The problem with appealing to the gnostic tradition is that none of the people who met Jesus face-to-face and followed him espoused it. There is no record of anyone who followed Jesus denying the resurrection. Another problem with gnosticism is that it elevates knowledge above grace. That position is contrary to the entirety of Scripture.
@@thepope9023 No. Grace is unearned (or unmerited) favor. Specifically, God's grace is shown to us in the blood of Jesus as a sacrifice to atone for our sins. We accept His grace through faith which is also a gift from God.
Read Philo. His entire perspective is about elevating knowledge. He describes Moses as a philosopher, which...funny enough so does the other pseudonymous author "Josephus.". "Josephus" also brags in a supposed autobiographical tale about how people thought he had died in a shipwreck...and that people will believe whatever makes sense to them regardless of how far it is from the truth, and that genuine knowledge will vary by degrees to the source of an event. This was the very mindset that was used to craft the satirical gospel campaign. The Judeans who were crucified, starved, and enslaved would know the truth about Titus' rampage. Others would carry a poetic spiritual message forward for generations that satirized his destruction of Jerusalem as the coming of a Messiah.
I learned as much as I possibly could about all of these traditions, they are very similar to one another, but upon finding James Lindsay I'm having to be very self-critical and having second thoughts about its safety
Alex has in deed grown dramatically and not because he started badly. He started RUclips as a tanager in high school. He now interviewing a lot of the greatest in his field and beyond.
@@Wolfenkuni Agreed. He didn't start out bad. He's always been an above average polemicist. However, now it seems like he's integrated nascent wisdom into his already remarkable intellect. It's just thrilling to see.
@@meccamiles7816 I would say his talent here is his ability to engage Jordan in a realm of religious dialogue that has him so excited to have somebody both on his level and not after him somehow. I'm not religious but it is fun to listen to somebody so empassioned.
After the crucifixion, the disciples scattered. The resurrection brought them back together. Subsequently, the disciples had disputes over various issues (circumcision, the Gentiles, law, etc...) but not about the resurrection. This they saw, heard, and touched for themselves.
A friend of mine, Jim, his wife died some years ago. A few days after her death, he was standing in the kitchen and saw her. Not an apparition of her, but he saw her. He was not dramatic about it whatsoever, but was puzzled by this. I don't doubt that he experienced that. Her body was still indeed in a casket, on this planet. I cannot believe for a moment that Jesus physical body "resurrected". It remained dead and he transitioned as we all do, to whatever there is.
@@NineIndex I wouldn't doubt your friend's experience either. A difference is that in the biblical accounts of Christ's resurrection, this was more than visual. Jesus, whose body was not where it should have been, ate with and held conversations with people who were just as puzzled as your friend by what they were experiencing.
@@tedclemens4093 We should all remember that the earliest gospel which is mark and the the evangelion of marcion has no ressurection account . It was a later addition to the jesus narrative
@@jhake67 In their letters, Peter talks about a "living stone," and John about a present tense fellowship with Christ, confirming the resurrection accounts in the book of Acts. Do they need to say more?
Two things missed here which I have come to understand researching the Eastern Orthodox tradition: 1) It is believed that the Incarnation was ALWAYS the plan. Christ would take on human form even if the fall never happened. He was always going to join humanity. What changed with Adam & Eve's mishap is that Christ had to die to fix everything. 2) "knowledge of good and evil" is used frequently throughout the old testament as a reference to growth and maturity. It wasn't that Adam and Eve were to NEVER eat of the fruit, but that they would have to wait until they were mature and ready enough to handle the knowledge. Both the Serpent and Man tried to put themselves in God's place by the declaration that they knew better than Him.
Indeed the EO understanding is quite brilliant and removes the silly talk of "PlanB" as some atheists articulate. Instead God always intending to meet with his creation is actual so much more powerful.
The first is part of the Roman Catholic Tradition, also, but I've heard Protestant Pastors in the American South giving such a sermon stating this as such, without question, as having been the plan since the beginning of Creation, also. I think that it's just a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith, both in our respective Apostolic Churches/Traditions, as well as among protestant (and not just "high church" Anglican/Lutheran, but effectively Southern Baptist or Pentecostal churches in the US, certainly with this example from local radio that I heard flipping through while driving, recently (relatively - perhaps last year or the year before, at most) confirms. Per the second I've never actually heard this but I am curious to read more on this idea. I know that the Eastern Church/Christians have this thing about the wood from the Cross that would be used to crucify Christ Jesus is said to have come from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, at least partially. I think Peterson even recounts the gist of this one during one of his 4-hour+ appearances on Joe Rogan's podcast (the one where he shows up in a tuxedo, IIRC). RE the Cross, I like the emphasis in the Orthodox tradition that states that the location of which the crucifixion would occur, Golgotha (sometimes called Calvary in more contemporary translations), which is something like, "Island of the Skull" and is said to have been the resting place of Adam, whose skull is thought to have been under Christ at the base of the cross, which the Eastern Orthodox Cross symbolizes with the diagonal "plank" or plaquard at the foot of the crucifix, which is particularly important because Christ is the "New Adam" By and large, I think both the Greek/Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic or Latin Church have the same Sacred Tradition, though, which is something that certainly IS missing/absent from protestant Christian churches, who rely solely on the Holy Bible, which our shared Apostolic Church compiled for the first time several hundred years after the time of Christ's crucifixion/resurrection/ascension in the early days of the Church when we were but One Church, founded by Christ Himself - for the first 1000 years, even. Thanks for the second bit of info, though, that's very interesting. I'll have to read more up on it.
@@texanologyThe bottom plank of the Orthodox cross firstly is just a footrest, they often depict Christ nailed in each foot, not through both. The symbolism of the slant being the scales of justice, sheep and goats, those on the right of Christ (like the good thief,) go to be with God, those on the left, (like the one who mocked Christ,) go down to Hell. The tradition of Adams skull under Golgotha is held though, but I've never heard the bottom plank relating to it. This tradition is no doubt where that fraud Ron Wyatt (iirc, I may have got his name wrong,) got the idea from when he claimed to find Adams skull and the Ark, blood on the mercy seat etc.
Most of these questions are incredibly low level and were solved within the 3rd century by the main church line. This is what happens when we ignore philosophy, all the sudden it seems like some hidden truth when it had always been in front of us
I don't think Alex has considered "what is death in the spirit realm"? He sees dying from a materialistic atheistic view point, but spiritual religious death is to be "severed from the tree" to be cut loose alone from God. Adam and Eve did die and we can only be restored from the Fall through Christ through Resurrection .
I guess the bible could've been more precise than in it's speech then as Peterson alwaysbsays to be. Add one word "spritualy" before die and you have no confusion.
I actually deeply appreciate Alex's discussion. I never agreed on him since day 1 but he came really far into being eloquent, he educated himself on theology and he discusses ideas without attacking the person. If I had to debate on a theological topic on any atheist he would be the first or the close second I'd be interested in
The "Resurrection" the gospel satirizes referred to dead bodies being lifted from the underground tunnels of Jerusalem where rebels had to escape and to those starving to death attempting to live off the deceased remains, including the crucified victims of the Romans. "Josephus" who was a wealthy and well connected Alexandrian who feigned being a Judean but was actually an avid accomplice in the entire rise of Flavian dynasty records the piles of dead bodies in the wake of the siege during the Roman Judean war...and thus the inspiration for the satirical gospel account of many people rising from the grave. Eleazar/Lazarus the most key rebel leader "resurrects" in the sense of being dismembered torturously and crucified.
@@booksquid856 nonsense. Jesus’s disciples saw him resurrected and were transformed from cowardly men hiding from the authorities to save their skins to bold men who were mostly martyred for their testimony of the resurrection. Jesus rose bodily, appeared to thousands, ascended into heaven and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Believe in him and you will be saved. Reject him and you will be damned.
@@simonbrown1486 I agree with your assessment fully, except for the final sentence. Not sure what you mean by "reject" him. Just for the sake of argument, what happens if someone never heard of Jesus? Or say a 15 year old boy in Iran, who is indoctrinated into Islam by his parents (through no fault of his own), dies in a car crash. Would he be damned?
@@simonbrown1486Nothing nonsense about it actually. Rome wasn't a monolithic empire but rather competing mob families sponsoring and creating different cults. In the year Vespian came to the throne three others had been assassinated before him. The Flavians in particular harnessed all forms of propaganda to assert their presence and authority. Obviously no Judean peasants would have been educated enough to write the amount of detailed gospel/"epistle" references to external historic and contemporary co-created material that satirized specific details of Titus' war against Jerusalem or the fate of Eleazar/Lazarus. There are clues left everywhere in the body of text which Rome herself preserved to give us a clear understanding that we are reading satire.
1 Corinthians 15:14 Amplified Bible and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain [useless, amounting to nothing], and your faith is also vain [imaginary, unfounded, devoid of value and benefit-not based on truth].
@IFeelQuiteHungry you can always read the whole chapter. I don't take things out of context. Teaching things that are not true in scriptures makes someone a false teacher. False teachers burn in the lake of fire Revelation 20:10, 22:18-19
@IFeelQuiteHungry .... If you understood old testament prophecy then the Messiah must be risen after 3 days. Just say you don't understand or read Scripture and stay out of the convos.
If he did know Hebrew he would have noticed that the word used for “cunning” is used a verse prior and translated radically different as naked, i.e., עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (arummim) Genesis 2:25. This comes from the root word ur that means to be exposed or to bare. In Biblical text comparison it’s best to begin with comparison within the sepher (the scroll), so while the psalms may used arum as sensible or wise, i would advise caution. An alternate reading of Genesis 3:1 bringing it into harmony with 2:25 reads, “And the serpent was more naked than the beasts of the field.” And why was the serpent naked? Because Satan has no physical body having fallen from grace as Christ said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18). This adds to the sanctity of the body, as Satan is denied this sacred privilege.
It is always great to listen someone with real arguments 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻. Also Satan (translated like "the adversary") is the master of lies, that's why people get so confused thinking that the tree of good and evil was related with knowledge but one thing is "Knowledge" and other so different is "the knowledge of good and evil". Represented very clear in Genesis with the Tree of life and then the other tree that holds the malevolent fruit. So Adan and Eve chose to follow Satan instead of the Tree of Life.
@@Hoi4oActually, the Bible says the opposite both definitionally and anecdotally. By definition, in both Greek (angelos) and Hebrew (malach) both mean “messenger”. The messengers God sends can be either corporeal, like the angels God sends to Lot to remove him and his family from Sodom, or incorporeal, or a spirit. Many instances speak of angels having physical bodies, such as those entertained by Abraham or the one with which Jacob wrestled. The fact is that the Bible makes no mention of God creating a separate class of beings, i.e., angels. The notion that a different race of beings exists is more fiction than faith. Rather, angels are messengers, the spirits of man before or after birth and just men made perfect like the translated inhabitants of the City of Enoch who God took into heaven itself.
@@JoelWHoodthat is because Angel is a role. All direct agents of God are spirits. Even Jesus himself was called the word, hence him being a messenger or "Angel". Sometimes even prophets can be "angels" temporarily.
One of you - BOTH OF YOU - Please interview Father Josiah Trenham. An Othrodox priest out of California who is incredibly well-spoken and well-informed about his faith. It would be a wonderful thing to see for all of us. Thank you!
@@EbbandFlow1234 John 20:all NIV The Empty Tomb 20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” 3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene 11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. 15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”). 17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her. Jesus Appears to His Disciples 19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Jesus Appears to Thomas 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The Purpose of John’s Gospel 30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John was written with combating gnostic views in mind. The authors agenda could have well been motivating the fabrication of such a story but well never know.
If you say that the only thing that matters is what Jesus said, my question would be: "Why does it matter at all what He said?" The answer is of course: "Because He is risen, otherwise none of it matters".
What He did was exceedingly more important than what He said. Jesus could talk till He was blue in the face but if He didnt descend from Heaven, be born of a virgin, live perfectly and then die on the cross for our Sins and Salvation then nothing He had to say would matter all that much. Gnosticism perverts literally everything about God and Christ, Redemption and everything in between it is the inverse of the Truth and yet another False Religion created by Satan to deny the one Truth that brings people salvation and freedom, the Gospel of Christ.
@11:00 " . . knowledge of good and evil . . " What he's missing, and what Jordan is trying to articulate is that it's not just the knowledge of good and evil. It's the FRUIT of the knowledge of good and evil. Once eaten, these innocent, timeless creatures walking with God DO die. Their innocence died there and then. The product, the consequence of it is to corrupt their innocence and to birth a new creature in their place. A fallen, cynical, murderous mankind, capable of great evil. THAT was the 'fruit' of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't the knowledge itself. It's the consequences of holding that knowledge in merely human minds.
Right. In Eden before the fall, knowledge was not grasped or taken it was given and received. Like grace. In paradise we posses everything but appropriate nothing. The eating of the apple was the loss of chastity in the true meaning of the word; as in disloyalty to God , breaking the union with God by giving in to temptation. One can only be eternal beings when in union with God who is eternal and one can only be withering and dying beings if we break our union with the eternal being. How can it be otherwise?
if they had no knowledge of good and evil, then how would they have even known following god was the good thing to do, and disobeying him was the bad thing? they were completely naive and uninformed about why they were supposed to be doing what they were simply told to do and then blamed for making the wrong decision. i could never come to terms with how this story is supposed to justify suffering or that humans are somehow responsible for every horrible thing that exists. it seems to be a very weak attempt at justifying Gods twisted behaviour.
But they HAD been given that knowledge @@brianbridges8124 God specifically warned them what would happen and commanded them to leave it alone. Even a half trained puppy dog knows when it does wrong and disobeys its master. What arrogance to judge God's behaviour! You obviously have some serious knowledge gaps when it comes to scripture. Don't you know that you are parroting a twisted and satanic interpretation of these passages which has been shown false many times? Serious scholars have debated the righteous judgements of God for thousands of years, and concede He is justified in all His dealings with man. Where do you get the balls to repeat this railing accusation against God? I mean your first point (they were completely naive and uninformed) is blatantly 100% wrong on a face reading of the text. Did you even think this point through before you made it?Would you care to dig this hole any deeper Brian, or is that enough blasphemous slander of God for you today?
The serpent said Adam and Eve would be like god knowing good and evil, irony is they were already like god he said so earlier in genesis that he made man in his own image. So I think the real temptation was wanting to be god, to become their own individual gods.
God's whole plan is for us is to become like Christ (who is exactly like The Father) and be joint-heirs with him. Adam's transgression (technical violation of God's law) did bring the consequence of death arriving (spiritual as well as physical), but the Atonement allows us to overcome both (resurrection, and the possibility of Eternal Life {Living the way that God Lives}). Christ himself declared "Ye are Gods" (psalm 82:6, John 10:34-38). Acts 17: 28-29 states that we are the offspring of God.
We differ from animals in kind. We differ from God by degree. We are children of God. The Resurrection of Jesus is _real_ ! Children have the potential to become like their parents. Even Heavenly Parents. "Let us make man (and woman) in our image." Who was the pattern for that woman Eve? The very Bible when taken whole and in proper context teaches that man&womankind have the potential to become like our Heavenly Parents!
That's kinda how I make sense of God banishing them so they can't eat of the Tree of Life; God can't allow them to both (a) become evil by determining morality on their own and (b) become immortal as he is, or even give them the power to create life that is fundamentally evil, so they have to be cast out and be allowed to biologically decay, and inevitably die, in this world, while still being given the opportunity to voluntarily repent and ultimately be brought back to union with God and perfect creation.
If God really made them “in his image” they wouldn’t have been made out of clay. They would be able to create and reason like himself. The snake lead them to the biggest lie of them all.
Alex is reading things into scripture that it doesn’t actually say, the death did come to Adam and Eve eventually in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense it was instant. The reason they died was due to rebellion against the infinitely holy righteousness God, seeking to become like him. The remedy was provided in Genesis chapter 3 when God says the seed of the woman shall crush the serpents head, that took place on Calvary when Jesus brought reconciliation by becoming our substitute
Its fascinating when ignorant Atheists try to exegete scripture when the haven’t a clue of orthodox Christian theology. There ideas are normally based from liberal theologians who reject the supernatural and read the Bible through the lens of Deconstructionist methods and theories
@@jeremybridges6015another instance of the Bible actually meaning something else rather than what it says but it also means something else if you argue against it making it truth.
This is how the snake got in right? God didn't explain what he meant by death. If by physical death, wouldnt he have said that they will not eat of the fruit of life and eventually die? It is almost like he knew what would happen and let them fall. Regardless the more I study Genesis the more profound and interesting the book is. First of all every word of ancient Hebrew is aligned to the ancient Hebrew alphabet is aligned to verse and passage of genesis. For example YHWH is 4:26(4 letters and adds to 26) and is found in Genesis 4:26. There is more to what God wants of us than we will ever know and i think a pure understanding of good and evil in absolutes is misunderstanding the bible entirely.
The genesis story is essentially an allegory about the transition from the ignorance of childhood toward a stage in which we become morally accountable. It's really surprising how often this is overlooked, but the original 'sin' wasn't disobeying God and eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but denying one's accountability in doing so. For only once the fruit had been eaten and that knowledge gained do we become morally accountable for our actions. The serpent is merely a scapegoat in this narrative, neither good nor evil and it was in denying their accountability that Adam and Eve first sinned, passing on the blame to a talking serpent, for only at this point could they act with moral agency (Satan, even if that is what the serpent represents isn't 'evil' as such- he still works for God. He is there essentially to tempt us, which is to say, test us. Job, which is the oldest narrative in the Hebrew Bible makes this clear. The idea of Satan as an adversary, who can act independently of God is a later, possibly Zoroastrian-influenced development and doesn't belong to the original Hebrew framework in which these stories' messages must be understood). Now, the different trees essentially represent doorways into new stages of being and consciousness. There are actually five trees in total, which is a Semitic idea that actually appears in one of the logia of the Gospel of Thomas, but seems to have been lost or forgotten when Christianity imposed its own pagan-influenced interpretation on what the Jewish scriptures actually say. The fact that it does appear in GThomas is internal evidence that the Thomas traditions may go back fairly early, possibly to Jesus or even John the Baptist and the Essenes at Qumran. The Essenes, like the Gnostics, and later the Kabbalists (and all the esoteric spiritual teachings in all religion) emphasized the importance of knowledge. However, just like the word 'faith' the word 'knowledge' is a poor translation, since it suggests intellectual mastery, or theoretical understanding, when gnosis itself means something much deeper. It's a kind of knowledge that is transformative, revelatory; spiritual insight that suddenly sheds light on what before we only understood in a kind of abstract way. I think 'knowing' is a better translation than 'knowledge'. In this sense you can't help but be transformed, both morally and spiritually by what has been revealed to you, and how you implement it in your life. Incidentally, Jesus did stress the importance of this type of knowing. It wasn't simply the belief in vicarious atonement that leads to salvation, which is a later Pauline idea. If you read and really try to understand Jesus' parables both in Thomas and the Canonical gospels this becomes clear (all of which were anonymous btw- we really have no idea who the original authors were, and it is doubtful that any of them knew Jesus personally, however the Q tradition, which finds its way into all 5 gospels, but which GThomas has probably the most complete record of, is our earliest source, and as such, the key to understanding Jesus' parabolic teachings. Since vicarious atonement is something that conflicts with the teachings of the Tanach, which is essentially what Jesus knew and drew from consistently throughout his ministry, it can and should be discarded as a false teaching.) Orthodox Christianity started losing the light with Paul, and even more so when it adopted the heretical Nicene/Trinitarian doctrine. We can credit Paul at least with making Jesus known to the Gentile world, however, he did a lot to mislead potential followers by going around emphasizing the 'salvation through faith over good works' doctrine. By the way, Paul gets this from the book of Habbakuk, but he inverts the meaning of the original statement. It is because of our faith (which, in its Hebrew essence means something more like 'trust' or 'fidelity' than doctrinal belief) in God that, if we do as he commands in the Torah, will lead us to salvation, not simply faith in the resurrection. Luckily we have the epistle of James, which was probably written in response to Paul or his followers' misappropriation of scripture, to steer us straight; works are essential (specifically the ethical conduct that Jesus emphasizes over and over again. See Matthew 25:31-49) but gnosis is what allows us to see why those works are essential. We don't act morally simply because we are commanded to; we act morally, because we know it's in our own best interest and that of others. The closer our communion with the Divine, the more clear this becomes. Back to the Garden of Eden story; this was a stage in human consciousness that necessarily had to come to an end. There are other trees remaining. Again, they represent, of course not literal trees, but new levels of understanding. The reason Adam and Eve had to leave the Garden, is because knowing isn't something that happens all at once; it is something that is played out over the course of a lifetime, or even many generations and ages (we're still on the 7th day) as we learn the practical ramifications of that knowledge. The knowledge that came with eating that fruit simply established the condition in us to be able to learn what that knowledge means. Only once we have mastered this knowledge, will be ready to taste of the other trees. The endgame is, as the gospels relate, eternal life. Those who are saved will inherit the kingdom of God, in a transformed way of being that is beyond our current worldly understanding of what it is "to live". Without salvific knowledge, presumably the soul ceases to be. The "second death" means non-resurrection, not ascending to a renewed, non-perishing form. Early Christians differed among one another on what this meant, with some believing that at the end, all souls are saved, with a purgatory interim period. This is what the burning lake of fire is about in Revelation; it doesn't represent hellfire or eternal torment (a later development, which goes against what Jews, including the historical Yeshua believed and taught) but purification of the soul. In the iron age in which it was written, the reader would have made the association with the burning vessel in which metal is purified or simply the valley of Gehenna, outside the walls of Jerusalem (the symbolic domain of God's kingdom) where corpses were disposed of. There were early Christian writers, like Origen, who suggested a kind of reincarnation journey over many lives, at the end of which all would come to be saved.
You leave out the main character, God. Only he knows the why and what of the Eden tale. It is no coincidence the gnostic take is favorable to the nachash. They want to double down on eating the forbidden fruit. The temptation of special knowledge, power, and glorification is too great for them and their idol of pride. This blinds them to the fact that they place faith in the word of the deceiver and some scarce old books/scrolls over the word of God brought by his prophets. Only a fool enters into a struggle on the side of rebellion when one doesn’t know or have a grasp of what the perceived struggle really is. As to bashing Paul, if he indeed misled, wouldn’t God have course corrected? Jesus was more than just the lamb. His ministry and life as well as his sacrifice and resurrection have had global impact like no other. Other religions don’t adequately account for him and his effect, not even the other Abrahamic ones. Nor is their accounting for the power in his name to this day. There is so much we don’t know and possibly are not meant to know.Gods character has been consistent and faithful and does not match their narrative/deception.
One of the problems of this discussion is Gnosticism was never a Christian movement it was an accusation. And proto-orthodoxy was not a movement either it is an academic term that strings together the evolution as to what would become orthodoxy. The accusation of Gnosticism was towards the Marcion followers who had the Demiurge idea, but also accusation was towards the Ebbionites who believed the opposite of the Marcion followers and focused on an idea of Jesus as the first Adam before being divided. And Clement of Alexandria held Gnostic beliefs and yet was canonized as a saint. And Origen a major critic of Marcion, and anti-literalist, was nearly consider the father of the church and the most popular Christian writer of his era was later considered a Gnostic and heretic, and also formulated the Trinity, and is a major part of the Catholic tradition, especially repopularized by Erasmus. So it is a bit non-sense to divide early Christianity as proto-orthodoxy vs Gnosticism.
From the book, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” by Edward Gibbon, (Coyright 1963, by Frank C. Bourne … comes the following……. The Gnostics blended with the faith of Christ many sublime but obscure tenets, which they derived from oriental philosophy, and even from the religion of Zoroaster, concerning the eternity of matter, the existence of the two principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the invisible world. As soon as they launched out into the vast abyss, they delivered themselves to the guidance of disordered imagination; and as the paths of error are various and infinite, the Gnostics were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular sects, of whom the most celebrated appear to have been the Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and, in a still later period, the Manichaeaens. Each of these sects could boast of its bishops and congregations, of its doctors and martyrs; and, instead of the Four Gospels adopted by the church, the heretics produced a multitude of histories, in which the actions and discourses of Christ and his apostles were adapted to their respective tenets.
I tend towards the Cathars who were more than likely a branch of the Manicheans. No one can be a true Cathar, any longer, the Catholic church exterminated them by circa early 1300s.
@@kathleenhensley5951 There was so much religious fighting in the Roman Empire that in a one-hundred-year span over twenty Emperors were assassinated. The Emperor Constantine thought that if he made one religion mandatory, that would calm the situation, so he chose the Gnostic Catholic religion, and that is why to this day the Catholics refer to that Emperor as "Constantine THE GREAT." It didn't stop the killing over religion, but it DID give the Catholic religion the military support the Catholics needed to become THE most powerful Christian religion on planet earth ... at that time. Now, the popes look weak ... as they no longer are allowed by law to order those they believe are sinners to have their tongues pulled out of their heads ... have their bodies stretched on racks until the bodies broke into pieces ... burned at the stake ... and all the other atrocities they performed ... in the name of Jesus and his HEAVENLY FATHER.
@@UniversalSovereignCitizen Thank you. So much insanity was and is caused by fear-filled religion. Following is another example from a different book. From the book, “History of Christianity,” by Clyde L. Manschreck In the fourth and fifth centuries, literally thousands of Christians expressed their religion in monasticism, often in bizarre ways, without benefit of sacraments, Bible, or clergy. They lived in caves, trees, tombs, holes, and mud huts. They killed the bath, encouraged vermin, fasted inordinately, seldom slept, wore coarse clothing, went barefooted, and attempted to outdo each one another in physical discomfort. The more they tried not to think of sex, the more they failed, so that sex was a constant problem. Some would not look at women, others would not allow a female cat about.
@@UniversalSovereignCitizen Thankfully … now that hundreds of members of clergy of various religions are leaving their indoctrinations behind ... there is hope for everyone. From the book ... Apostle to Apostate: The Story of the Clergy Project … authors … Catherine Dunphy, Richard Dawkins When you are reared to think of your faith and its leaders as infallible, dissent can be an unsettling thing. This is particularly true for clergy, who have devoted their lives to the subject of faith. I therefore especially hope that this story reaches those clergy who have yet to articulate their doubts. As they struggle through this process, I am thankful that they can look to the Clergy Project as an example of community and humanism as an example of good. As former clergy who have left churches of every denomination, synagogues, mosques, convents, monasteries, and theological institutions, we stand as examples of the reasonableness of doubt and its thoughtful conclusions. I cannot help but think that we offer a compelling voice for why science and secularism do a better job than religion and superstition of answering the so-called ultimate questions.
Not complicated. Dad “don’t drink that alcohol it’ll kill you” cousin “you’ll just get drunk like your parents” kids have lost their innocence prematurely and can’t re-enter the garden without making the ultimate sacrifice. They’ve been traumatized by premature consciousness. They would have been allowed to eat when they were older If the shining one is a higher god then why is it punished ?
@@BryanKirch you can extrapolate almost any meaning you want from the Old Testament, that’s why there are 3 very different religions based on it. What you said is your interpretation. It’s nice that you found a way to justify your faith, but to say “not complicated” like it explicitly says anything about this in the text is disingenuous.
The Tanakh/Old Testament is not itself part of the Islamic tradition, where as the Holy Bible's Old Testament is simply another name for what is originally known as in Hebrew as the Tanakh. The Quran is a self-contained and completely novel text, which does not attempt to use the source texts from the Hebrew Scriptures or NT Gospels, but is to some degree a sort-of condensed retelling or summary of many of the events describes in the original books contained by the Biblical authors, rather than a direct translation like the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are of the TANAKH.
@@Avogadros_numberI assume Islan is not one of the three religions which build on the old testament. Because Muslims have no clue what is in the bible and they never read it. All they do is read what Mohammed wrote that is supposed to be in the Bible. But he never read it himself either.
The ancient Greek word for the snake is "όφις" initially, was "Fόφις". F here is pronounced as S. From this root comes the word σοφός sofόs meaning the wise. So, the snake was a symbol of wisdom and that is why the goddess Athena is depicted with snakes around her.
It's off subject, but I thought you might enjoy this story. From the book … Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader The World’s Gone Crazy: 432 All-New Pages of the Strangest, Most Outrageous Stuff … by Bathroom Reader’s Institute JUNGLE SPA SNAKES. For about $80, a California king snake will massage your shoulders at Ada Barak’s health spa in Talmey El’ Azar, Israel. At the same time, a corn snake will crawl all over your lower back, providing a deep-tissue massage. Then turn over, and small garter snakes will massage your face muscles. According to Madame Barak, “People either like having snakes slither around all over them, or they hate it.”
@spirosdoukakis7215.....Please where did you find that letter F (letter F...vau) was prounounced as S?. In old greek teksts for example word for wine... (F)oinos....on Latin language vinum......english wine....was prounounced as V. Later in old greek language they write and prounounce oinos.....without F.
@@kreso4794 If you want even more confusion concerning the subject of languages ... you might want to read the following. From the book TALK TALK TALK By Jay Ingram … first published 1992 … an investigation into the mystery of speech … The evolution of language is harder to study than the evolution of humans or any other living things. There are no fossil bones, no vestigial organs, and no relict species (like the cockroach or the lungfish): all modern languages are equally complex.* There is only the evidence that language comes from out brains, the assumption that our brains have been shaped by evolution, and the fact that there must have been a time when our ancestors-and their brains-didn’t have language. But how did it get there? We can only guess. Even the believers admit it’s a tricky business, because if you are trying to re-create proto-World, your starting materials are languages which themselves have been reconstructed. There’s no firm ground to stand on, and you are reduced to comparing lists of words you think were part of languages thousands of years old in order to uncover the even more ancient ancestors of those words: and none of the words on the lists you’re starting with are written anywhere, even in the oldest available stone tablets.
@@kreso4794 And even more confusion concerning language. In the runaway # 1 British Bestseller, “Eats, Shoots & Leaves,” the subject of the book is about the importance of correct punctuation in the English language. The author, Lynne Truss, did extensive study into the history of punctuation. Lynne mixes humor with serious assessments of history and some of the following is from her book. “Of course, if Hebrew or any of the ancient languages had included punctuation (in the case of Hebrew, a few vowels might have been nice as well), two thousand years of scriptural exegesis (my note- exegesis-analysis of texts) need never have occurred, and a lot of clever, dandruffy people could definitely have spent more time in the fresh air. But there was no punctuation in those ancient texts and that’s all there is to it. For a considerable period in Latin transcriptions there were no gaps between words either, if you can credit such madness. Texts from that benighted classical period- just capital letters in big square blocks- look to modern eyes like those word-search puzzles that you stare at for twenty minutes or so, and then (with a delighted cry) suddenly spot the word “PAPERNAPKIN” spelled diagonally and backwards. However, the scriptio continua system (as it was called) had its defenders at the time. One fifth-century recluse called Cassian argued that if a text was slow to offer up its meaning, this encouraged not only meditation but the glorification of God- the heart lifting in praise, obviously, at the moment when the word “PAPERNAPKIN” suddenly floated to the surface, like a synaptic miracle.”
Adam and Eve DID die on that day, spiritually. They could no longer walk with and talk with God face to face. And they became mortal. This is how scripture presents the scripture.
Yes, and they were set against their environment for the rest of their (recently) finite lives. The Hebrew phrase translated as " you will surely die" has a word meaning "die" twice. Like "dying to die" or something like that. Like you said, the point is that they are cut of from God and destined to go to Sheol. The work of the serpent is undone by Christ who saves us from Sheol.
Ah, yes, the ol' "It didn't happen physically, but spiritually." This fallback is used whenever a prophecy isn't proved true, which, seems to happen A LOT.
@@scottscheperif you actually read Hebrew, and Hebrew translations it actually does say “doomed to die.” Not, immediately fall down and croak. The stubborn denial that this is a perfectly fine read the story itself OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTS is intentional ignorance at the highest level
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue ah, yes, the ol' "let's use a vague Hebrew phase that says the same thing but allows us a little wiggle room in case it doesn't become true" tactic.
@@scottscheper a little wiggle room that transparently are supported in the story - and that NON RELIGIOUS JEWS TRANSLATE AS SUCH - like Robert Alter. If you want to say it MAS TO MEAN IMMEDIATE DEATH - YOURE THE ONE THAT HAS TO PROVE THAT, dummy. If the text can and DOES allow for it - it is not only an acceptable read - it is a read that is supported in context and defies the premise you are attempting to make. Robert Alter is ONLY a Hebrew Scholar interested in restoring the literary value of the text. He is not religious and is not trying to prove anything in his translation - that reads "doomed to die." Your bare the burden of proof - else that wiggle room is gaping wide and dissolves your premise in an instant.
For me, I believe one of the key points of the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple is that they both choose to use their divine gift of free will to choose to eat the forbidden apple and defy the single commandment of God. When God asks them about it (he already knows what they did), both of them refuse to take responsibility for their own choice. Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the serpent. Free will means freedom, and having freedom means taking responsibility for ones self and owning the consequences of your actions. The sin was not choosing to eat the apple, the sin was lying to God about what they had freely chosen to do against his commandment. Not taking responsibility for our choices while exercising free will is the root for all sin. You can't be in the presence of God "in Paradise" if you do not own responsibility and atone for your wrong actions. That is the power of the sacrament of Reconciliation. To take responsibility for all of your choices and actions and all of the good and bad consequences before God.
Free will doesnt exist, If Eve wasn't made with an inherent want for power she wouldn't eat the fruit. And if it does, then it's random, meaning God can't judge righteously.
@@VVooshbait The Free Will at work was denying the Truth to God when He asked them and they blamed the other, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. We cannot lie our way out of our moral responsibility and the resulting consequences.
Their expulsion from the Garden was necessary for Adam and Eve to have children. They had no blood coursing through their veins and had known each other sexually. It is interesting the blame each place for eating the fruit.
Eve didnt have a want for power, she is just a woman. Snakes are low to the Earth, hence the snake is representative of “earthly” or “worldly” things. Eve was the one seduced by the snake, symbolizing that women are more earthly persuaded than by the higher reasoning associated with God (which is observationally true)
It’s always fascinating to me how readily atheists agree with the serpent and satan’s ideas of rebellion when they engage with the Bible and literature. He very much was the first atheist. People might consider that inflammatory, but many atheists, if not most, would openly agree with the devil’s position if any negative stigma or taboo was removed from it. They often admit it without realizing it when they say that if they discovered God was real they would hate him or rebuke him for creation.
The identification of the serpent, satan and devil are a post Biblical Christian invention. Serpent is nowhere in the Bible identified with Satan. Satan is not a character, more a title, until Enochian literature. Devil is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. Oh, similar for Lucifer.
If you think Yahweh is the good guy in the Bible, you haven't read the old testament closely enough. I'd gladly align with lucifer in rebellion against such a monstrous dictator.
If God exists and abhramic God is true God and things written in the bible are true, then yes I wouldn't like that kind of God. If it was God of Jainism or Sikhi, I can get behind them. They seem a lot more moral compared to ywvh. Like I have nothing against God. I have moral intuitions and if their actions go against those intuitions, i wouldn't like them.
@@GaganSingh-nx2yv Moral intuitions can be wrong though, can’t they? If the abrahamic God exists (who created everything, knows everything, and is the only eternal, uncreated thing) whose moral intuitions do you think are more *likely* to be wrong? His or yours?
@@beorntwit711 the serpent is identified with Satan in Revelation. It's absolutely not post-biblical. This idea that the serpent was Satan is some tradition outside of the Bible is just completely wrong and is basically only brought up by atheists who've only read cherry picked Bible verses to "le own the fundies"
On Alex's claim that God "lied" to Adam and Even in the garden when he said they shall "surely die", but they didn't: The concept of death in the biblical context can be understood in multiple dimensions-spiritual, physical, and eternal. When God said, "you shall surely die," it can be interpreted as an immediate spiritual death and the initiation of the process leading to physical death. Also, Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18 state that God cannot lie.
I suggest that lies are only necessary when you are in a position of relative weakness. God definitionally is never in that position. It's not so much that he cannot lie, but that he has no good reason to do so.
Physical death occurred. God killed an animal to provide skins as a covering for their nakedness. It was the first sacrifice in a system that would point as a type and shadow to the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
If one looks back to the original Sumerian texts, The Serpent was the god Enki, the same one who created humans to serve the gods. His brother, Enlil, was the one who wanted to keep humans from becoming enlightened, as they might become more difficult to order around. Enki was also later to be the one who saved mankind from being wiped out in the flood. Enki was on humanity's side. Note that the Sumerians were the original inhabitants of the fertile crescent, and were later replaced by the Babylonians. Abraham was from UR, a city state in that region. It is believed by some that some of the old testament was either written, or revised during the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews would have access to some of the original stories that underpinned their religion.
Enki wasn’t depicted as a serpent in Sumerian mythology, although he was cunning. The Epic of Gilgamesh was a closer story which existed in surrounding culture at the time.
@@stevefromsouthafrica I seem to recall, and I forget the source, that Enki was sometimes referred to as The Serpent. I could be wrong on that point, however, it's been a while since I had looked into the subject.
Enki was present in the garden of eden. He plays the same role in the story as the serpent. His son Ningeshzida (Thoth) was referred to as the feathered serpent (Quetzalcoatl) in central america. The cult of Enki and the Enlil are the cult of the serpent and the cult of the eagle. Think of how this relates to the mexican flag which depicts the eagle eating the serpent. The conflict of these 2 groups goes back to the garden of eden. Before the great flood. And yes, the god referred to that instructs Noah to build the ark, thus saving humanity, was Enki. The names are removed and all gods are just referred to as god or in some instances El or Elohim (which was plural and meant more than one god).
Nah it’s because Jordan Peterson practices what he preaches which is to be weary of your own beliefs because they can consume you so a couple metaphysical steps later and Jordan Peterson detach himself from his own beliefs and critiques them accordingly and Alex’s debate style is to shake your belief system but you can’t do that to Jordan Peterson because he critiques himself first Basically he’s beat Alex to the punch and understands what he believes
I have never seen Alex being disrespectful. I think he shows different levels of "closeness" to people and he would question them on any potential error but I would never say that Alex is disrespectful of anyone.
If you even partially believe that the Christian tradition contained in the Bible could possibly be true in any way then remember that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood only. Keep up the good work and may God bless you and your family.
I think there is a parallel between the biblical discussion around serpents and the experience of a Kundalini awakening, which is often described as an energetic serpent traveling up the spine. In both traditions, the serpent brings gnosis. Even in the garden, the serpent brings a gnosis - their eyes were "opened", and they ate of it in pursuit of wisdom.
he's intellectually outmatched here. it reminds me of how I would speak to my university professors when i was pretending to know what they were talking about
The Church father Alex alluded to in the beginning was Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a student of Saint John the Apostle, and Bishop of one of the 4 main Cathedras. He is way more reliable than any random gnostic text written by randoms.
This would be a difficult argument if we didn’t have the apostle Paul making things crystal clear about all of it. Anybody who still struggling with gnosticism as a possibility is going to have to reject the biblical revelation. It’s just that simple. That’s what I worry, Jordan Peterson is going to fall into in the end.
Peterson has been a gnostic snake in the grass from the very beginning. His biblical lectures purposely misinterpret the scriptures in ways no one as intelligent as him could do by accident.
Too bad Paul never met Jesus... Just a story that he met the ghost of Jesus...guess you forgot that huh? Probably forgot how the early church disliked Paul for exactly that reason...he never met Jesus. So who is Paul to teach anything?
@RockerfellerRothchild1776 Paul was a Prophet and the Apostle chosen by Christ to reveal Christ ( the bridegroom) to the church ( the bride). The other Apostles also understood the authority Paul was given, and so much so that when he openly rebuked Peter, no one challenged him. Not even Peter had the authority that Paul had. He was the prophet angel/messenger to the first church.
@@ZeroOne46That's completely untrue. The actual apostles barely tolerated Paul. They only agreed to meet with him at all because he offered financial support from the gentile churches for the Jerusalem church.
Says, "but if you read the text at face value," and then continues to interpret the text using cherry-picked gnostic sources which actually represent a different spiritual tradition and are written more than a thousand years after the text he is interpreting. It's like attempting to interpret the New Testament through the writings of Eckhart Tolle.
@@jimmyintheswamp Your whole notion of the texts being "written more than a thousand years after the text" is baseless. the gnostic gospels were written in 100-200 CE. Same time as John. Furthermore, the term "Christian" wasn't a thing for the first 200 years. They were all followers of Jesus with various interpretations. It wasn't until ~300 CE with the council of Nicea until the canon was formed. The whole "Gnostic" label is frequently used to undermine the Nag Hammadi library. In reality, "Gnostic" wasn't a thing. Fact is, Christianity as we know it is really just Paul's religion. Christian is a Greek term. Jesus didn't speak or understand Greek. James the Just (the actual brother of Jesus) is the core source and wasn't a fan of Paul. Paul invented many odd notions that people today claim as the word of God.
Jesus Christ was the son of Mary and a descendant of David. Matthew 1 NIV The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah 1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12 After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, 15 Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. 17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah. Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”). 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
The main disconnect was that how can eating from the tree of good an evil, or what alex thinks is knowing good from bad wrong. But Peterson says its people deciding right from wrong themselves. but the allegorical nature of the book makes it not clear.
Even assuming an unsophisticated interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil," the gnostic interpretation of God as unfairly withholding something good doesn't necessarily follow. One could easily interpret the seizure of the "knowledge of good and evil" as representing the shift between instinctive pursuit of good (like the animals and good angels) and the awareness of the full range of goods which entails the frustrating need to choose between them. This is, obviously, a wildly ambiguous state of existence. It's what drives us to launch rockets to the stars while cows are happy eating grass in a field all day... but it also guarantees that nothing in this world will ever fully satisfy us. Imposing such a fate on innocent creatures could call God's goodness into question where imposing it as a punishment would not. So the serpent is allowed to tempt man and man is allowed to fall to bring about the terrible intermediate step necessary to bring about the greatest possible good. Of course, that greatest possible good is accomplished through death, so it would be a very bad thing if man took the fruit of the Tree of Life and became immortal -- not because it would make him a god, but because it would make him a vampire, condemned to an eternity of dissatisfaction. That, I believe, is the traditional position. And I believe it's probably JP's position as well.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross One down side to growing up Christian is that it's very easy to get the kid versions of the explanations in CCD/Bible school, age out before getting the adult versions, and assume the kid versions are all that exist.
@@heliod7 Not in official sense. Most of what I know comes from a mix of high-level RUclips resources like Bishop Barron, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, Fr. Mike Schmidt, Bible Project, and the Thomistic Institute, as well as a significant amount of reading from websites like The Catholic Thing and people like Rene Girard, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, C.S. Lewis, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Hans Urs Von Balthazar, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, G.K. Chesterton, etc. In other words, we've all got the resources readily available nowadays to understand as much as we want if we have the time and make the effort to do so. ;)
I think in really simple terms, the purpose of the forbidden fruit was to create a choice. If there were no other options than to Love God, then that love would not be genuine. There had to be a choice so that man could freely choose God and His will.
But why must there be a choice? What is so special about human choice? Does god need human choice to fulfill his will, especially considering that he is an all powerful and all knowing god? And if you take the view that god predetermined everything, is there even a choice?
3:15 Alex missed this point completely. Would have been great to dive deeper on why this was an effective medication. So curious how jp would have responded
I think the main point to get across is that the modern Christian scriptures are a highly curated set of texts that represent only one sect of Christianity. Bodily resurrection wasn't a big part of a lot of early Christianity. Even Paul doesn't really mention it. Keeping the Jewish law was a big topic that nobody really cares about today. The Trinity is a pretty late idea and much of the Christian world rejected it. There's an incredibly rich theological history. And in a lot of ways its a political history as well. Roman Emperors had no small part in shaping what Christians believe today.
@Mike10143 Marcion of Sinope, born 85AD, founded a popular Christian Church which taught that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser, evil God, and that the God that sent Jesus Christ, was the greater, true God.
@@jameswest9469 It wasn't formulated until the 4th century so no not late but I think Original Commenter meant "not early" because it wasn't early Christians either.
This is why it is pointless to talk to Christian intellectuals about spirituality. They take everything you say and refilter it through their Christian context and respond to that. Peterson isn't really listening. He's recasting everything from his perspectives so he's really having a conversation with himself while the guest serves only as the occasional prompt to work from.
Aren't anti-venoms and other medicine, made from the venom of snakes? A scientist from my country Costa Rica (born in Nicaragua) did lots of work on that subject, Clorito Picado. Very cool to think about from the spiritual sense too, it seems like you guys are "venom researchers" as well, just in the spiritual sense. In the end trying to overcome/understand/move past/solve evil, is being a venom researcher. Anyway!, Saludos!! Best Regards
When debating gnostics- an early church father stood up, walked across the room and punch the speaker in the face, that leaders name was Saint Nick: Santa was a savage
@@dr.spaceman9193 If I decided that you weren't allowed to use emoticons, would you be a hypocrite for that last reply or would I just be making up rules for you based off nothing and calling you one when you didn't concede them?
Anyone who's read the Gnostic Gospels know there are things in there that are way crazier than any of the Bible stories. One of them says that Jesus grew to be 900 ft tall at one point. Another one has Peter asking if Mary must grow a penis to be righteous like one of us. There are good reasons why they are not canon. They are basically fanfiction
I'm a Gnostic. I look upon the eating of the tree of good and evil as an inevitability. We had to start evolving by leaving our innocence and childhood behind us - we needed to grasp our futures. We needed to explore the entire universe and learn, that meant leaving childhood behind us. When we return to the garden of the Father through a deeply spiritual life, and relationship with Christ, we return after countless lifetimes of experience and growth of wisdom, we have grown wise through the shear effort of living multiple lives. We are ready to serve God as worthy servants. We aren't spiritual children any longer, we are adult souls that have learned and grown. Wisdom is always worth the effort and work that it demands. I believe that Christ's body became pure energy, and, ceased to exist as a physical body, in the moment of resurrection. Our bodies do not matter in the sense that they will cease to exist after each lifetime. It is our souls that are immortal and are our real life.
@@rconger24 I was in error. I've changed it. Still stands though. We had to leave our innocence. Baby souls with an entire universe to learn about, with millions of experiences of ahead of us... in Gnosticism, we say that fell to earth because we fell in love with the things of the material universe. We are not made for paradise, nor peace, we are made for exploration and searching over the next hill, until the last horn sounds and the universe is no more. I think it is one of the reasons I will always love Christ and honor him, but never quite surrender to him, entirely, and why I've attempted the mystical path but I can not complete it. Maybe, in some future era, my soul will be ready to settle down and return home, to God, but I've still several things I need to deal with.. internal issues I can't resolve. That is why Utopia will always be an unfulfilled , impossible dream. Every time we seek utopia we end up with a dystopian nightmare. (it's direct opposite)
Not a gnostic myself but I agree that it was inevitable in the plan of God. The fall that is. Assumably because God thought a redeemed creature more pleasurable, glorious, (insert adjective) than a creature that was always holy. I hope that you see that Jesus did come to restore creation and ultimately He will. But you must repent and believe that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead to be saved from His just wrath. I pray this for you.
@@LuiicianoBecause the fact that it exists at all, in such an enduring and intuitive way, means there’s probably something true about it. However, we’ve lost most of its texts, most of its history, and have had its intellectual development stifled for 1500 years.
@@Adam-tp8py i agree with you, authorities dont waste much time to destroy false information, they just point out that its not true and why... but when truth stands in an authorities way theyll use all their resources to destroy/erase or discredit it.
It still lives. In many other shapes and forms, but unfortunately seems like most practitioners of it in its many shapes end up confused and weaker. Why? Because when you think that matter is inherently bad, you inevitably wind up doing harm to yourself, at the very least psychologically.
Fascinating to watch an intellectual talk himself into the very logic of the Fall and play it out afresh in the present, without any self-awareness that he has just done so.
That's a misnomer that Jesus is referred to as Lucifer in NT. Catholics have quoted that to me. Lucifer means "light bringer" sometimes translated as a star. But it just means "light-bringer" not necessarily a star. In Ezekiel it refers to the king of Tyre as being in Eden and a "light bringer of the morning". That is interpreted as talking about thr devil. And they say that title can be tralated "morning star" the same as Jesus is referred to in revelation but I disagree. That's reaching further than the text says. I think thr Vulgate translated it as morning star in Ezekiel.
Something important to note, the philosophies of Marxism, Gnosticism, Satanism all share an underlying theme which can be summed up as the Luciferian philosophy. Essentially it is the opposite of Christianity, in that it holds Man himself as having the ability to be above morality or to dictate morality (no action is considered right or wrong) and therefore that makes them “God” (the lie of the serpent in Genesis) and because they think they are “God” ALL actions, both good and evil, are a form of divinity. Instead of man reaching up to God, this philosophy brings God down to man’s level. On the other hand, Christian’s are taught by Jesus to believe exactly the opposite, and live their lives dedicated to humility, love, compassion and charity for all. Complete selflessness.
Gnosticism doesn't opose Chirst or his teachings. Christ advocated acountabilit multiple times. That's what Gnosticism is about. If you would read the gnostic text's you'd learn real reason why Paul was named rock. The compasion and love are alien to Old Testiment, since those who follow it worship the true Satan like being Yaltabaoth. Yeshua talks about it multiple times, that that's not a true loving father figure, John 8:44. If you would read Gnostic text's you'd learn that Yaltabaoth and it's demons, after realising they cannot corrupt Yeshua, decided they will corrupt his message by possesing the appostles. Your claims are baseless because they arise from your ignorance.
@@lookup-yaltabaoth Yes,and Gnosticism and marxism are polar apposites,one is absolute spirit while the other total matter,severely futile making people war each other based on their differences (in this case,class),something the "god" of this world would certainly do. Marx ruined Hegel's ideals.
Adam and Eve could not possibly have understood what it meant for god to say “Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, because understanding the meaning of “Thou Shalt Not” would itself have required antecedent knowledge of good and evil.
The young man obviously needs more work with his interpretation, not realizing the explosion from the Garden and prohibition from the Tree was an act of God's Grace...
There are countless interpretations of this and other passages. The young man, Alex O'Conner, is one who studied Theology at Oxford and no doubt is very aware of these variations. He is a brilliant young man and has a channel that I highly recommend!
Jordan should let him talk, he wouldn't like it if he was being interrupted that much, i like Dr. P but still, my point is valid. His old videos where he is teaching his class at university are really good. 🙄😀
It struck me as a sort of nervous laughter coming from JP during some of the interruptions. I wonder if he was a little intimidated by him? Maybe he was just genuinely thrilled about their discussion.
One of the most revealing and remarkable clip videos of Jordan Peterson's (religious) thought. An educated young atheist that naturally sympathizes with the idea of the Gnostic identification between Jesus and Satan put the finger in the central issue concerning what kind of "believer" Peterson really is: a Gnostic Heretic. And what is exactly the answer of Peterson to that terrible and big accusation? He says simply with a timid smile that in fact he is one. Wow. I didn't expect this undoubtedly evidence of false doctrine and heresy given through his own mouth. A little matter here? All the Patristic tradition and the sound doctrine of the canonical New Testament indicate that is not a little theological and doctrinal problem we're dealing here. But to be fair to both figures in the clip we should certainly say this: very educated and eloquent men.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 The same catholic church that has hunted down, tortured, and killed gnostics in mass just for daring to have a different set of beliefs? Yeah... Something tells me they aren't the good guys in this reality.
Not necessarily. The Gospel of Thomas is arguably Gnostic or Proto-Gnostic and it has been dated contemporaneously to the canonical gospels by some. But the dating of Thomas is controversial.
Not too sure about that. Simon Magus seems to be a Gnostic prototype and some argue Paul and the author of the Johannine epistals dealt with gnostic thought in Colossians, first Corinthians, and 1st John
@@thomasthellamas9886 Simon Magus, also known as Simon the Sorcerer or Simon the Magician, was a religious figure whose confrontation with Peter is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. - lol
Gnosticism predates Christianity. It is mentioned by the Greeks centuries before the birth of Christ and referred to as "ancient" by them. What Gnosticism is, is a parasitic faith that latches on to whatever religion or philosophy is popular at the time and undermines it. Pagan cults, Christianity, Islam, and even enlightenment rationalism have all been preyed upon by gnostic philosophers. Modern Gnosticism thrives within a myriad of faiths and secular ideologies. Certain sects of Christians, Wiccans, various occult groups, Scientology, Nazism, Communism, Fascism, and Baathism are all different examples of Gnosticism. While their specific forms of expressing the Gnostic idea vary to dizzying degrees this is by design. Gnosticism is the embodiment of the phrase "baffle them with bullshit". The only goal of Gnosticism is to produce more gnostics. The idea being that once everyone has the Gnosis, humanity will unite and become God.
@@gorequillnachovidalIrenaeus (2nd century) credits him with starting a gnostic sect. 1 John warns and teaches explicitly against Docetism and other early gnostic heresies, in the Gospel according to John you can see implicitly the same teachings against the same heresies. All to say gnostic doctrines were and are heresies but indeed very early ones, Christ is risen bodily and so will we by God's mercy.
When people in these comments mention the earliest manuscripts do not mention the ressurection. They do not mean the earliest chapter in the present bible. They mean literal historical manuscripts wrote almost 2000 years ago. These in fact show the resurrection was added later on. At least to Mark if I'm not mistaken, and maybe even Matthew and Luke.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the earliest complete New Testaments. Both reference the resurrection extensively. There is no hope for Gnosticism, it’s too thoroughly debunked. It was just a group of people so far removed good instruction that deceived many others. Christ warned us of that.
@@brd6184 Im sorry but you have cognitive dissonance here. I mentioned earliest because I mean EARLIEST. You have just cherry picked 4th century sources. Pre 4th century as far as I’m aware it’s not there. And these sources exist so just go check them out and be open minded instead of clinging onto a narrative that confirms your belief. Oh ye I’m not a gnostic.
@@dombing9101 this is true. i dont get why people trust the romans as an authority on the bible when it was the romans who killed jesus and funnily enough killed the gnostics. seems like the are hiding something. Christians today (and most other religious groups ) are for the most part following a government issued religion. and government want control.
Perhaps the banishment is a strategy to ensure others work through obtaining the same knowledge of good and evil without a "shortcut" (either directly from the forbidden fruit, or through two peers who ate the fruit).
Well obviously Dr. Peterson is a not a disciple of the Lord because he does not believe in the physical resurrection and is ashamed to stand for the name Jesus or Yeshua, but nonetheless we are all grateful for his work and hope and pray that he aligns his acted out faith with his mouth - because both is needed to be saved, be it the first one is more difficult in general, but if you are famous I can see that the second one becomes difficult as well. Existentialism and sacrifice to your future self will not bring you into the kingdom of God. Christ is the door and no amount of symbols, archetypes or neurological structures will change that. Cheers
It is not for you to say who is, and who is not, a disciple of Jesus Christ. God's heart is larger and more encompassing than any mere human heart can ever be. OnlyHe can judge.
@@handsomegiraffe I read both of his books, plan to read maps of meaning, watched multiple interviews, podcasts, am almost finished with all of his lectures, literally I listened hundreds of hours to this man speaking. Believe me when I say that not once has he preached the gospel nor has he stood up for the name Jesus Christ as the messiah who died for your sins so. He is an existentialist and if in his heart of hearts he actually believes, then he is ashamed of the name.
@@kathleenhensley5951 God gave me an intellect and eyes. Who are you to say that what I said is not very carefully articulated and well thought through sister?
THANK YOU. I'm SO tired of James Lindsay bashing Gnostics as Marxists. Gnosticsm literally holds some of the oldest spiritual wisdom the West has. We've got enough people bashing Western culture.
To be fair, what I've seen him do is bash Marxists as Gnostics, not Gnostics as Marxists. He considers Marxism to be a type of Gnosticism, not that Gnosticism is a type of Marxism.
@@matthewsmith5967 Marxists are anti-Gnostic. As with everything else, they co-opted & inverted it. Gnosis is meant to be PERSONAL. It's a system of self-help & learning how to be the best YOU. It doesn't mean you know better than everyone else how the world should be. Actual Gnosticism threatens Marxism because it offers people personal empowerment & accountability.
Heretic might be one of those great words that pop when then comedic baloon that is the ego inflates at times gotta have some correlation. It might work on both ends as a tool of deflating the ego or the tool used by the one whos ego is enlarging a very intresting point of view.
I’ve been really interested in Genesis for the past few months and I’m in agreement with Alex. It’s so fascinating that most people don’t read the text like that.
It seems to me that Alex brings up possibilities and maybes without making any clear declaration and leaves the ambiguity of any given passage as evidence that his odd reading is the correct one. It also seems like he hasn't tried to figure out what the context of any passage is and what others have said about it. For example, when he asks the question about why shouldn't they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad does he think that no one has ever asked this question before? I think it would do him a great service to add to his education on how to read and understand the Bible.
Alex seems like a genuine guy. Only problem is there are many people who have died and seen Jesus in heaven and all of them have said “he’s beautiful” and “he still bares the hideous scars on his hands”. Even for a backsliding Christian like me that’s very profound and also terrifying. He actually took his body with him to heaven.
The serpent is directly related to temptation, but the temptation always takes place within the the "heart" of the individual, however, it does not seem like it. But sadly, it is the breaking or separation of certain bonds that is the process of tempering a person's "identity", if you want to call it that. If there is a bond between two individuals, and a third enters the picture, often the third is received as a threat by one, at least of the other two, and maybe even both in some way or other and sparks may get set off. Bad behaviour may follow and then, worse, one or both may lie about what is going on, to cover up their "shame" or call it nakedness or vulnerability to hide it or hide from it. But, without the serpent, there can be no saviour, or call it, the inevitable fall from a subservience to the state of serving the means of grasping and holding onto whatever supply and source(s) stand to immediately serve oneself, vs. looking to the reality that there is going to be a consequence, inevitably...for doing it. Hopefully it will expand one's sense of what may be involved in the "acts of love" or sacrifice, needed... but often this means is obscured by what seems, in the immediate moment, to be highly ungratifying to one's immediate or even urgent (seeming) personal interest. But, on the other hand, without the serpent delivering us into such extremes aka folly, we would likely be unlikely to become able to figure a way out of, or beyond. A poem by Leonard Cohen comes to mind: Love is a Fire. "Love is a fire. It burns everyone. It disfigures everyone. It's the world's excuse for being ugly."
Hey Dr. Peterson. Doubt you will even read this, but could you invite Fr. Stephen De Young on to discuss geneis? I think it would be great having Fr. De Young and O'Connor on, being that De Young is is an almost double Dr. In this area. Have a bleased day.
Lots of confusion here. Alex wants to read "knowledge" naturally, but "cunning" apparently not, for he digs for different, more serpent-friendly meanings. And what's a "natural reading" of "knowledge of good and evil" anyway? Is it really that wholesome? Knowledge of good, yeah, maybe, makes sense. But knowledge of evil? Isn't this about a fall from an original innocence? It seems this is how Christianity explains our sinful nature, and "death is the wages of sin". There is coherence there, but it's unlikely to be found by a naive reading of the text, outside the context of an entire tradition.
Is it possible that no one is considering the knowledge of good and evil kills innocence of mind? Therefore losing innocence leads to the the understanding the consequences of life, death, choice, and so-on.
Couldn’t finish this video because there was no conversation happening. I just saw a young man trying to recite every bit of knowledge he had, (pretending it was leading to questions), but no real opportunities for adequate response.
When will Alex get the importance of the body and why the Gnostics are so very wrong? It's great to hear that Dr Peterson gets it. And then there's the question of authority. At 6:26 - Alex wants to make sure he understands Genesis so he reads it again. Should I believe Alex's interpretation of the Genesis and the whole Bible then? Who's interpretation of Scripture should I believe? Is the Serpent "the most sensible"? Or is he the Father of Lies?
I think it's important to note that gnosticism is best understood as the birth of Christian mysticism rather than a sect of Christianity. Back during the early years of the church A LOT of people could neither read nor write, that and there were so many limits to science at the time that a realistic understanding of the physical world and space had yet to be discovered and proven. Gnosticism was an attempt at merging the teachings of Christ into an understanding of the world that made logical sense outside of faith. The teachings of Zoroaster, Socrates, Confuscious, and Buddha were still gaining traction by the time Jesus showed up. The gnostics were academics who were fascinated with neoplatonism and logic and felt that Eastern faiths tended to be more open to learning more about not just yourself but the world around you as well. They probably viewed the dogmatic beliefs and strict laws of Judaism to be a hindrance to their progress and feared forming a faith based on grace on a very political one. If you've ever read the Talmud at all you honestly can't blame them. That being said, this discussion reminds me of a quote about knowledge that is vital to understanding the importance of both knowledge and grace: "Knowledge which is divorced from justice may be called cunning rather than wisdom." -Cicero In other words, knowledge alone won't save you, its your deeds and grace through faith that ultimately bring you closer to God. Ultimately I find their teachings fascinating, but realistically these are nothing more than antiquated myths of understanding the universe that, while well intended, have already been scientifically proven to be false.
Gnostic, gnosticoy ( lit translation: know it all) was a deragatory term used as an insult by the emergent Christians in open debates in the public square. The Messiah narrative being pushed at the time was a tragic joke to the Gnostics who readily dismantled the inept storytellers in said public squares. They were in fact called the Telestai which translates into: those who are aimed. They ran the mystery schools and obtained their wisdom directly from the earth mother. They taught the Sciences, Astronomy, Languages, Mathematics and thrived on intellectual pursuits... only to be driven into silence through threats of persecution and death by the Abrahamic Cults...
I interpret it that Adam and Eve lived in perfect paradise, but once they learned of evil then their paradise would be ruined by knowing of evil. They were shielded from certain realities of the world so that they could live without knowledge of suffering but to know evil is to know suffering. It's like a parent that tries to shield their child from the horrors of the world because once they know about such things there is no going back to innocence.
A few pointers on the Hebrew: The serpent in the Garden is a nachash נחש whereas the serpent in the wilderness that Christ refers to is a seraph שרף so they are different “serpents.” Christ is not the serpent of the Garden, different word. When God says “you shall surely die,” he says in Hebrew “dying you shall die,” but in English it seems redundant. God told Adam Eve that “dying they shall die.” That’s exactly what happened when they began to be susceptible to the corruption of age and deterioration.
Interesting how Alexander the Great's Mother Olympias was a devotee of the Cult of Dionysus and claimed that Zeus presented himself as a snake to her and impregnated her with Alexander, not Phillip II. Gospel of John associates Dionysus with Jesus (Wedding at Canae, Bachi, water to wine etc)
The “Knowledge of Good and Evil” is the knowledge of life and death. It is only after you confront your own mortality that you lose your naive view of the world. That is the “fall from the garden.” Once you realize you’re vulnerable and mortal you are free to unleash your potential to achieve excellence, your ability to transform potential into reality. That is when you “become as we are.”
The “serpent” comes from the Hebrew word “Nachash” that can also be translated as “shining one”. I believe that Adam and Eve knew the “nachash” on some level and that eating of the tree of good and evil opened their eyes to the battle between the spiritual, higher power, and the carnal, lower power.
Bringing it back a little, my understanding of the term used when Genesis states “and He saw that it was good…” For the ultimate creator to say “good” implies far more than the English word. Good is so overused it’s practically meaningless. Perfect would have been better suited, but still wouldn’t be fit for the creator of the universe to use. The laws of physics, galaxies, stars, micro-organisms, the list is infinite. For humanity to be perfection (good), i would assume it would also have been immortal; the way we will be once all is right and “good” again. That immortality left them, they realised they were not just naked, but felt the temperature of the air and needed to insulate. The Tree of Life then, would it have restored that immortality on top of their instant understanding of good and evil? I could think of nothing worse for Adam and Eve. If they were alive now, how warped would their sense of good have become by now? I wouldn’t want to live forever. The wearing down it would be on the soul to watch catastrophe and death over and over would be enough to make me seek out whatever death i could. Then to the resurrection, the only hope we truly have that all we need to do is believe, followed by attempting with His help to become more and more like Him until we die… that no matter how often we fail, for as humans with the knowledge of evil, we repeatedly do. We all fall short and yet, like the serpent on the pole in the desert, we look up to the Christ as our only redemption from the poison we keep taking. Lastly, lucky Thomas. I have not physically seen, but have have felt and dreamed. But, frakk! i wish i could put my hands in those scars.
The problem with appealing to the gnostic tradition is that none of the people who met Jesus face-to-face and followed him espoused it. There is no record of anyone who followed Jesus denying the resurrection. Another problem with gnosticism is that it elevates knowledge above grace. That position is contrary to the entirety of Scripture.
Knowledge is truth. Truth and Knowledge are God's grace.
@@thepope9023 No. Grace is unearned (or unmerited) favor. Specifically, God's grace is shown to us in the blood of Jesus as a sacrifice to atone for our sins. We accept His grace through faith which is also a gift from God.
Read Philo. His entire perspective is about elevating knowledge. He describes Moses as a philosopher, which...funny enough so does the other pseudonymous author "Josephus.".
"Josephus" also brags in a supposed autobiographical tale about how people thought he had died in a shipwreck...and that people will believe whatever makes sense to them regardless of how far it is from the truth, and that genuine knowledge will vary by degrees to the source of an event. This was the very mindset that was used to craft the satirical gospel campaign. The Judeans who were crucified, starved, and enslaved would know the truth about Titus' rampage. Others would carry a poetic spiritual message forward for generations that satirized his destruction of Jerusalem as the coming of a Messiah.
i wonder what martin luther thought about that "turn your brain off and believe" brand of theology.
I learned as much as I possibly could about all of these traditions, they are very similar to one another, but upon finding James Lindsay I'm having to be very self-critical and having second thoughts about its safety
I have to say, I am really impressed with Alex's maturity, humility, good-faith dialogue, and clear evidence of growth since his debut on RUclips.
Alex has in deed grown dramatically and not because he started badly. He started RUclips as a tanager in high school. He now interviewing a lot of the greatest in his field and beyond.
@@Wolfenkuni Agreed. He didn't start out bad. He's always been an above average polemicist. However, now it seems like he's integrated nascent wisdom into his already remarkable intellect. It's just thrilling to see.
@@meccamiles7816 I would say his talent here is his ability to engage Jordan in a realm of religious dialogue that has him so excited to have somebody both on his level and not after him somehow. I'm not religious but it is fun to listen to somebody so empassioned.
@@robertmorrison107 -Fair appraisal.
The only thing I would say is he never actually let Jordan articulate his thoughts on the resurrection and just kept interrupting
After the crucifixion, the disciples scattered. The resurrection brought them back together. Subsequently, the disciples had disputes over various issues (circumcision, the Gentiles, law, etc...) but not about the resurrection. This they saw, heard, and touched for themselves.
i beg to disagree.. although pauls christology centers on the ressurrection
the earliest apostolic fathers does not
A friend of mine, Jim, his wife died some years ago. A few days after her death, he was standing in the kitchen and saw her. Not an apparition of her, but he saw her. He was not dramatic about it whatsoever, but was puzzled by this. I don't doubt that he experienced that. Her body was still indeed in a casket, on this planet. I cannot believe for a moment that Jesus physical body "resurrected". It remained dead and he transitioned as we all do, to whatever there is.
@@NineIndex I wouldn't doubt your friend's experience either. A difference is that in the biblical accounts of Christ's resurrection, this was more than visual. Jesus, whose body was not where it should have been, ate with and held conversations with people who were just as puzzled as your friend by what they were experiencing.
@@tedclemens4093
We should all remember that the earliest gospel which is mark and the the evangelion of marcion has no ressurection account . It was a later addition to the jesus narrative
@@jhake67 In their letters, Peter talks about a "living stone," and John about a present tense fellowship with Christ, confirming the resurrection accounts in the book of Acts. Do they need to say more?
Two things missed here which I have come to understand researching the Eastern Orthodox tradition:
1) It is believed that the Incarnation was ALWAYS the plan. Christ would take on human form even if the fall never happened. He was always going to join humanity. What changed with Adam & Eve's mishap is that Christ had to die to fix everything.
2) "knowledge of good and evil" is used frequently throughout the old testament as a reference to growth and maturity. It wasn't that Adam and Eve were to NEVER eat of the fruit, but that they would have to wait until they were mature and ready enough to handle the knowledge. Both the Serpent and Man tried to put themselves in God's place by the declaration that they knew better than Him.
CS Lewis’ book Perelambria (SP?) goes into this a little bit.
@@jjkrayenhagen Prelandra. 2nd of the space trilogy.
Indeed the EO understanding is quite brilliant and removes the silly talk of "PlanB" as some atheists articulate.
Instead God always intending to meet with his creation is actual so much more powerful.
The first is part of the Roman Catholic Tradition, also, but I've heard Protestant Pastors in the American South giving such a sermon stating this as such, without question, as having been the plan since the beginning of Creation, also. I think that it's just a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith, both in our respective Apostolic Churches/Traditions, as well as among protestant (and not just "high church" Anglican/Lutheran, but effectively Southern Baptist or Pentecostal churches in the US, certainly with this example from local radio that I heard flipping through while driving, recently (relatively - perhaps last year or the year before, at most) confirms.
Per the second I've never actually heard this but I am curious to read more on this idea. I know that the Eastern Church/Christians have this thing about the wood from the Cross that would be used to crucify Christ Jesus is said to have come from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, at least partially. I think Peterson even recounts the gist of this one during one of his 4-hour+ appearances on Joe Rogan's podcast (the one where he shows up in a tuxedo, IIRC).
RE the Cross, I like the emphasis in the Orthodox tradition that states that the location of which the crucifixion would occur, Golgotha (sometimes called Calvary in more contemporary translations), which is something like, "Island of the Skull" and is said to have been the resting place of Adam, whose skull is thought to have been under Christ at the base of the cross, which the Eastern Orthodox Cross symbolizes with the diagonal "plank" or plaquard at the foot of the crucifix, which is particularly important because Christ is the "New Adam"
By and large, I think both the Greek/Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic or Latin Church have the same Sacred Tradition, though, which is something that certainly IS missing/absent from protestant Christian churches, who rely solely on the Holy Bible, which our shared Apostolic Church compiled for the first time several hundred years after the time of Christ's crucifixion/resurrection/ascension in the early days of the Church when we were but One Church, founded by Christ Himself - for the first 1000 years, even.
Thanks for the second bit of info, though, that's very interesting. I'll have to read more up on it.
@@texanologyThe bottom plank of the Orthodox cross firstly is just a footrest, they often depict Christ nailed in each foot, not through both. The symbolism of the slant being the scales of justice, sheep and goats, those on the right of Christ (like the good thief,) go to be with God, those on the left, (like the one who mocked Christ,) go down to Hell.
The tradition of Adams skull under Golgotha is held though, but I've never heard the bottom plank relating to it.
This tradition is no doubt where that fraud Ron Wyatt (iirc, I may have got his name wrong,) got the idea from when he claimed to find Adams skull and the Ark, blood on the mercy seat etc.
I love these high level intellectual discussions about religious topics.
High level is Aquinas.
Most of these questions are incredibly low level and were solved within the 3rd century by the main church line. This is what happens when we ignore philosophy, all the sudden it seems like some hidden truth when it had always been in front of us
I find them a bit intellectual and religious.
This is not high level, this is the bare minimum, go read the Saints
@@jakechilton1066 Athanasius the Great, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas
I can’t believe I’m saying this, because it almost never the case, but the comments are more thought provoking than the actual video 🤯
Absolutely! The comments testify that it’s not the “wise men after the flesh” that will understand that concerning the gospel (1 Cor 1:26-31)
im unable to find wisdom where 2 people who don't know god talk about the Bible
@@solo-pro Than you will miss a lot of wisdom in the world
@@kdemetter anything is possible, but haven't yet.
@@solo-pro"from the mood of babes comes forth wisdom"
I don't think Alex has considered "what is death in the spirit realm"? He sees dying from a materialistic atheistic view point, but spiritual religious death is to be "severed from the tree" to be cut loose alone from God. Adam and Eve did die and we can only be restored from the Fall through Christ through Resurrection .
Ding ding ding🎉
I guess the bible could've been more precise than in it's speech then as Peterson alwaysbsays to be. Add one word "spritualy" before die and you have no confusion.
He didn’t say they would die immediately.. he said they would die.. which they did
He said they would die the day they ate the fruit. Adam died 900 years later that day. So he did lie.
@@levongevorgyan6789 you could try reading the comment you’re replying to and responding to it
I actually deeply appreciate Alex's discussion. I never agreed on him since day 1 but he came really far into being eloquent, he educated himself on theology and he discusses ideas without attacking the person. If I had to debate on a theological topic on any atheist he would be the first or the close second I'd be interested in
The thing about the bodily resurrection of Christ is not that it’s an antidote to the gnostic doctrine, but that it’s TRUE.
The "Resurrection" the gospel satirizes referred to dead bodies being lifted from the underground tunnels of Jerusalem where rebels had to escape and to those starving to death attempting to live off the deceased remains, including the crucified victims of the Romans. "Josephus" who was a wealthy and well connected Alexandrian who feigned being a Judean but was actually an avid accomplice in the entire rise of Flavian dynasty records the piles of dead bodies in the wake of the siege during the Roman Judean war...and thus the inspiration for the satirical gospel account of many people rising from the grave. Eleazar/Lazarus the most key rebel leader "resurrects" in the sense of being dismembered torturously and crucified.
@@booksquid856go back to heresyland
@@booksquid856 nonsense. Jesus’s disciples saw him resurrected and were transformed from cowardly men hiding from the authorities to save their skins to bold men who were mostly martyred for their testimony of the resurrection. Jesus rose bodily, appeared to thousands, ascended into heaven and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Believe in him and you will be saved. Reject him and you will be damned.
@@simonbrown1486 I agree with your assessment fully, except for the final sentence. Not sure what you mean by "reject" him. Just for the sake of argument, what happens if someone never heard of Jesus? Or say a 15 year old boy in Iran, who is indoctrinated into Islam by his parents (through no fault of his own), dies in a car crash. Would he be damned?
@@simonbrown1486Nothing nonsense about it actually. Rome wasn't a monolithic empire but rather competing mob families sponsoring and creating different cults. In the year Vespian came to the throne three others had been assassinated before him. The Flavians in particular harnessed all forms of propaganda to assert their presence and authority. Obviously no Judean peasants would have been educated enough to write the amount of detailed gospel/"epistle" references to external historic and contemporary co-created material that satirized specific details of Titus' war against Jerusalem or the fate of Eleazar/Lazarus. There are clues left everywhere in the body of text which Rome herself preserved to give us a clear understanding that we are reading satire.
1 Corinthians 15:14 Amplified Bible
and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain [useless, amounting to nothing], and your faith is also vain [imaginary, unfounded, devoid of value and benefit-not based on truth].
So do you feel like your preaching is valuable and changing the world for the better? If yes, then Christ has risen.
@IFeelQuiteHungry you can always read the whole chapter. I don't take things out of context. Teaching things that are not true in scriptures makes someone a false teacher. False teachers burn in the lake of fire Revelation 20:10, 22:18-19
@IFeelQuiteHungry .... If you understood old testament prophecy then the Messiah must be risen after 3 days. Just say you don't understand or read Scripture and stay out of the convos.
@@Deathl2ow Jonah in the whale 🐳.
@@Deathl2ow Iron sharpen iron.
If he did know Hebrew he would have noticed that the word used for “cunning” is used a verse prior and translated radically different as naked, i.e., עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (arummim) Genesis 2:25. This comes from the root word ur that means to be exposed or to bare. In Biblical text comparison it’s best to begin with comparison within the sepher (the scroll), so while the psalms may used arum as sensible or wise, i would advise caution. An alternate reading of Genesis 3:1 bringing it into harmony with 2:25 reads, “And the serpent was more naked than the beasts of the field.” And why was the serpent naked? Because Satan has no physical body having fallen from grace as Christ said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18). This adds to the sanctity of the body, as Satan is denied this sacred privilege.
It is always great to listen someone with real arguments 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻. Also Satan (translated like "the adversary") is the master of lies, that's why people get so confused thinking that the tree of good and evil was related with knowledge but one thing is "Knowledge" and other so different is "the knowledge of good and evil". Represented very clear in Genesis with the Tree of life and then the other tree that holds the malevolent fruit. So Adan and Eve chose to follow Satan instead of the Tree of Life.
Those were two interesting comments. In case any of you want to expand on it I'm curious to hear more.
Good points. However, aren't all of the heavenly forces (archangels and angels) disembodied by their very nature (the way God created them)?
@@Hoi4oActually, the Bible says the opposite both definitionally and anecdotally. By definition, in both Greek (angelos) and Hebrew (malach) both mean “messenger”. The messengers God sends can be either corporeal, like the angels God sends to Lot to remove him and his family from Sodom, or incorporeal, or a spirit. Many instances speak of angels having physical bodies, such as those entertained by Abraham or the one with which Jacob wrestled. The fact is that the Bible makes no mention of God creating a separate class of beings, i.e., angels. The notion that a different race of beings exists is more fiction than faith. Rather, angels are messengers, the spirits of man before or after birth and just men made perfect like the translated inhabitants of the City of Enoch who God took into heaven itself.
@@JoelWHoodthat is because Angel is a role. All direct agents of God are spirits. Even Jesus himself was called the word, hence him being a messenger or "Angel". Sometimes even prophets can be "angels" temporarily.
One of you - BOTH OF YOU - Please interview Father Josiah Trenham. An Othrodox priest out of California who is incredibly well-spoken and well-informed about his faith. It would be a wonderful thing to see for all of us. Thank you!
John 20:27 ► NIV
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe
Yeah the right side the right hemphisphere.
@@EbbandFlow1234
John 20:all NIV
The Empty Tomb
20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
The Purpose of John’s Gospel
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John was written with combating gnostic views in mind. The authors agenda could have well been motivating the fabrication of such a story but well never know.
"turn your brain off, it's cool i swear."
@@notloki3377 I did. I quoted scripture. If you want context read the whole chapter.
If you say that the only thing that matters is what Jesus said, my question would be: "Why does it matter at all what He said?"
The answer is of course: "Because He is risen, otherwise none of it matters".
But Peterson said that the only thing that matters is what Jesus said.
Truly He is Risen! ✝️☦️
Words words words
Still no solid evidence of resurrection. Hearsay is weak
What He did was exceedingly more important than what He said. Jesus could talk till He was blue in the face but if He didnt descend from Heaven, be born of a virgin, live perfectly and then die on the cross for our Sins and Salvation then nothing He had to say would matter all that much.
Gnosticism perverts literally everything about God and Christ, Redemption and everything in between it is the inverse of the Truth and yet another False Religion created by Satan to deny the one Truth that brings people salvation and freedom, the Gospel of Christ.
@11:00 " . . knowledge of good and evil . . "
What he's missing, and what Jordan is trying to articulate is that it's not just the knowledge of good and evil. It's the FRUIT of the knowledge of good and evil. Once eaten, these innocent, timeless creatures walking with God DO die. Their innocence died there and then. The product, the consequence of it is to corrupt their innocence and to birth a new creature in their place. A fallen, cynical, murderous mankind, capable of great evil. THAT was the 'fruit' of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't the knowledge itself. It's the consequences of holding that knowledge in merely human minds.
Right. In Eden before the fall, knowledge was not grasped or taken it was given and received. Like grace. In paradise we posses everything but appropriate nothing. The eating of the apple was the loss of chastity in the true meaning of the word; as in disloyalty to God , breaking the union with God by giving in to temptation. One can only be eternal beings when in union with God who is eternal and one can only be withering and dying beings if we break our union with the eternal being. How can it be otherwise?
if they had no knowledge of good and evil, then how would they have even known following god was the good thing to do, and disobeying him was the bad thing?
they were completely naive and uninformed about why they were supposed to be doing what they were simply told to do and then blamed for making the wrong decision. i could never come to terms with how this story is supposed to justify suffering or that humans are somehow responsible for every horrible thing that exists. it seems to be a very weak attempt at justifying Gods twisted behaviour.
But they HAD been given that knowledge @@brianbridges8124 God specifically warned them what would happen and commanded them to leave it alone. Even a half trained puppy dog knows when it does wrong and disobeys its master.
What arrogance to judge God's behaviour! You obviously have some serious knowledge gaps when it comes to scripture. Don't you know that you are parroting a twisted and satanic interpretation of these passages which has been shown false many times? Serious scholars have debated the righteous judgements of God for thousands of years, and concede He is justified in all His dealings with man. Where do you get the balls to repeat this railing accusation against God? I mean your first point (they were completely naive and uninformed) is blatantly 100% wrong on a face reading of the text. Did you even think this point through before you made it?Would you care to dig this hole any deeper Brian, or is that enough blasphemous slander of God for you today?
The serpent said Adam and Eve would be like god knowing good and evil, irony is they were already like god he said so earlier in genesis that he made man in his own image. So I think the real temptation was wanting to be god, to become their own individual gods.
God's whole plan is for us is to become like Christ (who is exactly like The Father) and be joint-heirs with him. Adam's transgression (technical violation of God's law) did bring the consequence of death arriving (spiritual as well as physical), but the Atonement allows us to overcome both (resurrection, and the possibility of Eternal Life {Living the way that God Lives}). Christ himself declared "Ye are Gods" (psalm 82:6, John 10:34-38). Acts 17: 28-29 states that we are the offspring of God.
We differ from animals in kind.
We differ from God by degree.
We are children of God.
The Resurrection of Jesus is _real_ !
Children have the potential to become like their parents. Even Heavenly Parents. "Let us make man (and woman) in our image." Who was the pattern for that woman Eve?
The very Bible when taken whole and in proper context teaches that man&womankind have the potential to become like our Heavenly Parents!
That's kinda how I make sense of God banishing them so they can't eat of the Tree of Life; God can't allow them to both (a) become evil by determining morality on their own and (b) become immortal as he is, or even give them the power to create life that is fundamentally evil, so they have to be cast out and be allowed to biologically decay, and inevitably die, in this world, while still being given the opportunity to voluntarily repent and ultimately be brought back to union with God and perfect creation.
If God really made them “in his image” they wouldn’t have been made out of clay. They would be able to create and reason like himself. The snake lead them to the biggest lie of them all.
A very good point. As I recall, after God had created man he said himself "It is good"
Alex is reading things into scripture that it doesn’t actually say, the death did come to Adam and Eve eventually in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense it was instant. The reason they died was due to rebellion against the infinitely holy righteousness God, seeking to become like him. The remedy was provided in Genesis chapter 3 when God says the seed of the woman shall crush the serpents head, that took place on Calvary when Jesus brought reconciliation by becoming our substitute
Ah, yes. The perennial excuse of, "They didn't die physically, but metaphorically."
@@scottschepernot metaphorically; but spiritually
Its fascinating when ignorant Atheists try to exegete scripture when the haven’t a clue of orthodox Christian theology. There ideas are normally based from liberal theologians who reject the supernatural and read the Bible through the lens of Deconstructionist methods and theories
@@jeremybridges6015another instance of the Bible actually meaning something else rather than what it says but it also means something else if you argue against it making it truth.
This is how the snake got in right? God didn't explain what he meant by death. If by physical death, wouldnt he have said that they will not eat of the fruit of life and eventually die? It is almost like he knew what would happen and let them fall.
Regardless the more I study Genesis the more profound and interesting the book is. First of all every word of ancient Hebrew is aligned to the ancient Hebrew alphabet is aligned to verse and passage of genesis. For example YHWH is 4:26(4 letters and adds to 26) and is found in Genesis 4:26.
There is more to what God wants of us than we will ever know and i think a pure understanding of good and evil in absolutes is misunderstanding the bible entirely.
The genesis story is essentially an allegory about the transition from the ignorance of childhood toward a stage in which we become morally accountable. It's really surprising how often this is overlooked, but the original 'sin' wasn't disobeying God and eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but denying one's accountability in doing so. For only once the fruit had been eaten and that knowledge gained do we become morally accountable for our actions. The serpent is merely a scapegoat in this narrative, neither good nor evil and it was in denying their accountability that Adam and Eve first sinned, passing on the blame to a talking serpent, for only at this point could they act with moral agency (Satan, even if that is what the serpent represents isn't 'evil' as such- he still works for God. He is there essentially to tempt us, which is to say, test us. Job, which is the oldest narrative in the Hebrew Bible makes this clear. The idea of Satan as an adversary, who can act independently of God is a later, possibly Zoroastrian-influenced development and doesn't belong to the original Hebrew framework in which these stories' messages must be understood).
Now, the different trees essentially represent doorways into new stages of being and consciousness. There are actually five trees in total, which is a Semitic idea that actually appears in one of the logia of the Gospel of Thomas, but seems to have been lost or forgotten when Christianity imposed its own pagan-influenced interpretation on what the Jewish scriptures actually say. The fact that it does appear in GThomas is internal evidence that the Thomas traditions may go back fairly early, possibly to Jesus or even John the Baptist and the Essenes at Qumran. The Essenes, like the Gnostics, and later the Kabbalists (and all the esoteric spiritual teachings in all religion) emphasized the importance of knowledge. However, just like the word 'faith' the word 'knowledge' is a poor translation, since it suggests intellectual mastery, or theoretical understanding, when gnosis itself means something much deeper. It's a kind of knowledge that is transformative, revelatory; spiritual insight that suddenly sheds light on what before we only understood in a kind of abstract way.
I think 'knowing' is a better translation than 'knowledge'. In this sense you can't help but be transformed, both morally and spiritually by what has been revealed to you, and how you implement it in your life.
Incidentally, Jesus did stress the importance of this type of knowing. It wasn't simply the belief in vicarious atonement that leads to salvation, which is a later Pauline idea. If you read and really try to understand Jesus' parables both in Thomas and the Canonical gospels this becomes clear (all of which were anonymous btw- we really have no idea who the original authors were, and it is doubtful that any of them knew Jesus personally, however the Q tradition, which finds its way into all 5 gospels, but which GThomas has probably the most complete record of, is our earliest source, and as such, the key to understanding Jesus' parabolic teachings. Since vicarious atonement is something that conflicts with the teachings of the Tanach, which is essentially what Jesus knew and drew from consistently throughout his ministry, it can and should be discarded as a false teaching.)
Orthodox Christianity started losing the light with Paul, and even more so when it adopted the heretical Nicene/Trinitarian doctrine. We can credit Paul at least with making Jesus known to the Gentile world, however, he did a lot to mislead potential followers by going around emphasizing the 'salvation through faith over good works' doctrine. By the way, Paul gets this from the book of Habbakuk, but he inverts the meaning of the original statement. It is because of our faith (which, in its Hebrew essence means something more like 'trust' or 'fidelity' than doctrinal belief) in God that, if we do as he commands in the Torah, will lead us to salvation, not simply faith in the resurrection. Luckily we have the epistle of James, which was probably written in response to Paul or his followers' misappropriation of scripture, to steer us straight; works are essential (specifically the ethical conduct that Jesus emphasizes over and over again. See Matthew 25:31-49) but gnosis is what allows us to see why those works are essential. We don't act morally simply because we are commanded to; we act morally, because we know it's in our own best interest and that of others. The closer our communion with the Divine, the more clear this becomes.
Back to the Garden of Eden story; this was a stage in human consciousness that necessarily had to come to an end. There are other trees remaining. Again, they represent, of course not literal trees, but new levels of understanding. The reason Adam and Eve had to leave the Garden, is because knowing isn't something that happens all at once; it is something that is played out over the course of a lifetime, or even many generations and ages (we're still on the 7th day) as we learn the practical ramifications of that knowledge. The knowledge that came with eating that fruit simply established the condition in us to be able to learn what that knowledge means. Only once we have mastered this knowledge, will be ready to taste of the other trees. The endgame is, as the gospels relate, eternal life. Those who are saved will inherit the kingdom of God, in a transformed way of being that is beyond our current worldly understanding of what it is "to live". Without salvific knowledge, presumably the soul ceases to be. The "second death" means non-resurrection, not ascending to a renewed, non-perishing form. Early Christians differed among one another on what this meant, with some believing that at the end, all souls are saved, with a purgatory interim period. This is what the burning lake of fire is about in Revelation; it doesn't represent hellfire or eternal torment (a later development, which goes against what Jews, including the historical Yeshua believed and taught) but purification of the soul. In the iron age in which it was written, the reader would have made the association with the burning vessel in which metal is purified or simply the valley of Gehenna, outside the walls of Jerusalem (the symbolic domain of God's kingdom) where corpses were disposed of. There were early Christian writers, like Origen, who suggested a kind of reincarnation journey over many lives, at the end of which all would come to be saved.
Hi
Nice, I'm saving this essay for myself...
You’re a 🤡, you know not what you speak of.
Philosophical vomitus…
You leave out the main character, God. Only he knows the why and what of the Eden tale. It is no coincidence the gnostic take is favorable to the nachash. They want to double down on eating the forbidden fruit. The temptation of special knowledge, power, and glorification is too great for them and their idol of pride. This blinds them to the fact that they place faith in the word of the deceiver and some scarce old books/scrolls over the word of God brought by his prophets. Only a fool enters into a struggle on the side of rebellion when one doesn’t know or have a grasp of what the perceived struggle really is. As to bashing Paul, if he indeed misled, wouldn’t God have course corrected? Jesus was more than just the lamb. His ministry and life as well as his sacrifice and resurrection have had global impact like no other. Other religions don’t adequately account for him and his effect, not even the other Abrahamic ones. Nor is their accounting for the power in his name to this day. There is so much we don’t know and possibly are not meant to know.Gods character has been consistent and faithful and does not match their narrative/deception.
One of the problems of this discussion is Gnosticism was never a Christian movement it was an accusation. And proto-orthodoxy was not a movement either it is an academic term that strings together the evolution as to what would become orthodoxy.
The accusation of Gnosticism was towards the Marcion followers who had the Demiurge idea, but also accusation was towards the Ebbionites who believed the opposite of the Marcion followers and focused on an idea of Jesus as the first Adam before being divided.
And Clement of Alexandria held Gnostic beliefs and yet was canonized as a saint.
And Origen a major critic of Marcion, and anti-literalist, was nearly consider the father of the church and the most popular Christian writer of his era was later considered a Gnostic and heretic, and also formulated the Trinity, and is a major part of the Catholic tradition, especially repopularized by Erasmus.
So it is a bit non-sense to divide early Christianity as proto-orthodoxy vs Gnosticism.
No apostle was gnostic
Origen was never canonized for that very reason.
From the book, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” by Edward Gibbon, (Coyright 1963, by Frank C. Bourne … comes the following…….
The Gnostics blended with the faith of Christ many sublime but obscure tenets, which they derived from oriental philosophy, and even from the religion of Zoroaster, concerning the eternity of matter, the existence of the two principles, and the mysterious hierarchy of the invisible world. As soon as they launched out into the vast abyss, they delivered themselves to the guidance of disordered imagination; and as the paths of error are various and infinite, the Gnostics were imperceptibly divided into more than fifty particular sects, of whom the most celebrated appear to have been the Basilidians, the Valentinians, the Marcionites, and, in a still later period, the Manichaeaens. Each of these sects could boast of its bishops and congregations, of its doctors and martyrs; and, instead of the Four Gospels adopted by the church, the heretics produced a multitude of histories, in which the actions and discourses of Christ and his apostles were adapted to their respective tenets.
I tend towards the Cathars who were more than likely a branch of the Manicheans. No one can be a true Cathar, any longer, the Catholic church exterminated them by circa early 1300s.
@@kathleenhensley5951 There was so much religious fighting in the Roman Empire that in a one-hundred-year span over twenty Emperors were assassinated. The Emperor Constantine thought that if he made one religion mandatory, that would calm the situation, so he chose the Gnostic Catholic religion, and that is why to this day the Catholics refer to that Emperor as "Constantine THE GREAT."
It didn't stop the killing over religion, but it DID give the Catholic religion the military support the Catholics needed to become THE most powerful Christian religion on planet earth ... at that time.
Now, the popes look weak ... as they no longer are allowed by law to order those they believe are sinners to have their tongues pulled out of their heads ... have their bodies stretched on racks until the bodies broke into pieces ... burned at the stake ... and all the other atrocities they performed ... in the name of Jesus and his HEAVENLY FATHER.
@@junevandermark952
Awesome!
Thank you for your comment.
Great to see some facts amidst all the conjecture.💜👍
Universal Sovereign Citizen
@@UniversalSovereignCitizen Thank you.
So much insanity was and is caused by fear-filled religion. Following is another example from a different book.
From the book, “History of Christianity,” by Clyde L. Manschreck
In the fourth and fifth centuries, literally thousands of Christians expressed their religion in monasticism, often in bizarre ways, without benefit of sacraments, Bible, or clergy. They lived in caves, trees, tombs, holes, and mud huts. They killed the bath, encouraged vermin, fasted inordinately, seldom slept, wore coarse clothing, went barefooted, and attempted to outdo each one another in physical discomfort. The more they tried not to think of sex, the more they failed, so that sex was a constant problem. Some would not look at women, others would not allow a female cat about.
@@UniversalSovereignCitizen
Thankfully … now that hundreds of members of clergy of various religions are leaving their indoctrinations behind ... there is hope for everyone.
From the book ... Apostle to Apostate: The Story of the Clergy Project … authors … Catherine Dunphy, Richard Dawkins
When you are reared to think of your faith and its leaders as infallible, dissent can be an unsettling thing. This is particularly true for clergy, who have devoted their lives to the subject of faith. I therefore especially hope that this story reaches those clergy who have yet to articulate their doubts.
As they struggle through this process, I am thankful that they can look to the Clergy Project as an example of community and humanism as an example of good. As former clergy who have left churches of every denomination, synagogues, mosques, convents, monasteries, and theological institutions, we stand as examples of the reasonableness of doubt and its thoughtful conclusions. I cannot help but think that we offer a compelling voice for why science and secularism do a better job than religion and superstition of answering the so-called ultimate questions.
Not complicated. Dad “don’t drink that alcohol it’ll kill you” cousin “you’ll just get drunk like your parents” kids have lost their innocence prematurely and can’t re-enter the garden without making the ultimate sacrifice. They’ve been traumatized by premature consciousness.
They would have been allowed to eat when they were older
If the shining one is a higher god then why is it punished ?
Except it says this nowhere in the Bible.
@@Avogadros_number you’re new to symbolism I take it.
@@BryanKirch you can extrapolate almost any meaning you want from the Old Testament, that’s why there are 3 very different religions based on it. What you said is your interpretation. It’s nice that you found a way to justify your faith, but to say “not complicated” like it explicitly says anything about this in the text is disingenuous.
The Tanakh/Old Testament is not itself part of the Islamic tradition, where as the Holy Bible's Old Testament is simply another name for what is originally known as in Hebrew as the Tanakh. The Quran is a self-contained and completely novel text, which does not attempt to use the source texts from the Hebrew Scriptures or NT Gospels, but is to some degree a sort-of condensed retelling or summary of many of the events describes in the original books contained by the Biblical authors, rather than a direct translation like the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are of the TANAKH.
@@Avogadros_numberI assume Islan is not one of the three religions which build on the old testament. Because Muslims have no clue what is in the bible and they never read it. All they do is read what Mohammed wrote that is supposed to be in the Bible. But he never read it himself either.
The ancient Greek word for the snake is "όφις" initially, was "Fόφις". F here is pronounced as S. From this root comes the word σοφός sofόs meaning the wise. So, the snake was a symbol of wisdom and that is why the goddess Athena is depicted with snakes around her.
It's off subject, but I thought you might enjoy this story.
From the book … Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader The World’s Gone Crazy: 432 All-New Pages of the Strangest, Most Outrageous Stuff … by Bathroom Reader’s Institute
JUNGLE SPA
SNAKES. For about $80, a California king snake will massage your shoulders at Ada Barak’s health spa in Talmey El’ Azar, Israel. At the same time, a corn snake will crawl all over your lower back, providing a deep-tissue massage. Then turn over, and small garter snakes will massage your face muscles. According to Madame Barak, “People either like having snakes slither around all over them, or they hate it.”
LEGEND bro... Sweeping the shit off the truth!💜👍
Universal Sovereign Citizen
@spirosdoukakis7215.....Please where did you find that letter F (letter F...vau) was prounounced as S?. In old greek teksts for example word for wine... (F)oinos....on Latin language vinum......english wine....was prounounced as V. Later in old greek language they write and prounounce oinos.....without F.
@@kreso4794 If you want even more confusion concerning the subject of languages ... you might want to read the following.
From the book
TALK
TALK
TALK
By Jay Ingram … first published 1992 … an investigation into the mystery of speech …
The evolution of language is harder to study than the evolution of humans or any other living things. There are no fossil bones, no vestigial organs, and no relict species (like the cockroach or the lungfish): all modern languages are equally complex.* There is only the evidence that language comes from out brains, the assumption that our brains have been shaped by evolution, and the fact that there must have been a time when our ancestors-and their brains-didn’t have language. But how did it get there? We can only guess.
Even the believers admit it’s a tricky business, because if you are trying to re-create proto-World, your starting materials are languages which themselves have been reconstructed. There’s no firm ground to stand on, and you are reduced to comparing lists of words you think were part of languages thousands of years old in order to uncover the even more ancient ancestors of those words: and none of the words on the lists you’re starting with are written anywhere, even in the oldest available stone tablets.
@@kreso4794 And even more confusion concerning language.
In the runaway # 1 British Bestseller, “Eats, Shoots & Leaves,” the subject of the book is about the importance of correct punctuation in the English language. The author, Lynne Truss, did extensive study into the history of punctuation. Lynne mixes humor with serious assessments of history and some of the following is from her book.
“Of course, if Hebrew or any of the ancient languages had included punctuation (in the case of Hebrew, a few vowels might have been nice as well), two thousand years of scriptural exegesis (my note- exegesis-analysis of texts) need never have occurred, and a lot of clever, dandruffy people could definitely have spent more time in the fresh air. But there was no punctuation in those ancient texts and that’s all there is to it. For a considerable period in Latin transcriptions there were no gaps between words either, if you can credit such madness. Texts from that benighted classical period- just capital letters in big square blocks- look to modern eyes like those word-search puzzles that you stare at for twenty minutes or so, and then (with a delighted cry) suddenly spot the word “PAPERNAPKIN” spelled diagonally and backwards. However, the scriptio continua system (as it was called) had its defenders at the time. One fifth-century recluse called Cassian argued that if a text was slow to offer up its meaning, this encouraged not only meditation but the glorification of God- the heart lifting in praise, obviously, at the moment when the word “PAPERNAPKIN” suddenly floated to the surface, like a synaptic miracle.”
Adam and Eve DID die on that day, spiritually. They could no longer walk with and talk with God face to face. And they became mortal. This is how scripture presents the scripture.
Yes, and they were set against their environment for the rest of their (recently) finite lives. The Hebrew phrase translated as " you will surely die" has a word meaning "die" twice. Like "dying to die" or something like that. Like you said, the point is that they are cut of from God and destined to go to Sheol. The work of the serpent is undone by Christ who saves us from Sheol.
Ah, yes, the ol' "It didn't happen physically, but spiritually."
This fallback is used whenever a prophecy isn't proved true, which, seems to happen A LOT.
@@scottscheperif you actually read Hebrew, and Hebrew translations it actually does say “doomed to die.” Not, immediately fall down and croak.
The stubborn denial that this is a perfectly fine read the story itself OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTS is intentional ignorance at the highest level
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue ah, yes, the ol' "let's use a vague Hebrew phase that says the same thing but allows us a little wiggle room in case it doesn't become true" tactic.
@@scottscheper a little wiggle room that transparently are supported in the story - and that NON RELIGIOUS JEWS TRANSLATE AS SUCH - like Robert Alter.
If you want to say it MAS TO MEAN IMMEDIATE DEATH - YOURE THE ONE THAT HAS TO PROVE THAT, dummy. If the text can and DOES allow for it - it is not only an acceptable read - it is a read that is supported in context and defies the premise you are attempting to make.
Robert Alter is ONLY a Hebrew Scholar interested in restoring the literary value of the text. He is not religious and is not trying to prove anything in his translation - that reads "doomed to die."
Your bare the burden of proof - else that wiggle room is gaping wide and dissolves your premise in an instant.
For me, I believe one of the key points of the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple is that they both choose to use their divine gift of free will to choose to eat the forbidden apple and defy the single commandment of God. When God asks them about it (he already knows what they did), both of them refuse to take responsibility for their own choice. Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the serpent. Free will means freedom, and having freedom means taking responsibility for ones self and owning the consequences of your actions. The sin was not choosing to eat the apple, the sin was lying to God about what they had freely chosen to do against his commandment. Not taking responsibility for our choices while exercising free will is the root for all sin. You can't be in the presence of God "in Paradise" if you do not own responsibility and atone for your wrong actions. That is the power of the sacrament of Reconciliation. To take responsibility for all of your choices and actions and all of the good and bad consequences before God.
Well said.
Free will doesnt exist, If Eve wasn't made with an inherent want for power she wouldn't eat the fruit. And if it does, then it's random, meaning God can't judge righteously.
@@VVooshbait The Free Will at work was denying the Truth to God when He asked them and they blamed the other, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. We cannot lie our way out of our moral responsibility and the resulting consequences.
Their expulsion from the Garden was necessary for Adam and Eve to have children. They had no blood coursing through their veins and had known each other sexually. It is interesting the blame each place for eating the fruit.
Eve didnt have a want for power, she is just a woman. Snakes are low to the Earth, hence the snake is representative of “earthly” or “worldly” things. Eve was the one seduced by the snake, symbolizing that women are more earthly persuaded than by the higher reasoning associated with God (which is observationally true)
It’s always fascinating to me how readily atheists agree with the serpent and satan’s ideas of rebellion when they engage with the Bible and literature.
He very much was the first atheist.
People might consider that inflammatory, but many atheists, if not most, would openly agree with the devil’s position if any negative stigma or taboo was removed from it. They often admit it without realizing it when they say that if they discovered God was real they would hate him or rebuke him for creation.
The identification of the serpent, satan and devil are a post Biblical Christian invention. Serpent is nowhere in the Bible identified with Satan. Satan is not a character, more a title, until Enochian literature. Devil is borrowed from Zoroastrianism.
Oh, similar for Lucifer.
If you think Yahweh is the good guy in the Bible, you haven't read the old testament closely enough. I'd gladly align with lucifer in rebellion against such a monstrous dictator.
If God exists and abhramic God is true God and things written in the bible are true, then yes I wouldn't like that kind of God.
If it was God of Jainism or Sikhi, I can get behind them. They seem a lot more moral compared to ywvh. Like I have nothing against God. I have moral intuitions and if their actions go against those intuitions, i wouldn't like them.
@@GaganSingh-nx2yv
Moral intuitions can be wrong though, can’t they?
If the abrahamic God exists (who created everything, knows everything, and is the only eternal, uncreated thing) whose moral intuitions do you think are more *likely* to be wrong? His or yours?
@@beorntwit711 the serpent is identified with Satan in Revelation. It's absolutely not post-biblical.
This idea that the serpent was Satan is some tradition outside of the Bible is just completely wrong and is basically only brought up by atheists who've only read cherry picked Bible verses to "le own the fundies"
On Alex's claim that God "lied" to Adam and Even in the garden when he said they shall "surely die", but they didn't:
The concept of death in the biblical context can be understood in multiple dimensions-spiritual, physical, and eternal. When God said, "you shall surely die," it can be interpreted as an immediate spiritual death and the initiation of the process leading to physical death.
Also, Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18 state that God cannot lie.
I suggest that lies are only necessary when you are in a position of relative weakness. God definitionally is never in that position. It's not so much that he cannot lie, but that he has no good reason to do so.
Physical death occurred. God killed an animal to provide skins as a covering for their nakedness. It was the first sacrifice in a system that would point as a type and shadow to the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
If one looks back to the original Sumerian texts, The Serpent was the god Enki, the same one who created humans to serve the gods. His brother, Enlil, was the one who wanted to keep humans from becoming enlightened, as they might become more difficult to order around. Enki was also later to be the one who saved mankind from being wiped out in the flood. Enki was on humanity's side.
Note that the Sumerians were the original inhabitants of the fertile crescent, and were later replaced by the Babylonians. Abraham was from UR, a city state in that region. It is believed by some that some of the old testament was either written, or revised during the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews would have access to some of the original stories that underpinned their religion.
Enki wasn’t depicted as a serpent in Sumerian mythology, although he was cunning. The Epic of Gilgamesh was a closer story which existed in surrounding culture at the time.
@@stevefromsouthafrica I seem to recall, and I forget the source, that Enki was sometimes referred to as The Serpent. I could be wrong on that point, however, it's been a while since I had looked into the subject.
Enki was present in the garden of eden. He plays the same role in the story as the serpent. His son Ningeshzida (Thoth) was referred to as the feathered serpent (Quetzalcoatl) in central america. The cult of Enki and the Enlil are the cult of the serpent and the cult of the eagle. Think of how this relates to the mexican flag which depicts the eagle eating the serpent. The conflict of these 2 groups goes back to the garden of eden. Before the great flood. And yes, the god referred to that instructs Noah to build the ark, thus saving humanity, was Enki. The names are removed and all gods are just referred to as god or in some instances El or Elohim (which was plural and meant more than one god).
Alex seems speak to Jordan in a much more respectful manner than he does to other people he debates.
Nah it’s because Jordan Peterson practices what he preaches which is to be weary of your own beliefs because they can consume you so a couple metaphysical steps later and Jordan Peterson detach himself from his own beliefs and critiques them accordingly and Alex’s debate style is to shake your belief system but you can’t do that to Jordan Peterson because he critiques himself first
Basically he’s beat Alex to the punch and understands what he believes
@@cristiancastor7888 very well put. Spot on mate.
I have never seen Alex being disrespectful. I think he shows different levels of "closeness" to people and he would question them on any potential error but I would never say that Alex is disrespectful of anyone.
If you even partially believe that the Christian tradition contained in the Bible could possibly be true in any way then remember that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood only. Keep up the good work and may God bless you and your family.
I think there is a parallel between the biblical discussion around serpents and the experience of a Kundalini awakening, which is often described as an energetic serpent traveling up the spine. In both traditions, the serpent brings gnosis. Even in the garden, the serpent brings a gnosis - their eyes were "opened", and they ate of it in pursuit of wisdom.
As a gardener, it is impossible to keep snakes out of the garden. 😉
only when you put up a fence...
And Christ is a gardener, a la John 20
Jordan Peterson listening: "YeAh ... yEaH ... yEaH ... YeAH ... yeaH ... YEaH"
He was in violent agreement lol
"Sure, sure."
😂
He's a therapist, give the guy a break. There are some professional, well based manneurisms. Ticks, so to say.
he's intellectually outmatched here. it reminds me of how I would speak to my university professors when i was pretending to know what they were talking about
Oooh, yes. Ancient religions & especially early Christianity is so interesting.
SPECTACULAR discussion ... shared!
The Church father Alex alluded to in the beginning was Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a student of Saint John the Apostle, and Bishop of one of the 4 main Cathedras. He is way more reliable than any random gnostic text written by randoms.
This would be a difficult argument if we didn’t have the apostle Paul making things crystal clear about all of it. Anybody who still struggling with gnosticism as a possibility is going to have to reject the biblical revelation. It’s just that simple. That’s what I worry, Jordan Peterson is going to fall into in the end.
Peterson has been a gnostic snake in the grass from the very beginning. His biblical lectures purposely misinterpret the scriptures in ways no one as intelligent as him could do by accident.
Too bad Paul never met Jesus...
Just a story that he met the ghost of Jesus...guess you forgot that huh? Probably forgot how the early church disliked Paul for exactly that reason...he never met Jesus. So who is Paul to teach anything?
@RockerfellerRothchild1776
Paul was a Prophet and the Apostle chosen by Christ to reveal Christ ( the bridegroom) to the church ( the bride). The other Apostles also understood the authority Paul was given, and so much so that when he openly rebuked Peter, no one challenged him. Not even Peter had the authority that Paul had. He was the prophet angel/messenger to the first church.
@@ZeroOne46That's completely untrue. The actual apostles barely tolerated Paul. They only agreed to meet with him at all because he offered financial support from the gentile churches for the Jerusalem church.
@vortex_1336 Really. So, he was a false apostle, is what you're saying? I'm not sure what bible you're reading.
Says, "but if you read the text at face value," and then continues to interpret the text using cherry-picked gnostic sources which actually represent a different spiritual tradition and are written more than a thousand years after the text he is interpreting.
It's like attempting to interpret the New Testament through the writings of Eckhart Tolle.
Except your premise here is false.
@@scottscheper do tell...
@@jimmyintheswamp Your whole notion of the texts being "written more than a thousand years after the text" is baseless. the gnostic gospels were written in 100-200 CE. Same time as John. Furthermore, the term "Christian" wasn't a thing for the first 200 years. They were all followers of Jesus with various interpretations. It wasn't until ~300 CE with the council of Nicea until the canon was formed. The whole "Gnostic" label is frequently used to undermine the Nag Hammadi library. In reality, "Gnostic" wasn't a thing. Fact is, Christianity as we know it is really just Paul's religion. Christian is a Greek term. Jesus didn't speak or understand Greek. James the Just (the actual brother of Jesus) is the core source and wasn't a fan of Paul. Paul invented many odd notions that people today claim as the word of God.
cite something. Youre just broadly stating
@@scottscheperexcepts Acts 11:26, kind of says differently.
Jesus Christ was the son of Mary and a descendant of David.
Matthew 1 NIV
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
I have to admit this was quite fascinating, locking in to my own field of interest. Jeez, me saying JP has got interesting stuff to tell!
The main disconnect was that how can eating from the tree of good an evil, or what alex thinks is knowing good from bad wrong. But Peterson says its people deciding right from wrong themselves. but the allegorical nature of the book makes it not clear.
Even assuming an unsophisticated interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil," the gnostic interpretation of God as unfairly withholding something good doesn't necessarily follow.
One could easily interpret the seizure of the "knowledge of good and evil" as representing the shift between instinctive pursuit of good (like the animals and good angels) and the awareness of the full range of goods which entails the frustrating need to choose between them.
This is, obviously, a wildly ambiguous state of existence. It's what drives us to launch rockets to the stars while cows are happy eating grass in a field all day... but it also guarantees that nothing in this world will ever fully satisfy us.
Imposing such a fate on innocent creatures could call God's goodness into question where imposing it as a punishment would not. So the serpent is allowed to tempt man and man is allowed to fall to bring about the terrible intermediate step necessary to bring about the greatest possible good.
Of course, that greatest possible good is accomplished through death, so it would be a very bad thing if man took the fruit of the Tree of Life and became immortal -- not because it would make him a god, but because it would make him a vampire, condemned to an eternity of dissatisfaction.
That, I believe, is the traditional position. And I believe it's probably JP's position as well.
I grew up Christian, but never heard that.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross One down side to growing up Christian is that it's very easy to get the kid versions of the explanations in CCD/Bible school, age out before getting the adult versions, and assume the kid versions are all that exist.
Excellent explanation. Very satisfying.
That's a very interesting way to put it.
May I ask how do one comes to that kind of understanding? Do you have theological training?
@@heliod7 Not in official sense. Most of what I know comes from a mix of high-level RUclips resources like Bishop Barron, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, Fr. Mike Schmidt, Bible Project, and the Thomistic Institute, as well as a significant amount of reading from websites like The Catholic Thing and people like Rene Girard, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, C.S. Lewis, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Hans Urs Von Balthazar, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, G.K. Chesterton, etc.
In other words, we've all got the resources readily available nowadays to understand as much as we want if we have the time and make the effort to do so. ;)
I think in really simple terms, the purpose of the forbidden fruit was to create a choice. If there were no other options than to Love God, then that love would not be genuine. There had to be a choice so that man could freely choose God and His will.
But why must there be a choice? What is so special about human choice? Does god need human choice to fulfill his will, especially considering that he is an all powerful and all knowing god? And if you take the view that god predetermined everything, is there even a choice?
Well, we do die. The serpent definitely hustled us.
3:15 Alex missed this point completely. Would have been great to dive deeper on why this was an effective medication. So curious how jp would have responded
I like the jacket Jordan. Interesting talk.
I think the main point to get across is that the modern Christian scriptures are a highly curated set of texts that represent only one sect of Christianity. Bodily resurrection wasn't a big part of a lot of early Christianity. Even Paul doesn't really mention it. Keeping the Jewish law was a big topic that nobody really cares about today. The Trinity is a pretty late idea and much of the Christian world rejected it.
There's an incredibly rich theological history. And in a lot of ways its a political history as well. Roman Emperors had no small part in shaping what Christians believe today.
What are you talking about? The trinity is not a late idea. What makes you think that?
@Mike10143 Marcion of Sinope, born 85AD, founded a popular Christian Church which taught that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser, evil God, and that the God that sent Jesus Christ, was the greater, true God.
@@Sphere723and he was refuted as a heretic
@@jameswest9469 It wasn't formulated until the 4th century so no not late but I think Original Commenter meant "not early" because it wasn't early Christians either.
You're talking utter, uneducated rubbish
This is why it is pointless to talk to Christian intellectuals about spirituality. They take everything you say and refilter it through their Christian context and respond to that. Peterson isn't really listening. He's recasting everything from his perspectives so he's really having a conversation with himself while the guest serves only as the occasional prompt to work from.
He’s responding to specific things he says.
I know what you’re talking about though and I don’t think it’s profitable either.
it’s all ideologues. they aren’t open minded and aren’t interesting in stepping into someone else’s worldview.
That's a problem but not a Christian one
You are upset that atheist s don't get to frame Christianity the way they want? This is ridiculous.
Aren't anti-venoms and other medicine, made from the venom of snakes?
A scientist from my country Costa Rica (born in Nicaragua) did lots of work on that subject, Clorito Picado.
Very cool to think about from the spiritual sense too, it seems like you guys are "venom researchers" as well, just in the spiritual sense. In the end trying to overcome/understand/move past/solve evil, is being a venom researcher.
Anyway!, Saludos!! Best Regards
Cool analogy!
The Easter Proclamation sung at every Easter Vigil in the West and written by Saint Ambrose refers to the Fall as a "happy fault" and "necessary sin".
Interesting. I’ve read some Eastern scripture that describe it the same way.
Why would you play a advert whilst the talk is still going?
This guy can never let anybody finish speaking.
Who?
@@LOUDMOUTHTYRONE Word salad peterson.
When debating gnostics- an early church father stood up, walked across the room and punch the speaker in the face, that leaders name was Saint Nick: Santa was a savage
I believe that was in Nicea with the Arians not gnostic, still it's absolutely interesting 😂
That’s not very Christian
@@dr.spaceman9193fallacy. Jesus wrecked the tables and flung them all over the temple. Christian are allowed to get angry
@@yahwehsaviour9083 typical Christian answer: Hypocrisy 🤣
@@dr.spaceman9193 If I decided that you weren't allowed to use emoticons, would you be a hypocrite for that last reply or would I just be making up rules for you based off nothing and calling you one when you didn't concede them?
Anyone who's read the Gnostic Gospels know there are things in there that are way crazier than any of the Bible stories. One of them says that Jesus grew to be 900 ft tall at one point. Another one has Peter asking if Mary must grow a penis to be righteous like one of us. There are good reasons why they are not canon. They are basically fanfiction
Less redacted by the church.
What are your views on the Old Testament? A 900 ft man doesn’t sound too far fetched for some of the stories in the old
If only that part of Peter asking if Mary needs to grow a penis was canon 😂
Right-eous, right brain left brain masculine feminine.. That's all I'm saying..
According to the canon god kills innocent babys, not sure how 900 feet (whatever the fuck that is) Jesus is somehow worse.
Alex is brilliant. My favorite intellectual. He reminds me of myself
id love to see jordan peterson discuss the lds doctrine
I'm a Gnostic. I look upon the eating of the tree of good and evil as an inevitability. We had to start evolving by leaving our innocence and childhood behind us - we needed to grasp our futures. We needed to explore the entire universe and learn, that meant leaving childhood behind us. When we return to the garden of the Father through a deeply spiritual life, and relationship with Christ, we return after countless lifetimes of experience and growth of wisdom, we have grown wise through the shear effort of living multiple lives. We are ready to serve God as worthy servants. We aren't spiritual children any longer, we are adult souls that have learned and grown. Wisdom is always worth the effort and work that it demands. I believe that Christ's body became pure energy, and, ceased to exist as a physical body, in the moment of resurrection. Our bodies do not matter in the sense that they will cease to exist after each lifetime. It is our souls that are immortal and are our real life.
Two trees.
1) Tree of Life
2) Tree of knowledge of good and evil.
@@rconger24 I was in error. I've changed it. Still stands though. We had to leave our innocence. Baby souls with an entire universe to learn about, with millions of experiences of ahead of us... in Gnosticism, we say that fell to earth because we fell in love with the things of the material universe. We are not made for paradise, nor peace, we are made for exploration and searching over the next hill, until the last horn sounds and the universe is no more. I think it is one of the reasons I will always love Christ and honor him, but never quite surrender to him, entirely, and why I've attempted the mystical path but I can not complete it. Maybe, in some future era, my soul will be ready to settle down and return home, to God, but I've still several things I need to deal with.. internal issues I can't resolve.
That is why Utopia will always be an unfulfilled , impossible dream. Every time we seek utopia we end up with a dystopian nightmare. (it's direct opposite)
If Gnosticism is right, why would God allow the Christians to lie to the world?
Not a gnostic myself but I agree that it was inevitable in the plan of God. The fall that is. Assumably because God thought a redeemed creature more pleasurable, glorious, (insert adjective) than a creature that was always holy. I hope that you see that Jesus did come to restore creation and ultimately He will. But you must repent and believe that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead to be saved from His just wrath. I pray this for you.
This makes more sense to me than much of Catholicism.
The death of Gnostism is the biggest tragedy in the history of Christianity.
Why do you say that?
@@Luiiciano It removed the mystical understanding of Christianity, enabling power hungry snakes to infiltrate and misuse the religion.
@@LuiicianoBecause the fact that it exists at all, in such an enduring and intuitive way, means there’s probably something true about it. However, we’ve lost most of its texts, most of its history, and have had its intellectual development stifled for 1500 years.
@@Adam-tp8py i agree with you, authorities dont waste much time to destroy false information, they just point out that its not true and why... but when truth stands in an authorities way theyll use all their resources to destroy/erase or discredit it.
It still lives. In many other shapes and forms, but unfortunately seems like most practitioners of it in its many shapes end up confused and weaker. Why? Because when you think that matter is inherently bad, you inevitably wind up doing harm to yourself, at the very least psychologically.
"What do you mean by 'what do you mean?' It's like NO"
Fascinating to watch an intellectual talk himself into the very logic of the Fall and play it out afresh in the present, without any self-awareness that he has just done so.
How
That's a misnomer that Jesus is referred to as Lucifer in NT. Catholics have quoted that to me. Lucifer means "light bringer" sometimes translated as a star. But it just means "light-bringer" not necessarily a star. In Ezekiel it refers to the king of Tyre as being in Eden and a "light bringer of the morning". That is interpreted as talking about thr devil. And they say that title can be tralated "morning star" the same as Jesus is referred to in revelation but I disagree. That's reaching further than the text says. I think thr Vulgate translated it as morning star in Ezekiel.
Light bringer, light comes as a consequence to the evil of Lucifer that must be suppressed - light being the best disinfectant.
If there is any confusion here, the serpent was Satan. See the verses in Revelation 20:2-3.
Consider looking into the "Nehushtan" that was in the temple. There were 2 Seraphim there (good and evil. The good one spoke with Isaiah).
ah yes. thousands of years of debate, but you have the answer.
simplicity is a hell of a drug.
You can’t use new testament to prove the old testament. Bro thinks Satan is actually a fallen angel😂. How the catholics will profit off you bro…
@@tbandzoff1cial no one cares about your biblical interpretation.
@@notloki3377 this is a public comment section who tf are you?😂
Saying there was a debate in early Christianity concerning gnosticism is like saying there's a debate today about if the Earth is flat.
Your World view is showing.
@@MultipleGrievance I certainly hope so.
@@vedinthorn
Are you kidding?
People like you wouldn't be able to hide it.
@@MultipleGrievance why would I want to?
@vedinthorn
Ethics - principles
Bias is ugly. It informs critical thinkers that they are not dealing with one of their own.
Something important to note, the philosophies of Marxism, Gnosticism, Satanism all share an underlying theme which can be summed up as the Luciferian philosophy. Essentially it is the opposite of Christianity, in that it holds Man himself as having the ability to be above morality or to dictate morality (no action is considered right or wrong) and therefore that makes them “God” (the lie of the serpent in Genesis) and because they think they are “God” ALL actions, both good and evil, are a form of divinity. Instead of man reaching up to God, this philosophy brings God down to man’s level.
On the other hand, Christian’s are taught by Jesus to believe exactly the opposite, and live their lives dedicated to humility, love, compassion and charity for all. Complete selflessness.
Way to tell us you don't understand Marxism without telling us.
Gnosticism doesn't opose Chirst or his teachings. Christ advocated acountabilit multiple times. That's what Gnosticism is about. If you would read the gnostic text's you'd learn real reason why Paul was named rock. The compasion and love are alien to Old Testiment, since those who follow it worship the true Satan like being Yaltabaoth. Yeshua talks about it multiple times, that that's not a true loving father figure, John 8:44.
If you would read Gnostic text's you'd learn that Yaltabaoth and it's demons, after realising they cannot corrupt Yeshua, decided they will corrupt his message by possesing the appostles. Your claims are baseless because they arise from your ignorance.
@@lookup-yaltabaoth Yes,and Gnosticism and marxism are polar apposites,one is absolute spirit while the other total matter,severely futile making people war each other based on their differences (in this case,class),something the "god" of this world would certainly do.
Marx ruined Hegel's ideals.
Adam and Eve could not possibly have understood what it meant for god to say “Thou shalt not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, because understanding the meaning of “Thou Shalt Not” would itself have required antecedent knowledge of good and evil.
The young man obviously needs more work with his interpretation, not realizing the explosion from the Garden and prohibition from the Tree was an act of God's Grace...
You need work on interpreting fiction from reality
@@BallJuiceOfZeusyou, as an atheist, need to demonstrate an obligation to do ANYTHING
Explosion?
There are countless interpretations of this and other passages. The young man, Alex O'Conner, is one who studied Theology at Oxford and no doubt is very aware of these variations. He is a brilliant young man and has a channel that I highly recommend!
Jordan should let him talk, he wouldn't like it if he was being interrupted that much, i like Dr. P but still, my point is valid.
His old videos where he is teaching his class at university are really good.
🙄😀
It struck me as a sort of nervous laughter coming from JP during some of the interruptions. I wonder if he was a little intimidated by him? Maybe he was just genuinely thrilled about their discussion.
Here for the sacrifice to the Algo-gog
*tosses a comment to the algorithm*
@@gregorywitcher5618here’s another one for the algo god
One of the most revealing and remarkable clip videos of Jordan Peterson's (religious) thought. An educated young atheist that naturally sympathizes with the idea of the Gnostic identification between Jesus and Satan put the finger in the central issue concerning what kind of "believer" Peterson really is: a Gnostic Heretic. And what is exactly the answer of Peterson to that terrible and big accusation? He says simply with a timid smile that in fact he is one. Wow. I didn't expect this undoubtedly evidence of false doctrine and heresy given through his own mouth. A little matter here? All the Patristic tradition and the sound doctrine of the canonical New Testament indicate that is not a little theological and doctrinal problem we're dealing here. But to be fair to both figures in the clip we should certainly say this: very educated and eloquent men.
May suggest reading or listening James B. Jordan on this question of the garden and the fruit.
Gnosticism may as well be called the Gospel of the Serpent
As a gnostic i loved this segment of this great conversation
Definitely.
Repent and convert! The catholic church has the Truth!!
@@jimmymelonseed4068Convert or die? Kick rocks.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 The same catholic church that has hunted down, tortured, and killed gnostics in mass just for daring to have a different set of beliefs? Yeah... Something tells me they aren't the good guys in this reality.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 Doesn't sound very Christian like. Jesus wanted one united CHISTIAN church. Screw your sect of a sect.
gnostics were wayyyyy later than anything canon in the bible
Not necessarily. The Gospel of Thomas is arguably Gnostic or Proto-Gnostic and it has been dated contemporaneously to the canonical gospels by some. But the dating of Thomas is controversial.
Not too sure about that. Simon Magus seems to be a Gnostic prototype and some argue Paul and the author of the Johannine epistals dealt with gnostic thought in Colossians, first Corinthians, and 1st John
@@thomasthellamas9886 Simon Magus, also known as Simon the Sorcerer or Simon the Magician, was a religious figure whose confrontation with Peter is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. - lol
Gnosticism predates Christianity. It is mentioned by the Greeks centuries before the birth of Christ and referred to as "ancient" by them. What Gnosticism is, is a parasitic faith that latches on to whatever religion or philosophy is popular at the time and undermines it. Pagan cults, Christianity, Islam, and even enlightenment rationalism have all been preyed upon by gnostic philosophers. Modern Gnosticism thrives within a myriad of faiths and secular ideologies. Certain sects of Christians, Wiccans, various occult groups, Scientology, Nazism, Communism, Fascism, and Baathism are all different examples of Gnosticism. While their specific forms of expressing the Gnostic idea vary to dizzying degrees this is by design. Gnosticism is the embodiment of the phrase "baffle them with bullshit". The only goal of Gnosticism is to produce more gnostics. The idea being that once everyone has the Gnosis, humanity will unite and become God.
@@gorequillnachovidalIrenaeus (2nd century) credits him with starting a gnostic sect. 1 John warns and teaches explicitly against Docetism and other early gnostic heresies, in the Gospel according to John you can see implicitly the same teachings against the same heresies. All to say gnostic doctrines were and are heresies but indeed very early ones, Christ is risen bodily and so will we by God's mercy.
When people in these comments mention the earliest manuscripts do not mention the ressurection. They do not mean the earliest chapter in the present bible. They mean literal historical manuscripts wrote almost 2000 years ago. These in fact show the resurrection was added later on. At least to Mark if I'm not mistaken, and maybe even Matthew and Luke.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the earliest complete New Testaments. Both reference the resurrection extensively. There is no hope for Gnosticism, it’s too thoroughly debunked. It was just a group of people so far removed good instruction that deceived many others. Christ warned us of that.
@@brd6184 Im sorry but you have cognitive dissonance here. I mentioned earliest because I mean EARLIEST. You have just cherry picked 4th century sources. Pre 4th century as far as I’m aware it’s not there. And these sources exist so just go check them out and be open minded instead of clinging onto a narrative that confirms your belief.
Oh ye I’m not a gnostic.
@@dombing9101 this is true. i dont get why people trust the romans as an authority on the bible when it was the romans who killed jesus and funnily enough killed the gnostics. seems like the are hiding something. Christians today (and most other religious groups ) are for the most part following a government issued religion. and government want control.
Perhaps the banishment is a strategy to ensure others work through obtaining the same knowledge of good and evil without a "shortcut" (either directly from the forbidden fruit, or through two peers who ate the fruit).
Well obviously Dr. Peterson is a not a disciple of the Lord because he does not believe in the physical resurrection and is ashamed to stand for the name Jesus or Yeshua, but nonetheless we are all grateful for his work and hope and pray that he aligns his acted out faith with his mouth - because both is needed to be saved, be it the first one is more difficult in general, but if you are famous I can see that the second one becomes difficult as well.
Existentialism and sacrifice to your future self will not bring you into the kingdom of God. Christ is the door and no amount of symbols, archetypes or neurological structures will change that.
Cheers
Where did he say he does not believe in the physical resurrection? Certainly not in this video.
It is not for you to say who is, and who is not, a disciple of Jesus Christ. God's heart is larger and more encompassing than any mere human heart can ever be. OnlyHe can judge.
@@handsomegiraffe I read both of his books, plan to read maps of meaning, watched multiple interviews, podcasts, am almost finished with all of his lectures, literally I listened hundreds of hours to this man speaking. Believe me when I say that not once has he preached the gospel nor has he stood up for the name Jesus Christ as the messiah who died for your sins so. He is an existentialist and if in his heart of hearts he actually believes, then he is ashamed of the name.
@@kathleenhensley5951 God gave me an intellect and eyes. Who are you to say that what I said is not very carefully articulated and well thought through sister?
THANK YOU. I'm SO tired of James Lindsay bashing Gnostics as Marxists. Gnosticsm literally holds some of the oldest spiritual wisdom the West has. We've got enough people bashing Western culture.
I really dislike gnosticism but I have to admit James Lindsey sees them under his bed and in his closet
To be fair, what I've seen him do is bash Marxists as Gnostics, not Gnostics as Marxists. He considers Marxism to be a type of Gnosticism, not that Gnosticism is a type of Marxism.
@@matthewsmith5967 Marxists are anti-Gnostic. As with everything else, they co-opted & inverted it. Gnosis is meant to be PERSONAL. It's a system of self-help & learning how to be the best YOU. It doesn't mean you know better than everyone else how the world should be.
Actual Gnosticism threatens Marxism because it offers people personal empowerment & accountability.
The Truth, the way and the light are in Jesus Catholic Church!🙏🏻
☦️
Child molesters are also in the catholic church 🙏
catholic church was a pagan church during jesus lifetime. why would you trust the roman pagan church who killed jesus as an authority on the bible
One of the conversations of all time
Heretic might be one of those great words that pop when then comedic baloon that is the ego inflates at times gotta have some correlation. It might work on both ends as a tool of deflating the ego or the tool used by the one whos ego is enlarging a very intresting point of view.
I’ve been really interested in Genesis for the past few months and I’m in agreement with Alex. It’s so fascinating that most people don’t read the text like that.
It seems to me that Alex brings up possibilities and maybes without making any clear declaration and leaves the ambiguity of any given passage as evidence that his odd reading is the correct one. It also seems like he hasn't tried to figure out what the context of any passage is and what others have said about it. For example, when he asks the question about why shouldn't they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad does he think that no one has ever asked this question before? I think it would do him a great service to add to his education on how to read and understand the Bible.
My friends, the rambling shows signs of question. Both are as important as the other. He has risen, your turn. ❤️✝️
Thank you 😊❤🎉
Alex seems like a genuine guy. Only problem is there are many people who have died and seen Jesus in heaven and all of them have said “he’s beautiful” and “he still bares the hideous scars on his hands”. Even for a backsliding Christian like me that’s very profound and also terrifying. He actually took his body with him to heaven.
The serpent is directly related to temptation, but the temptation always takes place within the the "heart" of the individual, however, it does not seem like it.
But sadly, it is the breaking or separation of certain bonds that is the process of tempering a person's "identity", if you want to call it that.
If there is a bond between two individuals, and a third enters the picture, often the third is received as a threat by one, at least of the other two, and maybe even both in some way or other and sparks may get set off.
Bad behaviour may follow and then, worse, one or both may lie about what is going on, to cover up their "shame" or call it nakedness or vulnerability to hide it or hide from it.
But, without the serpent, there can be no saviour, or call it, the inevitable fall from a subservience to the state of serving the means of grasping and holding onto whatever supply and source(s) stand to immediately serve oneself, vs. looking to the reality that there is going to be a consequence, inevitably...for doing it.
Hopefully it will expand one's sense of what may be involved in the "acts of love" or sacrifice, needed... but often this means is obscured by what seems, in the immediate moment, to be highly ungratifying to one's immediate or even urgent (seeming) personal interest.
But, on the other hand, without the serpent delivering us into such extremes aka folly, we would likely be unlikely to become able to figure a way out of, or beyond.
A poem by Leonard Cohen comes to mind: Love is a Fire.
"Love is a fire.
It burns everyone.
It disfigures everyone.
It's the world's excuse for
being ugly."
Hey Dr. Peterson. Doubt you will even read this, but could you invite Fr. Stephen De Young on to discuss geneis? I think it would be great having Fr. De Young and O'Connor on, being that De Young is is an almost double Dr. In this area. Have a bleased day.
Lots of confusion here. Alex wants to read "knowledge" naturally, but "cunning" apparently not, for he digs for different, more serpent-friendly meanings. And what's a "natural reading" of "knowledge of good and evil" anyway? Is it really that wholesome? Knowledge of good, yeah, maybe, makes sense. But knowledge of evil? Isn't this about a fall from an original innocence? It seems this is how Christianity explains our sinful nature, and "death is the wages of sin". There is coherence there, but it's unlikely to be found by a naive reading of the text, outside the context of an entire tradition.
Is it possible that no one is considering the knowledge of good and evil kills innocence of mind? Therefore losing innocence leads to the the understanding the consequences of life, death, choice, and so-on.
Couldn’t finish this video because there was no conversation happening. I just saw a young man trying to recite every bit of knowledge he had, (pretending it was leading to questions), but no real opportunities for adequate response.
When will Alex get the importance of the body and why the Gnostics are so very wrong? It's great to hear that Dr Peterson gets it.
And then there's the question of authority. At 6:26 - Alex wants to make sure he understands Genesis so he reads it again. Should I believe Alex's interpretation of the Genesis and the whole Bible then? Who's interpretation of Scripture should I believe? Is the Serpent "the most sensible"? Or is he the Father of Lies?
I think it's important to note that gnosticism is best understood as the birth of Christian mysticism rather than a sect of Christianity. Back during the early years of the church A LOT of people could neither read nor write, that and there were so many limits to science at the time that a realistic understanding of the physical world and space had yet to be discovered and proven. Gnosticism was an attempt at merging the teachings of Christ into an understanding of the world that made logical sense outside of faith. The teachings of Zoroaster, Socrates, Confuscious, and Buddha were still gaining traction by the time Jesus showed up. The gnostics were academics who were fascinated with neoplatonism and logic and felt that Eastern faiths tended to be more open to learning more about not just yourself but the world around you as well. They probably viewed the dogmatic beliefs and strict laws of Judaism to be a hindrance to their progress and feared forming a faith based on grace on a very political one. If you've ever read the Talmud at all you honestly can't blame them.
That being said, this discussion reminds me of a quote about knowledge that is vital to understanding the importance of both knowledge and grace:
"Knowledge which is divorced from justice may be called cunning rather than wisdom." -Cicero
In other words, knowledge alone won't save you, its your deeds and grace through faith that ultimately bring you closer to God.
Ultimately I find their teachings fascinating, but realistically these are nothing more than antiquated myths of understanding the universe that, while well intended, have already been scientifically proven to be false.
So serious! These guys! So SERIOUS!
This just might be the best comment section I have ever came across
Gnostic, gnosticoy ( lit translation: know it all) was a deragatory term used as an insult by the emergent Christians in open debates in the public square.
The Messiah narrative being pushed at the time was a tragic joke to the Gnostics who readily dismantled the inept storytellers in said public squares.
They were in fact called the Telestai which translates into: those who are aimed. They ran the mystery schools and obtained their wisdom directly from the earth mother. They taught the Sciences, Astronomy, Languages, Mathematics and thrived on intellectual pursuits... only to be driven into silence through threats of persecution and death by the Abrahamic Cults...
Thank you brother.
I interpret it that Adam and Eve lived in perfect paradise, but once they learned of evil then their paradise would be ruined by knowing of evil. They were shielded from certain realities of the world so that they could live without knowledge of suffering but to know evil is to know suffering. It's like a parent that tries to shield their child from the horrors of the world because once they know about such things there is no going back to innocence.
A few pointers on the Hebrew:
The serpent in the Garden is a nachash נחש whereas the serpent in the wilderness that Christ refers to is a seraph שרף so they are different “serpents.” Christ is not the serpent of the Garden, different word.
When God says “you shall surely die,” he says in Hebrew “dying you shall die,” but in English it seems redundant. God told Adam Eve that “dying they shall die.” That’s exactly what happened when they began to be susceptible to the corruption of age and deterioration.
Interesting how Alexander the Great's Mother Olympias was a devotee of the Cult of Dionysus and claimed that Zeus presented himself as a snake to her and impregnated her with Alexander, not Phillip II. Gospel of John associates Dionysus with Jesus (Wedding at Canae, Bachi, water to wine etc)
The “Knowledge of Good and Evil” is the knowledge of life and death. It is only after you confront your own mortality that you lose your naive view of the world. That is the “fall from the garden.”
Once you realize you’re vulnerable and mortal you are free to unleash your potential to achieve excellence, your ability to transform potential into reality. That is when you “become as we are.”
The “serpent” comes from the Hebrew word “Nachash” that can also be translated as “shining one”. I believe that Adam and Eve knew the “nachash” on some level and that eating of the tree of good and evil opened their eyes to the battle between the spiritual, higher power, and the carnal, lower power.
Bringing it back a little, my understanding of the term used when Genesis states “and He saw that it was good…”
For the ultimate creator to say “good” implies far more than the English word. Good is so overused it’s practically meaningless. Perfect would have been better suited, but still wouldn’t be fit for the creator of the universe to use. The laws of physics, galaxies, stars, micro-organisms, the list is infinite. For humanity to be perfection (good), i would assume it would also have been immortal; the way we will be once all is right and “good” again. That immortality left them, they realised they were not just naked, but felt the temperature of the air and needed to insulate. The Tree of Life then, would it have restored that immortality on top of their instant understanding of good and evil? I could think of nothing worse for Adam and Eve. If they were alive now, how warped would their sense of good have become by now? I wouldn’t want to live forever. The wearing down it would be on the soul to watch catastrophe and death over and over would be enough to make me seek out whatever death i could.
Then to the resurrection, the only hope we truly have that all we need to do is believe, followed by attempting with His help to become more and more like Him until we die… that no matter how often we fail, for as humans with the knowledge of evil, we repeatedly do. We all fall short and yet, like the serpent on the pole in the desert, we look up to the Christ as our only redemption from the poison we keep taking.
Lastly, lucky Thomas. I have not physically seen, but have have felt and dreamed. But, frakk! i wish i could put my hands in those scars.