Platonist and Orthodox Images | with Dr. Wolfgang Smith (The Meaning Code)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- This is a repost of a discussion I had on The Meaning Code RUclips channel and podcast with Karen Wong, Dr. Richard Smith and Dr. Wolfgang Smith.
The majority of this discussion was about bringing my and Wolfgang's work together. He is a scholar and researcher in the fields of mathematics and physics, but he is also a writer on theology, metaphysics, and religion. We discuss both our work and how they connect, sacred art, geometry, the Renaissance, materialism, perennialism, sacrifice, measurement, the continuity of identity and much more.
Original interview:
The Meaning Code - Jonathan Pageau /Wolfgang Smith: The Coexistence of Multiplicity & Unity: Symbolism of the Cross: • Jonathan Pageau /Wolfg...
Books mentioned:
Wolfgang's books (selected out of a long list)
-The Vertical Ascent
- The Quantum Enigma
- Cosmos and Transcendence
- Ancient Wisdom and Modern Misconceptions
The new physics by Stephen Wolfram: wolframphysics.org
==================
Timestamps:
00:00:00 - Coming up next...
00:01:23 - Intro music
00:01:47 - Start
00:02:48 - Introducing the guests
00:06:16 - Introduction to the discussion
00:07:00 - Dr. Smith's Tripartite Cosmos (Platonist) icon
00:12:44 - Jonathan's question about the image
00:13:45 - Platonic geometry and time
00:17:13 - The 3 parts of this image
00:19:28 - Making this image 3D
00:20:42 - Applications in Christianity
00:23:26 - Spatial relationships between icons
00:26:25 - Icons showing simultaneity
00:28:24 - Jonathan's "Images of Everything"
00:32:54 - The intended impact of these images
00:35:43 - St. Peter saved by Christ
00:37:38 - Jonathan's style of carving
00:38:37 - The icon of Jonah
00:39:19 - Divine darkness
00:40:54 - A hostile relationship between center and periphery
00:42:04 - Is there anything above the aeviternal realm?
00:44:32 - Materialism and the mystery of the Cross
00:49:39 - Perennialism and the Vedic tradition
00:57:45 - Measurement and sacrifice
01:00:30 - Transcending the dichotomy
01:04:58 - Measurement and identity
01:11:21 - AI and self-driving cars
01:13:42 - Coherence of identity over time
01:18:57 - Obstacles as the gift
01:21:24 - Iconographers in the Orthodox Church
01:24:23 - Catholic sacred art
01:27:13 - The Renaissance and perspective in sacred art
01:30:12 - Wolfgang's work
01:33:27 - Something new on the horizon
==================
- The Symbolic World website and blog: www.thesymbolicworld.com
- Merch: www.thesymbolicworld.store
- The Language of Creation (Matthieu Pageau): www.amazon.com/Language-Creat...
- Carving workshop: jonathanpageau.thinkific.com/...
The Symbolic World podcast:
- Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0gI8bUw...
- Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
More videos from The Symbolic World:
- Odysee: odysee.com/@thesymbolicworld:2
- Clips Channel: / jonathanpageauclips
- French Channel: / jonathanpageaufrançais
- Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/page...
- Dtube: steemit.com/@symbolism
Join the conversation:
- Unofficial Facebook discussion group: / 1989208418065298
- The Symbolic World Reddit: / thesymbolicworld
Support this channel:
- Website: thesymbolicworld.com/support/
- Patreon: / pageauvideos
- Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/jonatha...
- Paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
Social media links:
- Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
- Twitter: / pageaujonathan
- Instagram: / jonathan.pageau
My intro was arranged and recorded by Matthew Wilkinson.
My website designers, Anomalist Design: www.anomalistdesign.com/
Dr. R. Smith asked Jonathan what he attempts to accomplish through his iconography. At 41:00 Dr. W. Smith's exclamation "Beautiful!" brought great emotion to me and a recognition that this is exactly what Jonathan is aiming for. Surprised by Beauty. Surprised by Joy.
may be the most important conversation i’ve been able to listen to in my life god is good
I wish we could listen to more of the discussion about René Guenon from the beginning. I hope Jonathan makes a video about him explaining where they agree and disagree someday
It's in one of his interviews
Pageau says Rene Guenon can really shatter your worldview and open the space for a symbolic worldview.
Pageau warns that having your worldview shattered can be dangerous because you need a worldview in order to act.
Pageau says Rene goes wrong is that he stands over all religions choosing the parts he likes and discarding the parts he doesn't like; in other words, he doesn't submit to the Father because he worships his own logic.
I prefer his catholic disciple Jacob Robin
Jonathan gives an explanation about many of them in the podcast with James kourtides
ruclips.net/video/PjOwRIBPUU8/видео.html check this interview. I remember him bringing up Rene Guenon
This was wonderful, so much cumulative wisdom explored here. I love the younger Dr Smith's statement that we are using material to answer questions of the world when it itself cannot answer the question of its existence.
So glad Pageau's and Smiths paths finally met
This discussion was so good! Thank you Jonathan for making this available for us.
Karen Wong does a really great job moderating here.
The discussion was really interesting and has relit my old interest in let's say composition and motion generally. Reminded me of so many things that I last stewed over a decade ago. Maybe it's time to mull them over again! Thanks!
Pageau, seeing you in conversation with people of this caliber shows how powerful and different symbolic thinking is in our time.
You're obviously also high IQ but I get the feeling that symbolic thinking can be understood by anyone who can participate in a story.
Symbolic thinking is the future of education, if we are to avoid the paganism that is building and building right now.
Dr. Wolfgang Smith, I absolutely agree with your work & Thank YOU to Karen & Richard too. Beautiful people🌟🌟🌟I would love to discuss further and share some more perspectives. Love the images to be carved Jonathan. GEOMETRY.🌈🌈🌈
This is the best podcast I’ve ever watched. It explains everything.
Regarding icons being experienced not in a vacuum, I remember telling a young man that wanted to learn more about them, "Let's go to a Byzantine church, and I will show you the icons in their natural habitat". I still think it is the best way to experience them.
This podcast changed my life! Thank you.
That opening clip makes a lot of sense. I've been struggling with the idea of mimeses and how to reconcile mimicking Christ while not losing your particularity. I.g. am I just larping Christ?
But in ascending and going from glory to glory, you sacrifice what is bad and are left with your authentic self, in an ironic way, not just modern Buddhist fall into simply Being (actually non-being). But actually becoming real and incarnate. One thing that I think trips us up in the law of identity (A=A). It introduces difference by implying "A is not B," and implies rigidity but I've heard Pavel Florensky say that's not quite right, but should be something like A+/- which implies dying and becoming something new by knowing and relating to the world.
Not sure how this works mechanically but I believe in Grace, Glory, and Telos.
What is your “authentic self”?? Your the judge of calling what is and what isn’t? I might be misunderstanding
@@CarlosVargas-jz8gl That's like asking what is the essence of your person/hypostasis. It's a mystery and can only be manifested through your will, which needs grace, not to mention a pure heart, etc. Knowledge isn't rational in EO, it's an ontological thing, it happens through acting. You get to be and know yourself through participating with the world around you. It's not some existence precedes essence stuff.
Disagree slightly with the smart wolf guy on the catholic church not using icons. Many catholic church's use icons.
Very cool to see 4 unique thought leaders collaborating. Is there a Pt 2 coming ?
I have some questions that I would like to pose regarding what Wolfgang and Jonathan have said about the irreconcilability of Vedanta and Christianity. It seems odd to me to criticize the Vedantic point of view for not being able to overcome the duality between Atma and Maya. Is this duality essentially different from the duality of Creator and created? Certainly in Christianity this duality is not outright abolished, but we could say that it is overcome or transcended through theosis. Theosis means becoming identified with God, or united to God; and the creation is saved insofar as it participates in God. The consummation of the Vedantic view, to my understanding, could be encapsulated by the phrase "Brahma satya jagat mithya, jivo brahmaiva naparah", or "Brahman is the only truth, the world is illusory, and there is ultimately no difference between a living being and Brahman." The being is liberated, or perhaps one might say "saved", insofar as it is identified with Atma or Spirit; and as stated in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Atma (Spirit) and Brahman (God or Godhead) are the same, which is the point of view of Vedanta (advaita or non-duality). To say that the world is illusory seems not necessarily to imply that it doesn't "exist", but that when considered in itself and apart from God it only has a relative and temporal, and not an absolute and eternal reality, which would seem tantamount to the state of not having been "redeemed" through unity or identity with God, i.e. theosis. In the Christian eschaton of the Heavenly Jerusalem, all of redeemed creation undergoes theosis or unity with God, and this seems equivalent to the fundamental identification of Maya with Atma. Hell is the proportion to which the creation is separated or alienated from the Creator, or perhaps one could say the extent to which Maya is considered purely in itself apart from Atma, which means being trapped in the suffering of samsara. I also find it odd when in other instances (apart from this discussion) Vedanta is dismissed as pantheism, when from the point of view of Christian eschatology the very telos or goal of creation is to be identified with and made one with God, which is precisely what moksha or liberation consists of. It is not a matter of idly assuming one is already saved or deified; Vedanta certainly recognizes a fallen or unregenerate state of being.
Powerful. Thank you for this.
Brilliant discussion!!
The Holy Cross got spurned and tossed away again and again across our history, but it always stands on TOP as the Victor!
Such an Interesting conversation
Beautiful conversation. A sidenote on the portrayal of the Vedic tradition though: Many Western scholars, including the Perennialists, tend to focus too much on Adi Shankara's Advaita Vedanta when talking about the Vedic tradition, which is not relative to this system's actual historical importance in India. There exist many influential Indian spiritual traditions, such as Tantra, which challenged Vedanta's static monism and argued for a more dynamic, integrated and "realist" metaphysics, where maya is not seen as mere non-reality and the goal is not an extinguishing of the individual soul but a "liberation while alive" (jivanmukti). In a similar vein, the esoteric teachings of Buddhism proclaim the inseparability of nirvana (liberation) and samsara (manifestation). So, portraying the Indian traditions as radically different from Christianity in that regard is neither truthful nor helpful, in my opinion.
It so happens that Wolfgang - who knows more of the _authentic_ Vedic tradition, as from within, than any Western man alive - recently published a book, _Vedanta in Light of Christian Wisdom_ ... you may want to check it out; it might surprise you.
@@TheDisinterestedSpectator, I like Smith and support his overall project but this rather bombastic rhetoric appealing to authority before it is established in terms meaningful to one's interlocutor does not further that purpose. I've read the book, and it suffers from exactly the defect the above commenter notes. Smith equates the Advaita school with Vedanta as such, evincing no awareness of how even later Advaitins incorporated Shaiva elements to portray maya in a more positive light as "the shakti (creative power/energy) of Brahman." Also conspicuous by its absence was any mention of the great sage Ramanuja, whose theistic thought is often held to mesh better with Western theisms. And so much else is elided: Trika Shaivism, bhedabheda, etc. In this respect he is, ironically, faithful to the limited Guénonian doxography of doctrine and practice to a degree he is not when it comes to Guénon's stance towards the sciences.
It's like if someone wrote a book purporting to appreciatively critique "the Christian tradition" and considered, say, Augustine in isolation from the Cappadocians, Maximus, Aquinas, Scotus, Palamas, etc. For each assertion made in the book (and I use that word in lieu of "argument" advisedly), I thought of an exception or refutation almost at once. That said, the commenter should read Smith's book and write as impartial review of it as he can, as I am tempted to do, because it will convince scarcely anyone trained in Indian philosophy. It's good fodder for my fellow traditionally-minded Catholics who don't know any better but amounts to aesthetic preference and wishful thinking in the end. Perhaps this need to imagine false distinctions before one hits up against some real ones is a defect of all apologetics, but I would have hoped for better from Smith. He could benefit from critical pushback here, which by the way would generate more interest in his work than easy adulation.
It’s interesting because in the vedantic tradition god is a triune entity or Brahma shiva and Vishnu. Which would be the reality itself (creation), Vishnu (preserver) and shiva (the destroyer). I wonder if these actually map onto the platonic symbol shown in the beginning or roughly represent the Christian trinity in some way. The focus on overcoming mayic delusion and attachment to physical reality and pleasures seems to have dominated the proscribed nature of « salvation » for eastern tradition while sacrifice of those things (the letting go of x for greater realization of god’s kingdom) has dominated the west. I’ve always been of the opinion that it’s a difference in emphasis. Maybe the cosmopolitan between east and west actually map onto each other well but the emphasis and language between the two, or in the case of eastern tradition, insisting that the physical world is only suffering has made these two teachings diverge in the way they have .
Interesting! Have others made this connection?
thank you
This reminds me of Matthew Pageau's diagrams in The Language of Creation.
What an honour!
If you were hovering above a mountain, you can represent the peak as a dot and the base as a circle around the dot.
Then you can understand what St. Gregory of Nyssa is talking about in his book, "The life of Moses."
🗻
📀
🧿
🔺
From the mathematical perspective, it makes a lot of sense. There is no resolution of Pi. There is no limit of being. God is not bound.
@@josephtravers777 Exactly right. Coincidences like that start to add up to the point that it becomes undeniable.
Pageau links this concept to identity; people want to make inclusivity the highest value....a system that does not leave room for Pi because it wants to include everything! That system becomes tyrannical or destroys the world.
ruclips.net/video/ZQ43i5nKuZk/видео.html
@@MoiLiberty I don't see this as coincidence but evidence of intelligibility beyond temporal logic. Funny how modernists acknowledge infinity and leave it @ that?
Thanks
Thank you!
Great conversation. ☦
Thank you! 🌹
I would love to hear Jonathan talk about the Rothko Chapel in light of this conversation. Rothko returns to a tradition lacking perspective. Yet, I find it hard to consider an ecumenical space a chapel. Rothko was seeking consonance but ended up still to dissonant for most Christians I think?
I was given the definition of eternal as the ever present. This agrees with everternal.
The term to which Wolfgang is referring is aeviternal.
I very much enjoyed the exchange of ideas between these thinkers. However, I had difficulty seeing any support (experimental or theoretical) for Dr. Wolfgang Smith’s claim that the existence of a somewhat arbitrary intermediate category (that which is bounded in space but not in time) somehow “disproves” the quantum mechanical framework. I could be misunderstanding him, but it seems a category error to assume that the “tripartate” framework maps in any meaningful way onto quantum states. To the contrary, I would think that his formulation would be perfectly consistent with eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, since these are probability distributions that are independent of time, and thus might represent a fertile ground for exploration.
You have a few things mixed up...
Wolfgang did not say that the intermediary is characterized by being bound by space but not by time. It's the other way round: The intermediary is bound by _time_ but not space. The corporeal order is characterized by the fact that it is bound by both time _and_ space. But there is no domain which is bound by only space but not time. Time is a necessary condition of local motion through space.
Furthermore, he did _not_ say that the existence of the intermediary disqualifies quantum mechanics. (In fact, Wolfgang is one of classical quantum mechanics' most vigorous defenders.) What he said is that the existence of the intermediary disqualifies _relativity_ - because if there is a cosmic sphere wherein there is a temporal order _without_ space, this is irreconcilable with any such notion as an absolute universal homogeneous 4-dimensional space-time. In the latter, Einsteinian paradigm, what has actually happened is that time has been _reduced to_ space. But if time and space are distinct ontological categories, there can be no such thing as "space-time." On the one hand, at no point in space can all of time be present; and, on the other hand, all of space is present at any given moment in time. It follows that space is, actually, ontologically inferior to time.
And let it be said again: nothing in the preceding paragraph has a single thing to do with quantum mechanics.
You are right in saying that the tripartite paradigm cannot be mapped to the quantum "level" as it were. That's because the quantum domain does not appear in the tripartite cosmos; rather, the quantum-physical order is derivative upon the corporeal order above it. In the absence of measuring instruments, there is no quantum physics; in fact, there is no quantum anything. What one calls a "quantum" is really a mere probability-in-relation to this or that experimental result: by an act of measurement, an array of probable values - described by a probability function - is reduced to a probability of 1. This act of measurement, then, effects an ontological transition from the physical to the corporeal (the former being ontologically derivative upon, and thus inferior to, the latter), and it is only at that point that a so-called "quantum particle" becomes present to the actually-existing cosmos - but, at that point, it is really no longer a quantum particle at all, as its existence is simply to be a part of the instrument which measured it. The transition from the premeasured state to the measured state is a transition from potentiality to actuality.
For more on these issues:
philos-sophia.org/the-tripartite-wholeness
philos-sophia.org/subcorporeal-physics-vertical-causation
12:06 Big homie invalidates Einsteinian physics with a circle, a dot, and a line. 🤙
Homer Simpson was trying to tell us 🍩
I would like to hear them dialogue with a perrenialist and Vedantist who could respond to their criticisms.
You know when wolfgang said a vedantist looks at Christianity through a vedantic lense therefore missing the crucial picture of christianity, it begs the question of him doing the exact same thing in reverse.
Could we relate the 4 aspects of reality/4 manifestations of the One, to the pattern seen cross-culturally of dividing the world into four main earthly elements?
I have become very fond of Jonathon Pageau, and his ideas - does anyone know what the intro music is on this channel?
I believe it’s a piece by Rimsky-Korsakov, although I’m unsure about which one specifically
Rimsky-Korsakov Easter Overture
Hi Jonathan! I have yet to listen to the whole video, but a thought was triggered by Dr Wolfgang Smith's remark that the Orthodox have preserved Sacred Art much better than the Roman Catholics. Although you have discussed it here and there, I don't recall you making a video about why this is the case! I hope this can be rectified! And I don't mean to suggest this topic for the sake of polemics... It is genuinely an intriguing question!
For example, in your discussion with Fr. Silouan Justiniano you mentioned that Western artists cannot break free of the dichotomy of feeling and reason. Consequently, the religious arts in the West seem doomed to simply be a manifestation of sensual feeling, whereas in the East the icons are products of the noetic apprehension of spiritual realities. Could this be a contributing factor? I also find it odd that Catholics can't see that their Church has been "modernist" since the Renaissance! For example, Matt Fradd tried to convince you that the Sistine Chapel is "beautiful" and yet I am sure he would be appalled by most contemporary Roman Catholic art. Why do they exalt the anomalous art of the Sistine Chapel as the epitome of Western Religious Art, (you've mentioned the fact that it is anomalous before), but then have trouble understanding why contemporary Catholic Art is so bad? Roman Catholic art has, at least since the Renaissance, always been "fad" art. Do they feel obliged to defend and perpetuate such art simply because it is part of their tradition? Finally, Fr. Silouan Justiniano wrote an article on the OAJ which discusses the unfavourable reception of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in the West at the Council of Frankfurt due to underlying cultural differences, mistranslations and certain prejudices of those in the West. Could it be that this was a watershed moment that in which the West fatally undermined their own theology of the icon? Another point (which became apparent when Dr Smith revealed his icon) is that, and forgive me if I sound judgement, Roman Catholics seem to be so enamored by the philosophies of the world that they don't have any time to just be Christians! Of course, I must quality that there is a difference between the discretionary use of Hellenistic philosophical language by Christians, such as in the case of practically all the Church Fathers, and the complete capitulation to a foreign philosophy!
Would be curious to hear your thoughts in a video! Keep up the great work! May God continue to bless your efforts!
Read Bulgakov,,,he explains the problems with aryan religious art very well.
@@As-fs6qd Thank you for the recommendation. Which work of his would you recommend the most to understand exactly the problem of aryan art?
Come to think of it Pavel Florensky spoke more directly about it, and in much greater volume..,..some articles i can recall are : 'a post modernist vision of art' and ' Florensky and the matter of icons: some considerations for modern christian culture'...Bulgakov has some interesting views esp of the sistine madona.There are alot of articles on Academia as well as several books by both dealing with this matter. Happy hunting ..i put a link for you earlier but the post didn't register...sorry lost it now,
Marcel Lefebvre, the Archbishop who founded the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) (the biggest latin mass /trad cath organisation) that oppose the cultural revolution of the Second Vatican Council starts his book "They have Uncrowned Him" by examining how the first seeds of revolution have been sown during the Renaissance out how that art is slightly too carnal for religious art. It was a few short paragraph in a book that otherwise is a brutal take down in modern and enlightenment philosophy but maybe can act as a basis for you to explore the equivalent of those thoughts within the Catholic framework.
@@TokugawaPatrick Thanks for the comment! I really appreciate you sharing that information and reading my comment charitably! I find that really interesting considering the aesthetic of most TLMs that I see. Often times they are conducted in a post-Renaissance Baroque or Classicist Church which have also carnal religious art (or even a sparse modern church which has barely any religious art at all save a few icons). Of course, this is probably due to current circumstances - recently it has become increasingly difficult to promulgate the TLM due to Pope Francis' Motu Proprio Traditionis custodes and you would need to pray it wherever you can.
However, returning to Michael Lefebvre's comments, are you suggesting that he himself thought that Renaissance art (and post-Renaissance art, which can be even more carnal - think Baroque, Rococo, etc.) was an anomaly and could not be considered authentic Catholic art? (Sorry I can't find the book online and won't have time to read it!) If so, then what should Catholic art look like? The only widespread Catholic art to have preceded Renaissance art would have been Romanesque art (which is being revitalized by Orthodox), Italo-Byzantine and Gothic art. Even post-schism, Byzantine artists would often be commissioned to create works in the Latin West (e.g. Monreale Cathedral in Sicily). To be honest, I wouldn't even know what a Catholic framework of what is and isn't appropriate art since the Renaissance happened so long ago and it was so widely accepted by the entire Catholic Church that it displaced every other style of religious iconography! It has, whether desirable or not, become part of "traditional" Catholic art. Hence why Catholics seem obliged to defend it even though it was the precursor of the Catholic approach to art today (to follow whichever fad is currently in fashion). Again, please don't think this is purely polemics, but one only has to look at the 2020 Vatican Nativity Scene to know something is very wrong...
The platonic icon looks like the symbol on Dr.Manhattan forehead.
I believe in our daily living we are measured against what is True, and we earn the crowns of glory by sacrificing those goats that detract us from living in service of Truth and pull us down to serve ourselves and lead us to death.
With the circle point icon, what if you interpreted that as you at the center the the circle being the all surrounding eternal. Would that say something about the psychology of a person who interpreted it that way?? Would the western man interpret it that way??
Mr. Pageau - I am interested in joining an orthodox christian church, however, it clearly says in the bible to call no man father but our father in heaven. From my understanding it's common in this type of church for certain humans to go by the title of father. How do you square this contradiction to the bible?
I believe the fact that certain human beings are titled as "father" and exalted above other humans within catholicism has a lot to do with the devil gaining access in the form of sexual molestation perpetrated by the priests.
Unfortunately, I have not come across this topic covered in much detail. Thank you for all you do.🙏
48:45 henosis by kenosis
Has anyone connected The Three Body Problem to the Trinity?
Define love. Do you mean the attraction of atomic particles? I mean, what's the rationale behind love as a force that shows you the "path", constantly?
Did you see Milo on Timcast the other night? I have to say, Milo's journey from flaming homosexual Jew to Roman Catholic monarchist philosopher is one of my favourite redemption arcs ever. Would you consider doing a stream with him? I think it could be quite something.
Milo is still “married” to a man.
Hi Johnathan
You should get someone like Jay Dyer or Fr Peter (Heers) to dissect their misunderstandings and make them flow into proper direction
Whose misunderstandings? What is the proper direction?
Leave it to Jonathan to rescue some life from the hopelessly abstract (at least to me) :)
3 parts? I thought it was two parts, heaven and earth.
"Illusion" is a loaded word though, and many Buddhists would indeed stress that Maya is a _real_ illusion. There is a teaching even that "samsara is nirvana".
Real illusion is exactly an illusion
@@adamq8216 Fundamentalist = bible thumping numb skull.
Real fundamentalist = real bible thumping numb skull.
Perhaps "fundamentalist" is a term you are willing to discard, but the above, I think, shows the limitation of this rhetoric.
To me, if God is the only one true god, then He must be perennial.
Isn't it wrong to put crucified Christ at the top of the cosmic image? Shouldn't it be resurrected Christ?
Jesus brings everything together; so being crucified at the top of the mountain is the climax of bringing all opposites together through His sacrifice.
@@MoiLiberty I think what he is saying is that the moment of the "climax" at the top of the mountain when all things are reintegrated actually occurs after Christ descends into Hades. This makes sense when you consider that Christ's work on earth wasn't complete until after He descended into Hades and defeated the power of death by virtue of Him being Life itself. The restoration of all things couldn't occur until Christ bridged the separation between God and man, IE between life and death, and this work was completed after He had risen from the dead and had ascended into Heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father.
Wat they talking aboot
I thought I was the only person who thought the Sistine chapel ceiling was kinda rubbish. Some very homosexual and/or sacrilegious vibes to it.
I just looked at Michelangelo other fresco "The last Judgement" and tbh it seems much more akin to reign of the anti-christ than the true last judgement.
also his statue of Mary holding Jesus seems like Jesus is a teenager, not an adult, which would suggest Jesus wasn't a man, but a boy.
Next his statue of David, is probably the most faithful of his works, im still not sure why he appears to have a towl on his shoulder though, as if hes heading to a bath house, instead of his sling, perhaps more homosexual undertones.
Overall Michelangelo appears to have been closer to an anti-christian than a christian, yet his works are still revered in the common catholic faith and by everyday Christians throughout the world.
I think that Nietzsche was correct in his assessment of Platonism and Western philosophy, especially "Christianity the Platonism for the masses". Without theosis, Christianity naturally collapses into nihilism.
hmmmm
50:00 religious pluralism is not the same as Christian perennialism.
Uniqueness and exclusivity is not alone. Division and difference goes all the way down. What Pageau just said as about kenosis cannot be immediately forgotten in the dismissal or perennialism.
I asked, “If Christ died for us, who died for Him?”
She looked at me as if she was surprised I didn’t know, and replied, “Judaism.”
Can the image of the point, radius, and circle, grow up to be a dancing Shiva?
When we grow up from believing in Santa, and start playing Santa, are we distancing ourselves from illusion?
(I find it disturbing and hilarious, when I hear some of our brightest minds questioning if others even exist…also when people pretend vibrations can’t be a source for what’s the matter, and question why would anybody try to manipulate another’s nervous system…maybe we march to different drums..different Santa’s..who don’t really exist.)
Incredible conversation, however, it’s with great trepidation that I have to disagree with someone who I hold in the highest esteem like Dr wolfgang.
Regarding Guenon he was an initiate in Sufism and spent the last 20 years of his life on that path. The Sufi does not seek annihilation (fanaa) or to disappear into some kind of nothingness. After the Stage of the annihilation (fanna) ,there is baqaa(embodiment) where the realized mystic becomes a corporeal embodiment of gods attributes. Sufis do not meditate on emptiness their annihilation comes through a full absorption into the character of Muhammed. In the cosmological sphere the realized Sufi becomes an Abdal(watcher) who along with the other saints upholds the world and becomes in a manner of speaking co creator wuth god..
In Buddhism you just have to know the pledge of kwan yin or the vow of the Bodhishatva to know that the dichotomy presented by Wolfgang is an unfair portrayal.
The tripatric pattern as Pageau says exist fractally in all creation and by extension outside the boundaries of Christianity.,,in fact it could not be otherwise ,if the crucifiction and incarnation are to have a cosmologic significance..
Christianity is valid on its own term, there is no need to appeal to false apologetics against other traditions, especially at this level of conversation where it is no longer efficacious to try and 'save the appearances'.
The bible is like an Ouija board. You can make it spell out whatever your mind wants and then say that the board or the bible did it, not you. While it does appear that I came out of nothing and will return to nothing. My parents have a better idea of the nothing I came out of, the food, the cell growth that formed me and the neural connections that made me an aware organism. And when I die the world will see in my body, that slow return to the elements that made me, that may be part of some future being that too believes in the self the great illusion.
I want to get to heaven but I'm gay. What is the limit that is still acceptable? Can I still live with my boyfriend but NOT have sex with him? Would that be fine?
You are not what you love.
Believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus for your sins and you will be saved. That's all that is required.
Right off the bat Jonathan misrepresents the concept of Māyā. Māyā is not considered in Hinduism or Buddhism to be illusory or unreal. It’s not māyā that’s the problem: it’s the interpretation of māyā as an end in and of itself that’s the problem, which is the exact root of idolatry in the Abrahamic traditions.
Māyā, being a reflection of Brahman, it also sacred. It’s when we treat māyā as having its own existence that the profanity arises.
"Love is the coexistence of multiplicity and unity".
Wow he really is Canadian.
He's literally saying the same thing as "diversity is our strength".
The Gospel:
Plain and
Simple
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3
Ask someone today if they are saved and
you will most likely hear responses like these:
“I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I
have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been
baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good
and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually
knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what
the gospel is and has left a devastating effect
of people not knowing what it is that they are
saved from nor how they are saved; which
leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation.
Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church
sounding phrases that do not communicate
anything. But rather present God’s word with
clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel:
plain and simple.
Sin was passed upon all men by one man
Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin
(Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of
condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of
this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good
works one might do we are still found sinners
in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found
righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even
one law we are found guilty.
It is for this reason of not being able to
create our own righteousness and being born
in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus
3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in
the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross
2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath
and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial,
and resurrection on our behalf that we are
able to have peace with God and forgiveness
of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good
news is unto all but only those that believe in
it are made righteous in Christ (Romans
3:22).
It is then after we have heard this good
news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit
and we are now part of Christ’s body the
church (Eph 1:13)
There is nothing that we need to do, no
good works that are required, and no bad
works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39).
Faith and belief in this information from
God’s word is the gospel.
The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your
heart. The gospel is not making him lord of
your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not
being baptized with water.
So next time someone asks you if you are
saved. Give them the clear assured answer
“Yes! And let me tell you why!”
Find more free resources at:
www.graceambassadors.com
Christ taking the "punishment" intended for sinners is the theory of "penal substitution" articulated centuries after Christions had been walking in The Way of Christ. There have been many theological attempts to describe what happened the cross and I believe most have some glimmer of the truth. But this more modern view is a scandal for many (it was for me) and contradicts much of Christian understanding of our Creator God. God's Wrath is at the sin not the sinner. Christ is God Himself! taking on the sin to transform it into Glory and defeat Death and all that is not-God.This view of Christ as Victor is more deeply rooted in the ancient Christian church's understanding. Yes, Christ IS the only way for mankind as he IS God....and man! The goat and sheep, the wheat and the tares are within the human heart. The choice to look up to Him is ours, the work is His.
@@kristenswensen6451
You have been lied to and your living a lie,
Simple as that
@@kristenswensen6451
You have been lied to and your living a lie,
Simple as that