Christianity is Not Revolutionary: Parables of the Vinedressers and the Wedding Feast
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июл 2021
- Through the parable of the Vinedressers and of the Wedding Feast we look at how Christianity is not a revolutionary system, but rather one in which we see how what is below is properly united with what is above.
My intro was arranged and recorded by Matthew Wilkinson.
--------
Website and Blog: www.thesymbolicworld.com
Merch: www.thesymbolicworld.store
Orthodox Arts Journal: orthodoxartsjournal.org/jonat...
The Symbolic World podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0gI8bUw...
Apple podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
More videos from The Symbolic World:
Clips Channel: / jonathanpageauclips
French Channel: / jonathanpageaufrançais
Bitchute: www.bitchute.com/channel/page...
Dtube: steemit.com/@symbolism
Join the conversation:
Unofficial Facebook discussion group: / 1989208418065298
The Symbolic World Reddit: / thesymbolicworld
Support this channel:
Webside: thesymbolicworld.com/support/
Patreon: / pageauvideos
Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/jonatha...
Paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
Social media links:
Facebook: / thesymbolicworld
Twitter: / pageaujonathan
Instagram: / jonathan.pageau
The intro and outro to my videos was written by Matthew Wilkinson
My website designers, Anomalist Design: www.anomalistdesign.com/
![Finesse2Tymes - Pretty Ricky [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xIoP_mhYRT0/mqdefault.jpg)
I think the whole point of Christianity is to show that just because something is older or newer it doesn't mean it's better, but instead that the meaning of a system has to be coherent both from above and from below. Revolution (as in the left hand) is change for change's sake, Christianity on the other hand wants to be timeless.
I used to think and behave as many avid anti-Christians. Had a conversion to Orthodoxy experience. Began reading as much as I could. And. Realized very quickly. I had NO idea what Christianity even am. Not even a little.
I feel most people that are hateful speak from places of sublime ignorance. I know I did.
This video helped me understand Axiom II of Forrest Landry's Immanent Domain Metaphysics:
A class of the transcendent will precede an instance of the immanent.
A class of the immanent will precede an instance of the omniscient.
A class of the omniscient will precede an instance of the transcendent.
The people emmanate down from the top of the mountain, and then fragment out into the kingdom, (the domain, the cosmos, the omniscient,) and ultimately are collected back up into the peak to begin the cycle again.
I love the new intro! Real strings!
Beautiful new intro song 🦋
Love the intro!
I really like the wisdom that Jonathan provides, where wisdom is this kind of systems thinking, where you see patterns of reality, patterns of systems that recurs across different levels. Keep it up! :)
Christianity is not revolutionary in the political sense, but it is in the spiritual sense.
Politics is nested in spirituality, no?
@@TheGerogero I suppose you could say that. But then it follows that christianity is revolutionary politically as well. However Jesus himself was an example of a man who did not collapse the roman empire and liberate the jews in a political sense, (which is what the jews expected their messiah to be) but instead brought about a spiritual revolution (just look at his interactions with the religious authorities of his time, the pharisees). Jesus is revolutionary in the sense that he asks us to revolt against the world itself, reject worldly values and principles and live in a spiritual sense. It IS revolutionary because the world is mostly moved by petty material concerns like wealth and power, but we aren't supposed to live by them.
@@MrChaosAdam This seems to me a sound application of logic: if it follows, then it is so. I believe the second sense in which you say Christianity is revolutionary will lead to a political revolution, but it will not be like the ones we have become accustomed to.
It seems like it will always be a going-back-to-the-garden; a remembering. Relative to the traditions that preceded it Christianity may be revolutionary, but in the grand scheme of things I don't see how you can call it revolutionary.
@@bradspitt3896 I already descibed how lmao.
This is a really good explanation, and the human body seems like it could be a straightforward analogy. It's like trying to imagine the cells in a hand thinking it would be a good idea to reap the benefits of the brain. From a extremely limited perspective, this might make sense, but from above, it's insane.
Daily, I participate in life with those “highway and byway” people with whom I am celebrating in anticipation of the Great Wedding Feast, as well as many smaller feasts along the journey. Not all join in the wearing of the garments, but little by little, more folks are dressing up. Life is a blessing, indeed.
This is one of the best Wednesday night bible studies ever.
It’s not the revolution of Jesus Christ. It’s a revelation of Jesus Christ
Tell that to the kooks, well most likely 5th column trying to destroy us from within. At least the "God, guns and other foolishness" people. This is the end time beast of iron, and we cannot win without the spirit of God.
So he answered and said to me: “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ Says the LORD of hosts.
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds
This is not a war that can be won with carnal weapons. They have the armies, the fighter jets, tanks, battleships, and yet they will lose. But we win by the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. We are not fighting against people.
And it shall come to pass afterward That I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your old men shall dream dreams, Your young men shall see visions.
Only the flood of fire and the spirit will save us from this enemy, it is an invisible enemy, it uses people as hosts, but it is a parasitic organism, it can destroy the host and find another. It is right out of a sci-fi movie. Only by saving and converting can we remove flesh and blood from being used as a weapon against us.
If we do not even understand who we are fighting and what weapons to use, how can we defeat the enemy? Thank the LORD that HE will guide us and teach us. Prepare your hearts and fill your lamps with oil, this might be a long battle, but fear not, the victory will be ours in the end.
@@EnochianChronicles i don't really understand what the work Of Jonathan is about, could you help me understanding it?
@@jenesaisvraimentpasquoimet8473 It is not complicated, He explains the meaning behind the symbols.
Our lord spoke in parables, the dark sayings of the wise.
Parables are analogies using symbols, if you do not understand the analogy you might miss the meaning.
Knowing the symbol reveals deeper meanings, to `know` meant to have intimate knowledge. The entire book of revelation uses symbology, that is why so few understand it.
A sign is a symbol that points to something else. Even the mark is a sign or symbol, as is a seal or what was once called a signet. A signet ring made a stamp in wax or other substance. The stamp was the seal of the wearer of the ring. His sign. The people of God are marked with his seal from his signet, as will the children of the beast be also. This signifies ownership of the one so marked or sealed.
I pray that helps a bit as to what he does and why it is so significant to our current day and age.
@@EnochianChronicles it really helped me man thanks, I am really greatful for your answer! Would hou mind if I asked other questions in private?😅 I know it seems strange but the subject really interests me!
@@jenesaisvraimentpasquoimet8473 I am learning the meaning of the symbols myself. I am sure there are many others that frequent Jonathon`s youtube that would have a far greater understanding than myself.
It does seem strange to seek private council in regards symbolic interpretation, after all we are anonymous for the most part. You are certainly welcome to ask other questions, I am not certain if I will have sufficient knowledge to answer them.
God be with you and comfort you with his presence.
This is like the perfect inverse of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, in much less than 1500 pages 😂
I have logos rising, emj is great but man I've never needed to take breaks from a book before and it's short
💯
@@nicholasdonin1465 Logos Rising is a short book? What do you usually read? War and Peace?
@@bman5257 😂 let me correct, short for EMJ
Explain
Have you noticed the similarities between this parable of the vinyard and Isaiah's song of the vinyard? They're strikingly similar.
The Parable of the vine dressers is about how Israel received the Prophets and finally what they did to Jesus, and how God granted salvation to the gentiles as a result. Israel is now composed of those who confess Christ. The stone that the builders rejected is Jesus himself. In similar manner Peter's confession of Christ is the rock on which the church (Israel) is built.
This is Jonathan Pageau, welcome to The Symbolic World
This is beginning to answer my confusion around Jonathan's idea of Christ "filling the hierarchy." Beautiful parable and image.
I love the telosseed topic!
great video!
Hey Jon. Thank you so much for helping a lot of us materialist minded people to understand the symbolism, patterns and metaphysics of Christianity. Its given us a larger perspective than what some of our respective religious teachers couldn't communicate to us.
yes, it's especially fascinating for Jonathan to depict reality as a large, thematic narrative in which Christianity completes the picture.
I love the new intro!
"All are welcome" is a popular slogan in today's churches, but those who enter have to manifest the fruits of the kingdom of heaven otherwise they will be cast out just like what Jesus' parable of the wedding feast says. Not all that attend will necessarily be able to stay. This means that everyone is welcome to attend the wedding feast of the lamb at mass, but one who continues to live a sinful life intentionally will be cast out.
New intro song sounds great. Love the piano.
Love the new intro!!
Seeing as were taking on a Sports theme and many well-known movies unknowingly commandeer this Christian trope, I believe a video on the Symbolic Significance of The Mighty Ducks could be useful
Love that new intro music!
By saying "get it together" you have an instinctual understanding of this topic.
Man... "I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for God is with me"
Something like the more darkness you embrace with humility, the more God will shine upon you..
No matter how many layers of darkness, how far down you have fallen, so long as you "wear the wedding garments"
you will be brought back in. Thinking more about this, its used often in movies.
I think it is a mistake that this essay treats "revolution" as a singular concept when the Gospels themselves actually endorse other kinds of revolution. The kind of revolution these parables focus on is destructive/selfish revolution where people act out of entitlement and greed to "storm the castle" and claim the king's treasure as their own. Jesus clearly was saying with these parables that storming God's castle is a foolhardy and self-destructive endeavor. Instead, you should be humble, put in the work and "wear the garments" to reap God's rewards.
However, there's another kind of positive/constructive revolution where, out of necessity, the people must overthrow a corrupt authority to restore justice and benevolent rule for the good of everyone. Of course, God isn't corrupt so that kind of revolution only applies to worldly powers. Still, the Gospels absolutely endorse constructive revolutions (Jesus' Cleansing of the Temple, for example, and wresting religious authority away from the Pharisees). So, a blanket statement that "Christianity isn't revolutionary" isn't just false, it undermines Jonathan's stronger message about these particular parables.
Christ criticized the Pharisees for being hypocrites, that is either saying one thing and doing another, or else not understanding the "logos" of the law they upheld, but he never questions their authority in Jewish culture. The only time he actually addresses their authority is in Matthew 23, ""The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." The Pharisees on the other hand were not able to see that Christ's authority came from above, yet Christ never tried to replace or take away the authority of the Pharisees. Christ also never spoke against Rome or the abuses Rome brought to the Jews. In that sense he was not a revolutionary.
@@JonathanPageau """The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
But thats a revolutionary move! He's not calling for a violent assult on their power/authority, but his ENTIRE MINISTRY is subverting it from below!
@@julianw6604 "Obey your authorities even though you can see that they are hypocrites" is a revolutionary move? Well, I guess I am stumped...
@@JonathanPageau Literally the entire rest of the chapter is an assault on the authority of the Pharisees. The one sentence you quoted is just before he unleashes the most harsh words against the Pharisees in all of the gospels. He's making the same move he makes here with regards to the Romans: Don't violently resist them--thats futile--but a) Christ himself is Lord and the higher authority and b) his entire mode of being/ministry offers a path that subverts and undermines everything the Romans and the Pharasees are trying to uphold. All this culminates in the cross, where Christ SUBMITS to the combined forces of Church and State but then, comes through in the Resurrection, the victory OVER these powers and "And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. " Thats the non-violent revolutionary move of Christ: He subverts them through submission, by self-giving love, by canceling and exposing the false logic that props them up.
@@julianw6604 For me I look at it more as a restoration than a revolution. St. Paul says the governors of this world do not wield the sword in vain. Is Aragorn restoring Gondor to it's former glory a revolution? In a sense he subverts the wicked ways of Gondor and replaces it with right authority; but it's nothing new, like a revolution promises. Instead it's a restoration to Gondor's traditional hierarchy and values. If you read the Macabees and hear how Rome is described then, and compare it to when Christ was crucified, a similar pattern can be seen. Rome in Macabees is described as being just and fair. Christ restored Rome to it's former glory and sanctified it beyond that. The same pattern exists for any nation that becomes Christian; there isn't a violent upheaval or any form of theft, but instead an ordered return to God's law and a further sanctification as Christ's Spirit operates within that nation.
Truly an amazing lecture.
'I have come not to bring peace but a sword' - Matthew 10 v34
@drag0nfly_girl which is why I never mentioned revolution.
@drag0nfly_girl even if that is the case, is it not revolutionary?
Thank you, John.
Yess! We got the intro music back!
love the new intro!
Christ is an ideal to live up to; its not some earthly affair its like the ultimate goodness - it's pure harmony
Thank you for the music ❤️❤️❤️☦️☦️☦️
Sweet new opening theme!
I would love a video on the Coronavirus and the Pandemic
Sweet new intro!
Shared ... SO USEFUL as a reminder to current Christians and atheists who try to teach Christianity to the already Christian ... if that makes any sense.
spooky new intro jon - where’s the full 🙏
This was epic. I had to listen twice, the second time being less distracted. You’re a gem, brother. I can’t help but think that it would be super cool to develop some illustrations and graphics alongside your talks/audio.
Like your brother’s book on Genesis’ symbolic meaning. I believe imagery would help us to understand this epic you’re teaching us.
new intro is great
Aaha now I get it! Thank you
Where can I find that quote from St Gregory of Nyssa?
Beautiful new opening and insightful analysis, thanks
It’s like climbing a tree to get the view from the top. The view being the fruit. If the climber forgets the relevance of the tree, they might want the tree chopped down so they could have the view without the branches, not knowing that the whole lot would come crashing down.
I would agree that to be a Christian does not necessarily require being revolutionary - and it's certainly erroneous to claim that a revolutionary way of life is central to Christian living - but the tenets of Christianity are certainly revolutionary depending on the context in which they are practiced. It's important, I suppose, to clarify that the tenets aren't inherently revolutionary, but contextually so. Healing on the Sabbath, a king washing feet, associating with the unclean, etc: are not inherently revolutionary acts, but are incidentally revolutionary in the context in which they took place. They were important acts not because they were revolutionary (they weren't the outcomes of God calculating what would be revolutionary and acting accordingly), but rather because of the loving heart of God revealed by them. Revolution is inherently motivated by the tearing down of what is. The tenets of Christianity are motivated by revealing what is and should be rather than tearing down what should not be.
So, turns out I agree more with JP than I thought I did before I wrote this comment.
When revolution is orthodox, orthodoxy is revolutionary. That’s the way I’m which I see Christianity as being “revolutionary.” As you said, it’s contextual, not progressive.
I was just thinking about that passage in Matthew 22:12 the other day, trying to understand what the Scripture was trying to say through this odd twist in the story about the man with unclean garments. Truly for us to be a part of the Kingdom of God, we cannot remain as we are. Thank you for analyzing this passage and bringing clarity to it. May God bless you!
Great video, great opening song
Please check out the film The Green Knight. I would love to see your interpretation of it!
He’s done two videos on The Green Knight already ;)
I didn't quite understand "Christ fills the hierarchy" from the Beatitudes video. In this one, I got it.
I understand it as "Christ fills the gaps at every level" or better yet, "Christ justifies all of creation" so that "He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant." (Matthew 23:11)
It's a shame this video doesn't have any way to get captions on it. I wonder why some videos get automatically generated (if usually poor) captions put on them and others don't.
they need to be activated manually
here are my rough notes in case you needed the transcript
God covers every fall (e.g. signifier void) by participating in the salvation of the world with mercy and judgement
happens all the way down in the cosmic hierarchy, Christ fills the hierarchy by going all the way to the bottom of death and gathering it into God
everyone still has to manifest the union of heaven and earth at their own level even in the lower spheres, otherwise they're kicked out of the Kingdom of Heaven
those who are below can better exemplify receiving from above, but they have to receive from above (meek shall inherit the earth, The classical Greek word used to translate meekness was that for a horse that had been tamed and bridled)
danger of pride above, no longer seeing what holds everything together
everything is slowly gathered up (even if the top refuses it, invitation just goes lower) through the mystery of the incarnation
Solid video, this is what the modern 'christian' do not understand.
Both of the parables Jonathan is talking about in this video are actually parables about Jesus own ministry and proclamation of the kingdom of God. Some commenters below mentioned how the Jewish expectation was for a Messiah who would come to usher in the kingdom by violent revolution: leading a army to overthrow the Romans and establishing the reign of God. This was what many of Jesus' contemporaries were expecting and they did NOT expect this *strange* (here's a key word) guy Jesus who comes preaching a revolution of an entirely different sort: the way to true victory is the self-sacrificial way of the cross. Real Power is not found in wealth, violence or status but in "selling all your possessions", "returning evil with good" and "serving rather than lording over" (Read the Sermon on the Mount) This is the meaning of the beatitudes: those closest to God and his Kingdom are not those who have power, esteem, wealth, by Worldy standards: But rather those on the bottom, those with nothing, those who mourn, those who practice peace--These are the ones who are closest to God's kingdom.
This is a strange Messiah. Now, enter the parables Jonathan mentions and what do we see in both? We see a messenger proclaiming something "the King is returning", "the marriage feast is at hand" and what happens? Exactly the same thing that was happening in Jesus ministry-- those with power, status, wealth, indeed his own Israelite people--are by and large rejecting this message and instead those who come to him are exactly the wrong sorts of people from the perspective of the world: the tax collectors, the sinners and the prostitutes. Jesus is proclaiming a message in line with the OT prophets: the temple establishment has become self-serving and is no longer reflecting the will of God: Indeed it prosecutes and kills the very Son of God when he comes proclaiming the true kingdom of God has arrived.
Now in what sense is the message of the kingdom revolutionary? It's not revolutionary in the sense of being violent, or in the sense of grasping the reigns of power of the worldly kingdoms (the temptation Jesus rejected) Instead it's revolutionary because it is a way of being that so decisively cuts against the grain of all human systems, traditions, hierarchies, power structures etc. To systems that are run by coercive violence, Christ tells us to return evil with good. To a world pulsing with sexual energy Christ tells us that celibacy is the higher ideal and that the lustful gaze is the antithesis of the person-making agape which Christianity is all about. Indeed, to a world who wants to give personhood only to those with power and wealth: Christ sees/makes even the lowliest of people into persons in his encounter with them. To a world driven by Mammon, Christ tells us to hold loosely to our possessions, to lend freely; indeed he problematizes the very idea of private property and as we see in the book of acts the ideal Church-community is one which holds all things in common. In a world that pursues status and power, Christ tells us to instead to serve and "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but came in the form of a slave". In a world defined by borders and alienation between peoples, the story of the good Samaritan calls us to break down walls of hostility and to encounter the tribal other as someone who can be a genuine friend. And on and on and on it goes. The Christian has no stake in upholding this worldly status quo, but instead is called to an entirely different way of being, one which always, always subverts any worldly hierarchy and bubbles up an entirely new order from underneath. I'll leave you with one crystal clear example of how this works. Paul is often chided as being anti-revolutionary for not calling out the institution of slavery: but what he actually does is something much more insidious and much more "revolutionary" in the long term. He calls the master and his slave into a new familial relationship, he tells them that they are both brothers in Christ, he tells the master to treat his slave like his brother. Now there is no obvious, direct call to end slavery here, but the VERY LOGIC of this unjust system is undermined at its very root: and within this unjust system, the seed of a new order is planted: This is what Christ comes to do. He plants to seed of the new order--the kingdom of God--within the violence of the empire, and slowly, subversively, like the yeast rising in the dough, it takes root and bubbles up.
I want to point something out that needs to be included. You are truthfully describing how we need to lower ourselves in order to join the wedding. However, Jesus purposely includes the part where the guest, who is without acceptable clothing, is harshly rejected from the wedding. He was not worthy. That is a status check.
Status is relevant to the Kingdom of Heaven. To suppress the desire for status is no different than rejecting the servants who invite us to the wedding. We are to reject certain ideas of status, not the desire for status at large.
You completely missed the point of the video. I understand there would be some of these Comments on here but let’s get things straight, it is NOT revolutionary. It’s is the way it is supposed to be, how things will order themselves. It does not cut against “traditions”, power structures, or Hierarchies. It’s is the hierarchy of which things are ordered. In which God created them to be. Humans went on different ways(against God) and going back to the way things are supposed to be ordered is NOT revolutionary it’s going back to what God intended. It’s nothing new as it’s what the text (Old Testament) had always intended. Also there is no “real power” in anything. Remove that language. You are putting too much emphasis on the lower part, than of the whole picture. This is only part of the message. I understand that it is a very important to humble ourselves and give especially to those below but in doing so who are we united to? We all wear the “wedding garment” for Whom?
@@CarlosVargas-jz8gl I don't think I missed the point of the video. As I understand him, Pageau is saying that everything has its place. In order for there to be coherence and meaning, the hierarchy has to be established. He gives the example of the soccer team, it has a coherent meaning: a top and a bottom and if people revolt against this order, there is a loss of meaning. He connects this to the parable of the vineyard: the Logos (the real meaning/organizing principle) of the hierarchy comes to ask for "fruits" and the 'revolutionary' wine-dressers nihilistically reject him, descending into a loss of meaning.
From this schema, Pageau is making the contrast between those who uphold the real structure/heirarchy, the followers of the Logos and those who reject the Logos and create their own arbitrary structures, this latter group is the 'revolutionaries'. Because for Pageau, Christianity is a Logos religion, it can never be revolutionary in this second sense. I think that was the point he was making in the video.
If your characterization of his work as "not cut against “traditions”, power structures, or Hierarchies" is right, then I did indeed understand him correctly and am disagreeing with him because I think he is wrong.
I think he's essentially attacking a strawman if he intends, by this argument, to attack those Christians who think Christianity is a revolutionary force *in the world*: Think here of theologians like Jaques Ellul, John Howard Yoder, David Bentley Hart, ect. to just name a few. This has nothing to do with weather or not the "soccer team" is to have a coherent structure or not: the question is weather or not the kingdom of God is radically opposed to the kingdoms of this world. Here's where I think Pageau's analysis breaks down. In the last Q and A he discussed the "symbolic meaning of the soldier" which is to "protect the integrity of the body" (I think thats what he said, correct me if I'm wrong). Now this is a fine description of reality, of "how the world lays itself out" but it completely misses the question of weather or not Christians have a stake in violently defending the integrity of the body, weather Christians SHOULD participate in the army. In completely misses the question of ethics and what the mode of being of the kingdom of God is. Pageau may have accurately described "how the world lays itself out" but he doesn't answer the question of "how the world should be". To collapse the former into the later is the naturalistic fallacy.
@@julianw6604 So let me ask a question, so I don’t misinterpret what you’re saying. Are you suggesting it’s revolutionary in a sense of its new or innovative? Like goes against the things of this world(structures, traditions, ect.)? And that’s why it’s revolutionary?
@@CarlosVargas-jz8gl I don't know about the word 'new', I think in one sense yes; But in another, Christ is always pointing back to the origional harmony of creation. The Kingdom of God is an eschatological reality--its the breaking in of God's future kingdom, in this fallen world. It definitely cuts against what the NT calls 'the world', but in another sense, its God's true intention for creation, so even if its not reflected in the fallen world we are it: It's the most REAL reality. Hence Christian witness in the world will most often look like suffering, martyrdom or the cross: You're pointing to and manifesting a reality that has not come in its fullness and is being resisted at every turn by 'the world'.
Thanks
I just now realized that the intro song tune is “Let God Arise.”
Russian Easter Overture.
@@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874 Nice. My wife who has a degree in music says the two have almost identical melodies in the beginning because the Easter Overture has an extra note in it where the Paschal hymn doesn’t. Thanks for the info about the REO, though. It’s beautiful.
Even from a basic narrative point of view in the Gospels, it's pretty evident that everyone WANTED Christ to be the Messiah as the final political revolutionary to kick out outside powers of Israel. This is one of the main reason why he was so hated, why he was so misunderstood, etc. because people had pre-conceived notion of the Messiah as a revolutionary. Anybody reading the Gospels can very well see that He did not come for a revolution. It's also evident from historical sources since nothing civil was done by his followers (compare that to other "messiah" and revolutionary leaders at around the same time). Paul Vanderklay videos are good about that. However, if we take revolutionary as a more general term meaning "creating revolution" (i.e. a revolution being when things are turned back to the beginning, such as the revolution around the sun), then we could say that indeed He came to put things back into order and meant to overthrow the dark powers and principalities of our world: but this has nothing to do, as you said, with overthrowing transient political power or even worse, destroying hierarchical order and so on. We are called to be co-heirs to Christ in the divine council, we are called to join in with Him in the hierarchy. EDIT: Typos.
What do you mean by "revolution": you can be revolutionary (as Jesus obviously was) without being violent.
@@julianw6604 I guess I meant my first part with what I usually see ascribe to "revolutionary" figures, i.e. "engaged in or promoting political revolution". In the second case, I used the other significance of that word, i.e. "involving or causing a complete or dramatic change". I think the Gospels points to the fact that people thought both were the same, where in fact, Christ came for the second significance and in a very different way that people wanted.
"the end of something manifests its origin" - someone has read their Heidegger :)
I always appreciate the sports metaphors, they make some of these more ethereal concepts more concrete.
Loving the sports analogies.
That was great! Thank you
In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is an revolutionary act. Jesus Christ was a revolutionary in every possible way. It seems you confuse the term revolutionary with "violent revolt".
@drag0nfly_girl A spiritual revolt is the most powerful possible revolt. Christianity blossomed and christians were persecuted. But soon the idea of one true god who cared about all humans conquered Rome and the hunted became hunters. Under the name of christianity Rome continued its expansion and carried the torch of its new faith throughout europe. All pagans who stood against it perished.
Jesus Christ taught the message of god, but as always people understood the message through their own lens, their own perception.
A spiritual revolution leads to great changes in society. Great changes in society always bring power shifts. Power shifts lead to conflict.
Martin Luther never wanted to create a new church. He wanted to reform christianity. The consequences of his actions led to the 30 year war. Catholics wanted to remain in control of provinces who favored Martin Luthers ideas.
How are we to interpret the apparent success and continued unity of the American revolution?
I would say that it was less the destruction of the old order of an established nation and more the birth of a new one that embraced the principles and ideas of it’s parent nation so to speak. I maybe didn’t articulate that very well but those are my thoughts.
What are the fruits of the American Revolution? Look at the world today.
Thank you Jonathan
It’s exactly what”s happening right now.
Jews expected the Christ to be a warrior king who would destroy Israel's enemies and oppressors, imagine their shock when he said to them "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God."
To call Christianity a religion of revolution is nuts.
was useful thank you the new inro tune was horrible tho
I think the case for the revolutionary nature of Christianity is easy to make, it is just that you gave a pretty narrow view of revolution.
You want him to use the same word for different things. Maybe it is you that needs a new category.
1:46 “Once and for all” … oh the hubris
the hubris.... :D
The Gospel puts things to rest once and for all, though.
Specifically, if its reading doesn't settle the basic question of wether or not Jesus Christ is a revolutionary, once and for all, then how can you even expect to understand the core of His message?
The gospel is shallow enough for a child to wade in, and deep enough to drown an elephant in. The Gospel is inexcusable.
@@j.harris83 Your comment is needlessly opaque. Please, be forthright with your language so that the substance of your ideas can be effectively addressed
I would be more verbose but I am dyslexic so word are hard for me. Sorry that my original post was not clearly stated as being tong and cheek.
I'm one of those weird 100k subscribers that have ignored you videos for a good while. But this topic turned my head! Could you make a video on the concept of Slave vs Master morality through a Christian lens?
It turned your head because every demon will bow to the name of Jesus.
The Jewish revolutionary spirit is all over it from the very beginning to the very end. Of course it won't be revolutionary AFTER you accept its tenets (dah!?). It's very sad to see how there's never philosophical theology but always apologetics.
It only seems revolutionary because the world is fallen. It’s actually going back to the original hierarchy. The Jewish revolutionary spirit is an inversion of this, as they seek to “progress” and further corrupt the world until it collapses. Christianity does the opposite and seeks to go back, back to the edenic age pre fall
@@JA-jx1hk "It only seems revolutionary because the world is fallen."
Thank you for mindlessly prove my point. ;D
@@aristotelinho4543 this is literally the biblical narrative. If you want to argue whether or not it’s true that’s another topic. You can in a way say that it is only revolutionary because it goes against the order of the world, which itself has revolted away from God. So in the biblical narrative it’s a counter revolution, you can see it as a revolution to cancel out revolutions. But the biblical narrative is literally that it brings things back to the hierarchy, to how it should be. It’s not revolutionary in the modern sense as that somehow the “oppressed” are owed something by the “privileged”. It’s like traditionalism, we have to go back. Also this guy is a devout orthodox Christian so idk why you’re crying about it being apologetics, go somewhere else if you want a secular (erroneous) take on it
@@JA-jx1hk Wrong.
See... this is the problem with fanatics - you can't start by assuming the conceptual framework of the Bible to judge the world because the Bible emerged in an already existing world amongst many already existing conceptual frameworks, so it's absurd to assume its tenets FIRST and THEN use them as parameters judge the world. This would be equivalent of assuming whatever I believe about the world first and then proceed to say that all the discoveries made have to prove themselves against whatever I claim to be true. Funny enough, the most adamant fanatic doesn't hold the handrail afraid of flying away but rather of falling down. Moreover, by assuming a True World Theory first one cannot help but give equal right and justification to whatever concurrent or opposed True World Theory, be Islam, Zoroastrianism or Aristotelinhoism, which brings us back to the start since nothing can be discussed amongst dogmatisms.
@@aristotelinho4543 You talk about us not being able to assume a conceptual framework but do it yourself in your dismissal of the Bible. Not only do you assume a framework, you conveniently refuse to name it or even provide an argument for it, you're producing an ought without justification. Your problem is that we do in absence of yours.
Wish you would connect with Alyssa Childers for a conversation. Much of this is in accord with her criticism of Social/New Age Christianity and how it focuses on a revolutionary social message.
I used to listen to her when I was a Protestant. It would be so great for Jonathan to speak on her podcast 🙌🏻
Yes! Please connect with Alisa Childers!!
Going along with the sports team analogy: identifying yourself with Christ and His Church is like wearing the team jersey. If you deny Him, you're not wearing the jersey. How can you expect to be on the team if you're not even willing to wear His jersey?
Yeah but which one's the official jersey? They all say they are.
@@abelbabel8484 Christians are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, the only team with a Jersey. All other teams are merely kicking the ball around and running for goals, hoping to one day be good enough to win the prize. But Team Jesus knows that the victory has already been won and are taking their plays from the Coach while rooting for the spectators to join the team. 🙂
it is not by confessing "lord, lord" that you wear the white robes of righteousness but it is by putting those things on and keeping them as God gave them to you that you are, sanely enough, still wearing the spirit that God sends. so much for your self-righteousness of claiming a name and thinking you are better than others!
10:43
I have to say you're better than church these days.
Nothing replaces the Sacraments... but I get your point. A lot of priests these days seem afraid to stand firm in the Faith.
To an inverted world or to people with an inverted understanding of reality Jesus looks like a revolutionary. But in reality he is just showing how things actually work.
Great comment, thanks
Yes.
Yes. Needs to be the pinned comment. Very concise.
Not sure about anyone else, but the violins do not have the same power as the horns. The horns made it sound like Jonathan was about to rapture his audience.
I agree
Sad that it got copyright lawyers in a twist, it was very beautiful
It's true the new theme doesn't have the same feel, it's almost macabre. Though honestly it may fit the times better now 😅
Christianity is revolutionary, just not in the way people usually mean it lol
I enjoyed the comment section of this video, even if it was uncomfortable at times. I read these two parables last night and all I have to add is that in my go-to biblical commentary: the author says the parables teach us how Christianity is not rebellious. I don’t know the true distinction between revolution and rebellion but I thought that could perhaps be a +1 point for Pageau’s overall argument.
Love the channel. The changing of the intro music is unfortunate.
What cam you comment on the works of the Principality of Rome regarding the missions the gave to the Templars as opposed to the thesis or name of your Video Jonathan/
the new music is too strident, it's not calming like the other one.
Makes me want to jump out the window, like Jonathan’s version of Christianity
@@baroquecat2295 what's going on sister?
@@MoonSkaEurope was just joking :)
@@baroquecat2295 you seem to have disdain with what Jonathan says, I'll gladly listen to critique you have to provide
Jonathon, the parable of the rejected cornerstone could be understood in terms of affirming the excluded, the alterity, the different against the majoritarian subject/structure, thus affirming the revolutionary nature of Christ..
I'll reply here, but I'm referring to both your comments. When 2 kingdoms fight, there is one battlefield on which both engage. There can be many fronts, but only one battlefield. Though there can be many tactics, the victory can only be achieved by defeating the opposing king and crowning the victor king above all. Thus, there will be many similarities between the two kingdoms and their actions during the fight. Nevertheless, the question is always: who has the legitimacy over the battlefield on which the battle is taking place? Think about the ever-present tension about national borders and the rightful owners of the land between those borders. Even though if we go back long enough, everything becomes fuzzy, as the land has passed from one group to another, the discussion revolves around the "legitimate" owner. The same can be said about the current globalist direction vs the traditional multi-national framework: does "legitimacy" belongs to the nation states or to a new global state? Thus the basic theological conflict presented in the Bible: The Most High God (YHWH) has legitimacy over humankind and its way of life. All other forms of human organizations are an attempt to overthrow God's rulership. Due to that, Christians do not conduct revolutions, though by their manifestation of Heaven on Earth, by the growth of the Vine, they do restore the land to the legitimate ownership. This is a continuous partial fulfillment, until the end of the age when Christ will bring the fullness of this restoration to the legitimate ownership. Hope it helps! :)
@@theodorsteff This guy seems to be looking for ways to distort the message of the Gospel. He (and many others recently) have been assaulting Jonathan's channel and trying to poison the well by injecting multiple, judiciously disguised heresies (gnosticism, liberation theology,...) in the discussion. I initially thought these were random errors but my spidey sense is tingling non-stop now: something really fishy is going on...
With these laws, I might say that todays welfare is possible, getting closer to the kingdom of heaven and abundance. Having a good fruit.
Thnks for your video. I had always struggled to understand that "dicotomy". I'm catholic, and in fact it seems that we all had fallen to that lie of "revolutionary" christianity.
the whole "if we get rid of the beloved son we can have it for ourselves" is also a debunking of the "accept the name of Jesus and be saved lifeless empty confessing legalism" that many christians now have. it debunks the "kill the son of God so that God is not mad at us anymore" theory that some barbarians believe to be true... and which was the only way they could stomach the gospel due to their sins.
I don't understand how that legalism is killing Jesus. Perhaps it's killing most of Jesus and abiding by only a husk of him
Made a lot of sense. Thank you 😊
Thumbs up for the old intro music
Wow. You topped your old theme song.
Please don't be offended but for anyone who is unsure about their salvation please check out Renee Roland on RUclips, it really is all about Jesus!
Christianity *was* revolutionary. It was a revolutionary (and redemptive) act to secure the salvation of each without need of the patriarchs of the society one participates in. It was a turn to the law “written in our hearts” rather than those (perhaps literally) set in stone. It was so revolutionary that the early church fathers saw how such a message can be justification for almost any belief (since everyone is imperfect and do not have access to their own hearts like Christ does). Humanity was not ready for Jesus’s message, yet if we were ready then the message would not be needed. Unfortunately the mediation of the Christian message of the Church was essential for Christianity’s own organization. Doctrine had to be written down to preserve the organizing principle of Christ. And *this* afforded the turning away from our hearts and onto a lifeless page being equated with wisdom. Shameful.
We are still not ready for the message of Christ. We might never be.
That's sort of the point of Christ... we are not and never will be, thus HE died for us. He took our sin on him and all we have to do is believe it and accept it and repent because we cannot possibly be more without Him.
We had everything we needed. We were perfect and we got greedy, selfish and gave in to sin and we just repeat it over and over and over, all the while convincing ourselves of moral superiority over others because we do good deeds all the while failing to see that the moral bar was already set by God.
@@James_Bee well (sorry to be a little nit-picky) if by meaning “we were perfect” your are alluding to a pre-Edenic reality, I think it was only an illusion of perfection, an ignorance is bliss sort of situation. I guess I side more closely on the gnostics on this one, that the fruit of the tree was a blessing for humanity, but at the same time it is also a curse for revealing our cursed existence. Still, it affords the possibility to adapt and be fruitful in ways we could not before.
On a more relevant note, I am not saved. We are not saved. There are many traumas of the past we are subject to which occurred after Jesus’s time. These traumas revealed our own brokenness to degrees which the average individual cannot integrate into their personalities. The human response is usually suppression and denial of the knowledge of our own wickedness. But this suppression and repression is precisely the cause of the outburst of the moral sense (without regard to what is ethical) among the more politically radical in contemporary times.
So long as the norm is to suppress social drama and political strife, so long shall the more competent among us will be prevented from speaking to the healing words which will help integrate the ugly (and in turn the overwhelmingly beautiful) truth of humanity into collective consciousness again. Yes, Jesus’s life is a testament to this possibility. But it is only that for us - His salvation for us ends there. He no longer speaks healing words for us. That is our task (fortunately we only need a few individuals to do this to meet it). But we must first deal with what prevents us from limning those words which can only come from the heart.
And if anyone says God was Jesus and therefore this task is impossible, stop reading the Gospel of John. How dare he call Jesus the Son of God. This work should be apocryphal, what a grave mistake of the early church fathers… Jesus was the Son of Man.
I disagree. This sounds like spiritual virtue signaling. Jesus alludes hundreds of time to the OT; Jesus says "if they don't believe in the law and Moses why they would believe in me?"; Jesus never puts the law against himself rather he fulfills it. In the Orthodox tradition Jesus was the theophanies of the OT, , the angel of the lord, the pre incarnate logos who lead the Israelites into war and destruction against the pagan Canaanites. Many many times Jesus alludes to the fact that he's not doing away with the law(there's no dialetics here) but simply fulfilling; something that you find in the prophets, especially Isaiah, for example. So no, he wasn't a revolutionary.
This new age type of view of Jesus was what destroyed Christianity in the west, by removing the lawgiver and king of the world view. Revelation tell us that he first came as a servant but he will later come as a judge of all in his throne.
*imagine just not getting it*
@@rabbyssi4392
Oh, you're gnostic...then it is explained. Probably a marcionite too? Yeah, that's a relativistic and cherry picking worldview. Jay Dyer has a lot of videos addressing this, maybe you should watch. Or, better yet, read Iraneaus in the second century making fun of the gnostic systems.
Speaking of the pride of the individual competitor on a team, case in point Simone Biles.
sick new intro!
Love the new music on the intro!
I was thinking the exact same thing!
So much more morose and i love it
First ten minutes of this have me pretty convinced Bitcoin won't hold up, because it has nobody's face on it.
And I'm actually a fan of cryptocurrency as a techonology/currency. But the lack of an identity on it's face has been disturbing me.
It has the encrypted face of Satoshi Nakamoto all over it, right? If the digital currency can only be generated with his algorithm and all human creations are in a sense self-portraits of the artist/engineer (because we can't full overcome our own viewpoint) then every bitcoin has his portrait. Not married to this line of logic, just throwing it out there
@@mgalyean I've never heard this. I doubt it does because then we would know who Satoshi really is
nah, i think you may be missing it, no one can manage it. its decentralized.
@@darrenconrad5405 if you're replying to me, the decentralization is exactly the problem. I wouldn't be so bothered if it weren't for Jesus answering a question about taxation and financial stewardship by directly referring to the face on the currency as equivalent to ownership
One of the conspiracy theories about Satoshi Nakamoto was that he is actually a front name for Central Intelligence (CIA). I find it especially fascinating how Satoshi is actually the Japanese name for Ash Ketchum in Pokemon, but he has a different last name. The objective in Pokémon is that you have to collect them all in order to fill your Index. With Bitcoin, you have to mine a certain pattern of data in order to form block chains. Satoshi Nakamoto was doing what Satoshis have done in order to gather all the intelligence they can.
"Christianity is Not Revolutionary" really is the most needed message of our age. Paul Vanderklay has been saying this explicitly for years now. Thank God for you both!
As an American we can see the results of our rebellion. But prior to that the British rebelled against authority also, so while we are seeing the "naughty figs" or our rebellion, our rebellion was the "naughty figs" of the British.
The intro is beautiful, but I think your voice over was a little too quiet, got drowned out by the music a little.
Wow I love the new intro
Mercy is God's judgment.
Controversial question. Is a population/state (a basketball team) then justified to cast out unvaccinated people (the player who won’t play with “the team”)?
I’m just trying to understand how our current situation maps on to the story.
writing this halfway through listening,[i read a few comments first] It occured to me 1 that Covid was manifested in the world via human error, the vaccinated feel they have the answer ,the unvaccinated feel there is more to come.that it can't be controlled and possibly? they consciously or unconsciously believe that GOD will provide the answers or there is another way to view it.So from a vaccinated team rejecting the unvaccinated ,both sides are seeking unity in a misguided way.Its neither right or wrong.But unless everybody is viewing these events as away to connect with God..we are all possibly missing the mark..[in sin ,nor repenting]
I'd say yes, since the unvaccinated player is not having natural rights violated nor violence done to him. I don't think the team "should" expel the player, but I do think they can.
Aside from the matter of 'should,' the situation is shaping up like there will be a lot of people kicked off the team, and a lot of people withdrawing from the team.
The question is whether or not the team is structured with a seed of logos. The winedressers rejected the true authority of the owner of the vineyard and so lost the opportunity to benefit from the vineyard. The 'no covid vax for me' faction reject the authority of those claiming that covid vax is a must.
If the vaccine mandate is without logos, then to follow it is also lacking logos, and any team built around it lacks a core of truth. Those rejecting it feel justified. Note that those pushing the mandate are also censoring speech. Interesting times.