facebook, and TikTok.Audio: https://cloudofwitnessesradio.buzzsprout.comPlease leave a comment with your thoughts!

Ben Black of Co-founder & MD of Akkadian Ventures and CIO of Powerlaw Corp joins Nick to discuss Opening Late-Stage Venture to Everyone, Beating 10-Year Lockups, Why Logos Don't Equal Alpha, and Building Power Law as a Public VC Fund. In this episode we cover: Details of Power Law's Portfolio and Investment Strategy Challenges and Benefits of Power Law Innovation and Evolution in Venture Capital Balancing Demand and Supply in Power Law Regulatory Compliance and Educational Efforts Future of Power Law and Market Positioning Guest Links: Ben's LinkedIn Ben's X Powerlaw Corp (PWRL)'s LinkedIn Powerlaw Corp (PWRL)'s Website Akkadian Ventures' Website The host of The Full Ratchet is Nick Moran of New Stack Ventures, a venture capital firm committed to investing in founders outside of the Bay Area. We're proud to partner with Ramp, the modern finance automation platform. Book a demo and get $150—no strings attached.   Want to keep up to date with The Full Ratchet? Follow us on social. You can learn more about New Stack Ventures by visiting our LinkedIn and Twitter

7/19/26. Five Minutes in the Word scriptures for today: Galatians 4:19. Promise vs Bondage. Sources: copilot; biblehub.com; Faithlife Study Bible and Logos.com. Blog for this lesson: https://minutesword.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-two-voices-promise-vs-bondage.html Podcast on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/@hhwscott Podcast website: https://www.hwscott.net/podcast.php Listen daily at 10:00 am CST on https://kingdompraiseradio.com LISTEN, LIKE, FOLLOW, SHARE! #MinutesWord; @MinutesWord; #dailybiblestudy #dailydevotional #Christian_podcaster Barnes Notes on the Bible https://amzn.to/445yM1g  #CommissionsEarned