Видео

Thank you, James!! I appreciate you watching and your kind words and thoughtful questions. I use the expressions "sky-vault/s" and "kingdom of sky-vault" (Israelite Theocracy) PRECISELY to make viewers and listeners stop and inquire. It's like the effect that happens when driving over a rumble strip along the highway at night. John Pilch and the other Context Group explain in several publications that "heaven," while a perfectly fine word for prayers, liturgies, theologies, and catechisms, it doesn't belong in our English Bibles. "Heaven" meaning an eternalized relationship between God and those God saves, the eternal destiny of creation, is fine! But that's not what the Hebrew šāmayim, Aramaic šĕmayin, or Greek ouranois really refer to. While they do refer to the "sky," these words also don't translate to the skies we know of and understand through weather science, modern astronomy, astrophysics, and scientific cosmologies... etc. Therefore "sky" (as seen through our post-Enlightenment Western consensus reality) is not really the right translation either. These terms translated to the VAULTED skies as understood by ancient circum-Mediterranean peoples, specifically Israelites. They were understood to be composed of either polished metallic mirror or crystal, and by the first-century CE had long been understood to encompass the spherical yet stationary Earth in a series of encompassing spheres. Watch the video linked below. ruclips.net/video/6i7SR81uJOI/видео.html So I use "sky-vault/s" because it more accurately conveys what is being communicated. Even if the exact expression wasn't used by John Pilch and Bruce Malina, it is consistent with what they present in various works (see their SOCIAL SCIENCE COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, for example). Wherever there is an English misrendering into "heaven/s," one can replace this with "sky-vault/s." If Jesus did anything, he proclaimed Israelite Theocracy. For Israelites like Jesus, the politically correct expression for Israelite Theocracy ("kingdom of God") was "the kingdom of sky-vault." This is explained by both Malina and Pilch by using the expression "kingdom of heaven" to avoid confusion among their readers. I am just forcing some consistency there and better translating this with all due respect to my teachers. The pieces are all there in Malina and Pilch. I just put their work together consistently in this regard.

@@Yanky-w4z good for you. Do so in peace. And that’s right. God never told you that. Why would God say such a thing? Are you claiming that I am saying otherwise? Please show me where I claimed that. And by the way: God never told me that either.

@@BibleAlivePresentations why would God say such a thing? The same that he told us, how we should repent. If something has changed I would expect God to tell us, so.

@@Yanky-w4z Hey schmuck? I asked you a direct question: are you accusing me of claiming something about God telling you to do something-what was it?-to make a human being die for your sons? WHERE did I say that? Is it really difficult for you to read basic English? I won’t play games. Cite me where I claimed such a thing.

@@BibleAlivePresentations mistake, I meant, sins.

@@Yanky-w4z where do I claim that either? Where do I claim that you need a human being to die for your sins?

Thank you for your question, lasalinks! As I explained to 0Enidan0 below, Psychologist Stan Krippner (see his 1972 article "ALTERED STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS," pp: 1-5 of THE HIGHEST STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS edited by J. White), renowned as a pioneer in the study of consciousness, enumerated twenty different states of consciousness. But then anthropologist Vincent Crapanzano (see his 2001 piece, “The Etiquette of Consciousness,” in SOCIAL RESEARCH n. 68, pp. 627-49) listed more than thirty-five states of consciousness! These include dreams, daydreams, nightmares, incubation dreams, directing imagings, hallucinations, dédoublements de conscience, illusions, visions, depersonalization, derealization, bodiliness, the stare, fugues, sexual ecstasy, mystical ecstasy, prayerfulness, inspiration, furor, aesthetic contemplation, Ergriffenheit (being seized), being charmed, transported (in the French sense of transporter), entranced, hypnotic trance, possession trance, television trance, distractions, soul loss, soul flight, shamanistic trance, nirvana-like experiences, susto (sudden, overwhelming fear), near-death experiences, and many drug-induced experiences. These, of course, are in addition to “normal” or “waking” consciousness -- experiences in culturally-specific CONSENSUS reality. All these distinct states of consciousness actually shade into the others most proximate along a continuum. At one end of this sequence is "alert," and at the opposite end are the deep states (trance). Often without realizing it, we shift levels of consciousness many times throughout the day, often without realizing it.

Thank you for this! Yes, and there is solid research to back up that many charismatic and Pentecostal Christian experiences are precisely Altered States of Consciousness (ASC experiences). These experiences are panhuman--the human nervous system is "hardwired" for them via evolution. Psychologist Stan Krippner (see his 1972 article "ALTERED STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS," pp: 1-5 of THE HIGHEST STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS edited by J. White), renown as a pioneer in the study of consciousness, has enumerated twenty different states of consciousness. And then anthropologist Vincent Crapanzano (see his 2001 piece, “The Etiquette of Consciousness,” in SOCIAL RESEARCH n. 68, pp. 627-49) lists more than thirty-five states of consciousness: dreams, daydreams, nightmares, incubation dreams, directing imagings, hallucinations, dédoublements de conscience, illusions, visions, depersonalization, derealization, bodiliness, the stare, fugues, sexual ecstasy, mystical ecstasy, prayerfulness, inspiration, furor, aesthetic contemplation, Ergriffenheit (being seized), being charmed, transported (in the French sense of transporter), entranced, hypnotic trance, possession trance, television trance, distractions, soul loss, soul flight, shamanistic trance, nirvana-like experiences, susto (sudden, overwhelming fear), near-death experiences, and many drug-induced experiences. These, of course, are in addition to “normal” or “waking” consciousness. We have learned that these states of consciousness actually shade into the others most proximate along a continuum. At one end of this sequence is "alert," and at the opposite end, deep states (trance). Often without realizing it, we shift levels of consciousness many times throughout our days, often without realizing it. These can be termed spontaneous trance experiences. One sees MANY occurrences of these "spontaneous trance experiences" in the book called "Acts" (e.g., Acts 5:19; 12:6-11, where Peter escapes from prison, or 11:28, where Agabus declares a forthcoming famine, or 18:9-10, where some speak in tongues and prophesy). We human beings CAN intentionally induce trance experiences, and we see this activity in the New Testament also. Common strategies include listening to music, viewing art, drinking alcohol, and the like. The late Dr. Felicitas Goodman focused especially on ecstatic trance, especially since learning from her own research and that of Dr. Erika Bourguignon that trance states were not only normal but institutionalized into religious practices of ninety-six percent of the 486 small societies that they studied in the database of the Human Relations Area Files at Yale University (see Belinda Gore's 1995 "ECSTATIC BODY POSTURES: AN ALTERNATE REALITY WORKBOOK," p. 4). Goodman also recognized that ancient rites CAN serve as models for contemporary human beings even though they were embedded into alien social contexts that we cannot duplicate. Eventually, Goodman successfully formulated and instructed a ceremonial rite her The Cuyamungue Institute according with ethnographic evidence and contemporary insights from neuroscience. "Acts" also gives many examples of methods employed to INTENTIONALLY induce trance states: fasting episodes (Acts 9:9-12; 10:10; 13:1-3), utilizing sacred places and objects (Acts 2:1-4; 22:17-18), deciding on a technique to visit Alternate Reality (Acts 1:14; 2:1; 3:4; 6:17--7:20), engaging the ergotropic driver that is the sense of smell (Acts 9:11; 10:9-23; 11:1-14; 10:44-49; 11:15-18; 22:17). It is tragic that Christian traditions actually open to and enriched by ASC experiences are poor regarding a theology of these experiences and availing themselves of insights from the social sciences and neuroscience!

​@BibleAlivePresentations Thank you for the thoughtful response! I'll have to look into those books. And yes, I agree. I was raised in the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition, and a lot of them are fundamentalist and I would agree that they have poor theology. One of these days, as part of your research, you should look into some of their events where they have prophets and things come to speak. Sometimes they are way off base, but occasionally you will run into some who really deliver some type of "prophetic" individual word.

@@dhamir77ds I dare.

@@BibleAlivePresentations okey please go to hell..

You personally "are knowned" to be smart, huh? Okay: what is the topic of this presentation?

@@BibleAlivePresentations how dumb does one have to be, to believe in Jesus?

@@Yanky-w4z less dumb than being an Internet troll. How stupid does one have to be in order to boost his supposed intelligence by mocking others as stupid? Are you using two ply Kleenex? Why don’t you go see a freaking psychiatrist before it’s too late? Cheers

I'm very sad for you. Just because you would rather believe the gentiles what it says in the Torah given to YOU! Rather than listening to your own people that are learning it day and night, by the hundreds of thousands as we speak, from when it has been given to us. ​@@BibleAlivePresentations

Thank you for your question. No. Yes, there are mistakes made by biblical authors. Inspiration doesn't mean God-dictation. It also doesn't mean free from all errors. If the library we call "BIble" is inerrant (a recent Christian idea, btw), then it has a salvific inerrancy, not a cognitive inerrancy. And even then, things need to be unpacked. This particular case doesn't prove "mistakes" in the Biblical texts (there are plenty of others that do demonstrate just that), because no Biblical text set out to be a fact-precise biography or exact transcript of what Jesus said and where.

Thank you for watching! Yes and yes. The first reading of all Scripture is circum-Mediterranean culture where the core cultural values are honor and shame.

"Okay, so the 'term Christian' was not used in a derogatory manner. It was a term given to the disciples from the people [as you stated], in Antioch when they were "teaching" them!" Americans and Western people, individualists, have a HARD time understanding the PASSIVE VOICE. They did not call THEMSELVES that. They were INSULTINGLY called that by others. They WERE CALLED = passive voice. In Jesus’ lifetime, the same period of the condemned man on the cross, the term Χριστιανός did not yet exist. Secondly, if it had existed, its meaning-‘partisan of Christ’, ‘Christ lackey’-would have prevented it from being used of Jesus who was rather thought to be the Christ himself. And why would the man on the Cross who HONORED Jesus take up an insulting title meant to mock Jesus and his followers? The followers of Jesus during his lifetime classified should not be classified as Χριστιανόι (‘Christians’) since the nomenclature had not yet been created. Χριστιανός appears only three times in the New Testament, always in the PASSIVE VOICE, and in only two writings from the later third of the first century: Acts 11.26; Acts 26.28; 1 Peter 4.16 As John Elliott explains, "Christian" is a Greek term with a borrowed Latin ending (-ιανός / -ianus), it originated within Latin-speaking or Latin-influenced circles where ‘Christ’ was regarded as a proper name and the suffix -ianus designated a partisan, adherent or client of the one named, in analogy to formulations such as Herodianoi (Mark 3.6; 12.13; Matthew 22.16), Kaisarianoi, Oualentinianoi and the like. Χριστιανόι originated not as a term of self-identification but as an opprobrious label coined by outsiders to mock and demean the followers of the crucified Jesus Christ as ‘Christ lackeys’. It was only slowly accepted by Christ-followers as a self-designation. Use of the terms ‘Christian’ and ‘Christianity’ today to identify Jesus and his earliest followers is anachronistic and problematic for reasons similar to those concerning ‘Jew’ and ‘Judaism’. The words as employed today imply elements of belief and behavior that became essential features of Christianity only in the elaboration of christological and trinitarian doctrine and ecclesial practice after the New Testament period. Calling Jesus, the good thief on the cross, and the earliest followers of Jesus ‘Christians’ or members of ‘Christianity’, or imagining Paul’s experiencing of God’s revelation and call as a ‘conversion’ to Christianity, erroneously presuppose an already existent ‘religion’ and social entity independent of Israel to which Jesus and his earliest followers belonged and to which Paul ‘converted’. This is a presupposition that every serious student of the New Testament and this historical period knows to be BASELESS. Inappropriate application of these terms to Jesus and company, however, continues unabated, and the historical distortion remains a glaring problem. As John Pilch explained, it is LONG OVERDUE for interpreters, Bible translators, and commentators to cease and desist. Jesus and the Jesus movement (with all its various movement groups) have their roots in Israel, not ‘Judaism’. They were, in the nascent period, predominantly ‘Israelites’, not ‘Jews’; Galileans, not Judaeans; Nazoreans, not ‘Christians’. They belonged to the House of Israel, not ‘Christianity’.

Western people are bedeviled with the PASSIVE VOICE. WHO called them Χριστιανόι? “They were called…” indicates the passive voice. They didn’t call themselves that. Other people-enemies-called them that. Did the New Testament Jesus Groups approve of this label and use it as a self-designation? It nowhere says that. You are reading that into the text. Besides the followers of Jesus in those earliest post-resurrection Jesus groups honored Jesus. Why would any of them use an insulting slur intended to degrade Jesus and his disciples? EVENTUALLY, the nomenclature Χριστιανόι, evolved into being an honorific. But by the time "Acts" and "1 Peter" were composed, this had not yet developed. Therefore, every time modern people classify believers of Jesus from the first three centuries common era as “Christians” it is always incorrect. Χριστιανός, or some form of it, is found only three times in the New Testament, in just two documents, “Acts” and “1 Peter.” Acts 11:26 For a whole year they met with the [Jesus group] assembly and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called [by other people] Χριστιανούς. Reading Acts 11:26, it is clear that that the name was given to the group by outsiders. Again, Western people have an extreme difficulty understanding the passive voice. “They were called…” indicates the passive voice. That means they didn’t call themselves Χριστιανούς. Instead, other people-enemies, as we will see-called them that. Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You will soon persuade me to play the Χριστιανον.” Coming to Acts 26:28, we read that Agrippa uses a form of the term. Two things to note here. First, Agrippa is an outsider to the Jesus group. Second, he uses Χριστιανον mockingly. 1 Peter 4:16 But whoever is made to suffer as a Χριστιανός (Christ-lackey) should not be ashamed but glorify God because of the name. Finally, we read Χριστιανός in 1 Peter 4:16. Here it appears to bear a pejorative meaning. So the term Χριστιανός is best translated as “Christ-lackeys.” You and I are Christians. That's fine. But New Testament people were not. Neither were second-century Jesus-group people (e.g., Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Marcion, etc). Body of Christ exists in the first century. But no one was Christian back then, except by way of degrading, dehumanizing insult.

@BibleAlivePresentations Would you please stop with all of that mambo jumbo. There were no Christians back then. There was no religion called Christian or identity . If it meant "Christ-lackey," the Scriptures would have used it and interpreted it to show they were being ridiculed for teaching and preaching about Christ, but that is not what the SCRIPTURES say!! People were listening and turning to the faith while they were there!! Acts 11:16-30 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem; and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith; and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul; and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world; which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.

@@BibleAlivePresentations This is another handle I use, same as childofthemosthigh5219. So I want to elaborate on what you provided as well. The word Christ means Messiah. You saying the disciples are called "Christ-Lackeys" makes no sense. As we both agree, the Christian "religion" did not exist yet. However, the Latin term for nomenclature is described as the assigning of names. That is not derogatory!! The people simply were identifying them as followers of Messiah [Christ], calling them Christians. If you stop adding the word "Christ-Lackeys" into the texts, because that term is NOT there, then you can read it for what it actually means. According to the Scriptures you used, seems the Disciples ACCEPTED the term given them, as you provided in 1 Peter 4:16 "Yet IF ANY MAN SUFFERS AS A CHRISTIAN, LET HIM NOT BE ASHAMED, but let him glorify God on this behalf." You say the word "Christian means Christ-Lackey" and I interpret the word "Christian meaning a Jewish follower of Christ [Messiah]". The texts are what they are, and either way, a follower of Christ IS NOT TO BE ASHAMED, whether you believe it was a derogatory term or I believe it identifies the true follower. You read it one way, and I interpret it the other way. Bottom line is, the faith is what matters. I'm not going to argue over something so ridiculously petty! Either way, they were being persecuted for FOLLOWING CHRIST! So, please, spare me the semantics and name calling in this particular instance. The term Christian doesn't change the context and message!! My point in my comments was reminding people that "Christians" back then was not the same as it is today because that was not a RELIGION, it was a TERM used to IDENTIFY those JEWS who FOLLOWED MESSIAH YAHUSHUA [JESUS]. That's it! If someone called me a "Bible thumping Christian," which I have been called, along with many other insulting names and phrases, THEY would mean it offensively, HOWEVER, TO ME it is a compliment!! If I am attacked for FOLLOWING CHRIST, so be it! I am not a Christian, I am a Messianic Jew, and being a "Messianic Jew" is offensive to non-followers of Christ! Does that mean that being called a "Messianic Jew" is a defamatory, derogatory term? No! It identifies me as a believing JEW from a NON-believing Jew. Just because someone ELSE may use it offensively, it doesn't change who I am, what I am doing and WHO I am following!! So if being called a "Christian" by a NON-believer is SUPPOSED to be offensive, it IS NOT!! Call me a Christian or call me a Messianic Jew; it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things; my GOAL is the same ... JESUS!!

@@Skedawg88 Are you speaking to me?

You are in one right now. Human beings wander in and out of different levels many times a day: sleep, waking consciousness, daydreaming, road trance, fantasy, and so on. As Pilch explains, cognitive neuroscientists and anthropologists call these different levels of awareness altered states of consciousness (ASC). In general, they agree that at all times and in all places people have been capable of and actually entered a variety of altered states of consciousness. The potential to shift, voluntarily or involuntarily between different states of consciousness is a function of the universal human nervous system. All people have to cope with different states of consciousness in one way or another all the time! Are you referring to the more "exciting" states, like trances, visions, sky-journeys, etc? There are ways to induce these without eating, smoking, or injecting anything dubious.

Try a round of wim hof method breathwork.

About what?

@@BibleAlivePresentations It's hard to accept someone as the Messiah when you know him as the village's compulsive masturbator.

JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR. Why? Because it is NOT a film depicting Jesus as he was. Instead, it is a film/rock opera about a troupe of American and British actors ca. 1970 putting on a Passion Play and GRAPPLING with the best "New Quest" scholarship available at the time to ASK who Jesus is, who was Judas, Magdalene, the Twelve, etc. And all their baggage comes in -- hippie movement, anti-war protests, Government corruption and failure of institutions, sexual liberation, feminism, black power, etc. Yeah, it is the best in my opinion because it is most honest.

Thank you, Jem! That's helpful for me.

I am a Christian of the "C" Catholic tradition, often with DEEP frustration. Yes, I have baggage like everyone. I do believe and grapple to understand the Christian faith and its outcome, beliefs. I would be lying if my own spiritual experiences and baggage do not play a role in research and learning. EVeryone has baggage and no one arrives at what they hold to be true chemically isolated from that baggage. It's not all bad the baggage we have. But it isn't all good either.

The followers were FIRST called Χριστιανόι AS AN INSULT. Other people called them that. It was a slur originally. And it was never a self-designation. Language only means what it means where and when it is used. Whenever you move the language, you necessarily change the meaning. Where, when, and by whom the term we render as “Christian” indeed matters if we are to read respectfully what is being communicated. Western people are bedeviled with the PASSIVE VOICE. WHO called them Χριστιανόι? “They were called…” indicates the passive voice. They didn’t call themselves that. Other people-enemies-called them that. Did the New Testament Jesus Groups approve of this label and use it as a self-designation? It nowhere says that. You are reading that into the text. Besides the followers of Jesus in those earliest post-resurrection Jesus groups honored Jesus. Why would any of them use an insulting slur intended to degrade Jesus and his disciples? EVENTUALLY, the nomenclature Χριστιανόι, evolved into being an honorific. But by the time "Acts" and "1 Peter" were composed, this had not yet developed. Therefore, every time modern people classify believers of Jesus from the first three centuries common era as “Christians” it is always incorrect. Χριστιανός, or some form of it, is found only three times in the New Testament, in just two documents, “Acts” and “1 Peter.” Acts 11:26 For a whole year they met with the [Jesus group] assembly and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called [by other people] Χριστιανούς. Reading Acts 11:26, it is clear that that the name was given to the group by outsiders. Again, Western people have an extreme difficulty understanding the passive voice. “They were called…” indicates the passive voice. That means they didn’t call themselves Χριστιανούς. Instead, other people-enemies, as we will see-called them that. Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You will soon persuade me to play the Χριστιανον.” Coming to Acts 26:28, we read that Agrippa uses a form of the term. Two things to note here. First, Agrippa is an outsider to the Jesus group. Second, he uses Χριστιανον mockingly. 1 Peter 4:16 But whoever is made to suffer as a Χριστιανός (Christ-lackey) should not be ashamed but glorify God because of the name. Finally, we read Χριστιανός in 1 Peter 4:16. Here it appears to bear a pejorative meaning. So the term Χριστιανός is best translated as “Christ-lackeys.” You and I may be Christians. That's fine. But New Testament people were not. Neither were second-century Jesus-group people (e.g., Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Marcion, etc). Body of Christ exists in the first century. But no one was Christian back then, except by way of degrading, dehumanizing insult. Here is something that many Christians-as well as many biblical commentaries and translations-fail to do: they fail the necessary business of distinguishing INSIDER language from OUTSIDER language. They fail to distinguish SPEAKERS and AUDIENCE also. This is a GLARING MISTAKE because, as sociolinguists and social psychologists have established, insiders often employ different vocabulary when speaking to fellow insiders than when addressing outsiders. This includes different nomenclature of identification and self-identification.

Just watch out for both these guys. They both will play a role in the end times.

What I had to say would not go through but these 3 I just posted did. I know it was the truth and that's why it wouldn't pass. Beware of both those guys. Pray about it please. Blessings 🤗❤️

@@emmanuelgalanza5292 thank you. Much appreciated. I’m glad you found the channel. Please spread the word