Yeah, same here. I checked, and he did indeed say this (yt).

Was just thinking the same thing. Why is Roe Jogan so far beyond parody?

Lol I didn't doubt it for a moment. You must be unfamiliar with the depths of Rogan's idiocy.

I wish he only said weird silly pothead stuff like this.

This dude got his start by eating bugs and wrestling men in his underwear. If you consider Joe Rogan manly you are ripe for his grift being the only life on earth dumber than him.

As a child they put his swing to close to the wall.

I envy people that don't know him.

People giving Spotify too much fuckin money

To convince Joe you have to say that the thing is a conspiracy theory(ex mrna vaccines) and get someone that is shunned/dismissed from a community for being a crackpot(ex: an anti vax doctor).

It makes Joe feel like he is part of an exclusive club of people who know the "real" truth.

Except the barbarian Khan actually had accomplishments. Rogan just asks stupid questions.

if there’s true believers out there buying into this shit

Leaving Joe Rogan aside, I remember the case of one Google employee who believed that their AI programs had reached sentience (and god-like status?). So, yes.

People think he's smart. I think some people want him to be right because they identify more with him, and he says some of the same things they think.

Humanity is fucked isn’t it?

We're genetically 96% identical to chimpanzees, considering that, we're not doing too bad

Joe believes in ghosts right?

I listened to him for a few episodes, and eventually said this out loud, then stopped.

I feel like the current iteration of Joe Rogan is from the mirror universe. I remember when he was just a pretty chill stoner comedian who literally told people not to listen to him about science or politics because he doesn't actually know shit. Like, he used to be self-aware.

how could their thoughts be real if their prayers aren't?

The immaculate conception in Catholic doctrine actually refers to Mary being born without original sin. I think the idea is only a sinless woman could give birth to the son of God. But yeah, not like it makes any difference to Joe.

Erman is a terrible scholar, for one. The other thing is that, for centuries, the Septuagint was used as the Bible. It wasn’t treated like a translation the way we do. It’s that, for a long time, the Bible was Greek. It had been Hebrew, then it was Greek, then around the 600s or so it was Hebrew again. That later Hebrew Bible is called the Masoretic Text and was the one chosen by Protestants for the Old Testament because, in their thinking, the Hebrew was older than the Greek. But they didn’t really consider the fact that the Masoretic Text is over a thousand years newer than the Septuagint (it being a reconstruction of the Hebrew Bible based on re-translating the Greek with the aid of the Samaritan Pentateuch, etc.). So the Septuagint used the Greek term for “virgin” which is the only reading the gospel writers would have known. The Masoretic Text translates the relevant Isaiah passage with a Hebrew word that means “maiden.” And there’s some argument out there that they did so in opposition to the Christian reading of the passage. There’s a really great book about this entitled When God Spoke Greek.

TL;DR, The “virgin” reading is accurate to the ancient understanding of the Isaiah passage because that was the only one they had at the time. The “maiden” reading is known to us from a Hebrew text that is at least 600 years more recent than the time of Jesus.

The better way to say it is let them believe he was born to a virgin. Which means he got no Y chromosome from a male sperm. So jesus born from two XX chromosomes, was not male, and also not white.

Imma assume he meant "Jesus could absolutely return as AI"