The Books Banned From the Bible: What Are the Gnostic Gospels?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- See me speak at Level Up in Atlanta this June: levelupconferences.org/
For early, ad-free access to videos, support the channel at / alexoc
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Elaine Pagels is an American historian of religion. She is the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. Pagels has conducted extensive research into early Christianity and Gnosticism.
- LINKS
Read "The Gnostic Gospels": amzn.to/4ad5n5X
- TIMESTAMPS
00:00 What is a Gnostic Gospel?
04:51 How the Gnostic Gospels Were Discovered
10:36 Secret Knowledge & Teachings
18:01 Do the Gnostic Gospels Contradict the New Testament?
23:01 Was Jesus Sent to Save Us From an Evil God?
28:27 Was Paul the Only True Apostle?
31:16 Nuances in Marcion & Valentinus’ Writings
37:44 Concept of God the Mother
41:20 Is Jesus the Serpent in Genesis?
47:02 Spiritual Revelation Over Authority
50:37 Worshipping Bishops as Though They Were Gods
54:42 What People Should Keep in Mind About the Gnostic Gospels
57:20 Controversial Final Passages in Thomas
1:07:33 Elaine’s Book
- SPECIAL THANKS
A special thanks to my top-tier supporters on Patreon:
Tom Rindell
James Younger, DDS
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
What I found pretty cool in this interview was that after nearly 50 yrs. of studying this, Dr. Pagels was excited and animated when discussing things...
It would be difficult to study something that long if you weren't interested in it 😂
@@myhatmygandhi6217 What about the man who wasted his life studying ant-eaters? :)
If she were honest, she would acknowledge the historicity of these documents is nothing near the canon. Not even close.
@@michaelfetter5413 What do you mean with "historicity"? They are historical documents, that show Christianism was not a monolithic faith in the first two centuries after Christ. Do you think Matthew 27:52, with the dead coming out from their graves just after the crucifixion and visiting Jerusalem, is more "historic" than Gospel of Thomas?
@@karekarenohay4432 Number and consistency of manuscripts also factoring in time from the events.
The gnostic "gospels" are literally fanfic of cultists from hundreds of years later than the canon with a tiny number of manuscripts.
she was fucking adorable. her enthusiasm for this and energy was incredible: you can tell she really connects with this work in an intrinsic way. I appreciate that more than anything.
The thumbnail got me hyped for a split second, did Alex get an interview with THE Jesus Christ? lol
Doubt it would be his first stop after coming to earth again but you never know
Lmao
@@butter_nut1817 he'd most probably be murdered by Evangelicals in the US as soon as he said that they are the new pharisees, but we know no one's coming back from the dead after 2000 years of a failed promise.
The state of Christianity: 💩
Jesus: This. 🤬
@@butter_nut1817You're right, Lex would get him first
I wonder how these older people feel about being approached by Alex who is so much younger to talk about their work. They must be so so happy to share their thoughts and feelings in a way they wouldn’t usually.
Older people love when younger people pick up their work
😂
She has talked with Dereck Lambert of Mythvision quite a bit and teaches young students. They're used to it.
She’s a professor of history - she probably has dozens of such discussions in her classes and office with students on a weekly basis.
Can you have Jesus on your podcast next time ?
I think it would answer a lot of questions
dude has a sword mayb he got arrested
@@alanbregovic8889 I do not understand why he is not responding. It is a perfectly valid request.
@alexdenton6586 - Jesus is responding. He is on the RUclips channel called "Tom Loud".
dw lad, i've got him on speed dial. i'll see if he's not too busy with world hunger and all that x
it seems pretty intellectually dishonest to criticise his works and teachings without debating or even offering to talk with him.
Great interview, very interesting topic and speaker.
(P.S: commentors be grateful for the podcast guest)
I notice some people complain about her not wishing to speak on certain topics. Bear in mind, her enthusiasm for the topic might not stem from the same place as yours, and that different angle for her curiosity is likely to be why she's dived so deep into these texts.
Having earned my degree in Religious Studies from UNC under Bart Ehrman, among others, it's very odd to hear a scholar dodge questions and say, "I'd prefer not to comment on that," and, "I dont like that [source] very much" every time anything contrary to her poisition is raised.
Great interview Alex.
I found that odd, too. She admits to "playing favorites." It's as if she's formed up her own orthodoxy for early Christianity, based on both the Gnostic Gospels and the New Testament. There are places in this video where she doesn't appear to be speaking as a scholar but as a believer, and I wonder whether for her there's any daylight between the two. Strange to see in a foundational interview meant to give us an "overview."
She is against the sensationalisation of the Gnostic gospels.
Her position is explicitly against some sources, and has to entail some ignoring of the most obviously wacky of the Dead Sea scrolls.
I don't mind her moving between believe and scholarship. It adds some personal flavor.
@@newtonswig Wanting to avoid sensationalizing them is one thing. Denying they contain certain ideas and then hand-waving away evidence to the contrary is something else.
Seems like anything she doesn't like isn't "real" gnosticism. It has kind of a "that's not real socialism" feel to it.
@@pietervoogt Nothing wrong with it until it becomes unclear which hat you're wearing.
Jeez how interesting would it have been if she’d discussed Judas saying He knew what realm Jesus was from …..
She comes across as a believer who gets out of her comfort zone when demiurg and weird named realms come up.
I’d get out of my comfort zone too if I was a believer, but it just seems weird to hear from such a credentialed professional
@@swolejeezy2603well, agnostic or otherwise, the idea of the demiurg at least provides a better explanation for the Paradox of Empiricus than anything i've heard from a more traditional Christian apologist.
Precisely, that's what people don't get. She's a believer, but her scholarly experience forced her to be open to the idea of Christian teachings beyond the Orthodox, and she fully recognizes how Church fucked up the entire religion... but the "alternate" cosmology is outside of her comfort zone. Which is a bit odd I admit, because things like the Demiurge and Sophia are very much part of the Valentinian systems that she defends.
Nevertheless, she's still has a more open-minded and mature approach not just to Christianity but religion as a whole than 99% of the people out there, and for that she needs to be commended.
She claims the gnostics are misappropriated as believing in a demiurge yet when challenged on that multiple times she dances around and says “I’d rather not comment on that”. Wtf.
Obviously biased, and she basically admits to that. It's not really what I'm looking for. I'd rather hear from scholars that at least attempt to be objective.
@@AudunWangen You won't get that from a Gnostic. Like trying to get truth out of a Freemason....
elaine pagels is a modern gnostic, same heresy that irenaeus and the other church fathers debunked a thousand years ago already
@@AudunWangen It’s disappointing for sure, she’s supposedly an icon in her field.
@@Actuary1776 She may have good reasons for ignoring certain parts and acknowledging others, but she's not doing herself any favors not to mention them.
I don't know her or her work, but it seemed to me she was more interested in preaching than teaching. Not my cup of tea.
Imagine a teacher saying:
"I'm going to explicitly try and teach a group of students so they don't understand, then select a smaller group to teach them properly"
That is different from: "They aren't at the level that would be able to understand, so I have to dumb it down for them to get the basics. You're more advanced so I can go more in depth"
I get what you are saying and mostly agree, but there is a kernel of truth to the original claim. You cannot teach calculus to the average first grader. You have to start at the basics. And yes you as a teachers have to adapt your teachings to the level of the students even if they are a group.
Again I am not saying you are wrong, but there is a kernel of truth in what she is saying. I think she is using this fact as a defense.
Artificially crafted mystery and conspiracy. People love that shit.
@@RanEncounter Again, that's different.
The claim is that Jesus spoke in ways meant to be misunderstood.
Sure, I wouldn't teach calculus to a first grader, I would teach them first grade math that they would understand.
The equivalent would be for me to give text math problems to a group of first graders, and then I took aside a handful of them so I could explain how to solve the problems.
The "secret" teachings, in the gospels at least, were:
Here's a parable that will leave most of the listeners confused (but don't worry, that's on purpose) , but I'll explain it to a few of you.
@@RanEncounter Or listen to the kid for once when they can say they can see and understand something and not swat away their funny way of describing the answer 4 units ahead of the lesson
@@Fernando-ek8jp Look you seem to have taken this totally different than what I actually wrote. You seem to be too eager to have a debate.
"Again, that's different."
Yes that is why I said that there was a kernel of truth in what she said.
"The claim is that Jesus spoke in ways meant to be misunderstood."
Yes this is the ideas of a person who has for years had to bend their mind to religion to make it make sense. I was just pointing out where this kind of thinking originates and how she does not see it as a problem any more.
"The equivalent would be for me to give text math problems to a group of first graders, and then I took aside a handful of them so I could explain how to solve the problems."
I literally agreed! Is really a kernel of truth so hard to understand? Do you not understand what I said at all?
"The "secret" teachings, in the gospels at least, were:
Here's a parable that will leave most of the listeners confused (but don't worry, that's on purpose) , but I'll explain it to a few of you."
Yes. I literally agree. Sigh.
Do you not understand that how she has in her mind changed the kernel of truth as I said it to what is in the gospels because of her beliefs?
"I'll speak on him in a moment" is a gangster ass way of saying "I cant remember the name right now but I will in a minute." Gotta respect that scholarly confidence.
Yes, and I"m sure she is kicking herself for forgetting the name of that other scholar. But it is truly remarkable the command of the material this 81 year old scholar has. I'm grateful for her compassion in being willing to share it with us.
I only hope to have the faculties Dr Pagels has in her 80’s. I’m 77 and can relate to very familiar names I suddenly can’t remember at the moment.
@@cwellik805 I'm 35 and have the same problem (and same hope) 😅
Glad to see you get actual Gnostics on here. This is a reminder to all: The Early Gnostics did not call themselves 'Gnostics' they considered themselves Christians and simply disagreed with the orthodoxy. According to the Apocrypha of John, the main Tragedy in the Gnostic Creation myth was Sophia (a child of the Original God) birthing the Demiurge (aka Yaldabaoth) without the consent of the original God. This was the tragedy instead of eating from the apple. I reccomend ESOTERICA as an introduction to the whole concepts its pretty interesting. 😊
I recommended the video on my playlist “wake up this world is an illusion” titled Dualism: the Illuminati Religion, I pray you wake up from the lowercase god if this world who blinds those who believe not
Fascinating
Memory is finite.
Save space for relevant matters.
Not a fan of Gnosticism, but it does have some interesting tidbits imo
@@rimbusjift7575 how do you know/judge what's relevant or not, especially considering you can't possibly know what will or won't be relevant in your future with any real certainty at all? I'm 100% sure you don't have a memory full of only "relevant" or utilitarian memories lol. Your comment is basically a roundabout way to do whataboutism and express that you don't care about this lol. It's very transparent, brother 😅 Let people enjoy the things they wanna enjoy instead of moralising and judging to make yourself feel special and smart 🤷♀️ The things you care about and think are important are just as accurate/inaccurate, meaningful/meaningless, and relevant/irrelevant as anyone else. You'd have to think pretty highly of yourself or lowly of others to believe otherwise and you should aim to avoid that. Maybe you really are extra special and know more "relevant" stuff than everyone else, but even that wouldn't make it make sense to judge what others want to use their minds for... People are allowed to enjoy things you don't care about and you don't have to let everyone know how you feel about it 🤷♀️
Alex wants to explore the breadth of Gnosticism.
Pagels wants to talk obout the Gospel of Thomas.
There are many other experts. Pagels was at one short period a fundamentalist who did not like many literalist doctrines, especially the „going to hell“ ideas which are not even Biblical. But texts like the Gospel of Thomas confirmed her spiritual sense of Christianity and a path to practice Christianity in a non-literal way. So there is a little bias but still a great scholar and I appreciate both her spiritual sense and her scholarship. A lot of what she writes is basically an apologetic defense for non-literalist interpretations and that there is very old tradition of it.
There are other scholars such as mythicists who focus on other Gnostic texts to continue their critique of Christianity, who do go into the texts and interpretations that Pagels finds shallow.
No doubt IMO the Marcionist literalists, probably inspired later literalist groups like the Bogomils and Cathars. I find their persecution by the Catholics horrendous but I would no more want to defend their interpretations than I would want to defend literalist Catholics or Protestants. For example.
I read Pagels not just for good scholarship but because I too, appreciate that she opens up Christian spirituality.
@@matthewkopp2391 Look what you say is interesting, I am not particularly educated on theology or history. But I think she is missing the point and is wrong about calling the biblical God inferior. I am an atheist but I feel way more inspired from the old testament rather than those gnostic texts or new testament. I think it's a much more sensible God too if I were spiritual at all...
@@bargledargle7941she is not saying the Old Testament god is inferior she is saying that certain early Christians held that belief. She described Marcion for example who believed in the demiurge vs the transcendent God.
But a similar distinction is made in the Old Testament. At times God is YHWH and spoken of in anthropomorphic terms and then other times God is described as transcendent and in non-anthropomorphic terms such as I am.
There is a theme in the Old Testament as to what constitutes idolatry and the same obsession occurs with Plato who described the demiurge in more neutral terms versus a transcendent god.
Early Christianity was infused with Platonism and some took the Plato demiurge idea as evil because of the evil in the world and the evil demonstrated by an Old Testament god.
She is just describing different ideas that were around at the time.
@@matthewkopp2391 It's important you corrected me about this.
I think the idea of "God of the old testament is evil or inferior" is extremely unattractive and spiritually poor.
@@matthewkopp2391 I am Jewish and she sounds like she wishes she were Jewish too. I am reading "A LIttle Boy in Search of God" by Isaac Bashevis Singer and he speaks of pantheistic ideas. They sound very similar.
I always understood the hidden meaning of parables as an idiot or insincere filter.
“Who who seeks finds, he who knocks the door opens”
Alongside of ...
“We have left all to follow You...”
Alongside of
“It is given to you to know the secret of the kingdom ... but to them I speak in parables.”
So the disciples had access to the solutions to the enigmatic parables because they had proven they were sincere and willing to follow...
The parables went out to provoke the seekers to seek. But the ones who just wanted to see a rock star ... they got what they wanted.
Spot on.
Many maliciously ascribe the idea of secret teachings to some arbitrary exclusive club mentality.
If you're open to it's ideas, it's open to you.
For everyone else, what was left was Marx's "opiate of the masses".
Bingo! The parables teased out the seekers, "those with ears to hear."
I struggle with the lack of time spent on why the original church fathers felt the way they did about these texts. She makes it all feel very arbitrary. It seems apt to subject these texts to some textual criticism and dig in to why they were discarded.
Yeah. These were the Scientologists of their day.
There were councils held to bring the people of faith together to decide on what was the truth. The most split opinions were on more vague theological ideas (e.g. is God three persons or three natures - one or three, etc.).
Damn-near nobody believed the Gnostic beliefs. Same thing with these "banned" gospels. They weren't banned. They were essentially fan fiction.
People always point to the most sane things from the heretical texts while ignoring the completely insane parts that obviously invalidate them.
A RUclipsr named Wendigoon did a video on them that was really good and entertaining.
Man, Alex's face ,he looks kinda pissed, lol around 36 minutes after obviously being super enthusiastic and curious to speak about admittedly one of the most interesting texts, the Gospel of Judas, and the interviewee just does a cobra and goes back to the others. I totally felt that. I may be projecting but his usual "I'm listening face" doesn't not have such a frown. 😜
He does the same thing when she flat out refuses to talk about the Sethian dark demiurge.
Yeah, what was that all about? Such a strange refusal from her in an otherwise interesting interview. It. came across as really bizarre.
@@TheRealShrike I think these iconic academic people are used to being able to give a presentation on what they want and not be told what to talk about. They just tour with a topical presentation and do the same one for a year or two. She's like 80, so maybe she doesn't remember anything else...
It's disappointing as hell as a listener too because the Gospel of Judas is the most interesting one of these texts. She just completely sidestepped talking about it for "muh spirituality", which is pretty irritating to hear coming from a scholar.
He smells witchy b.s.
Unfortunate that she says she’s only interested in text that is ‘spiritually worthwhile’ showing a biased perspective to fit her need for spirituality instead of being a champion for truth and accuracy in historical texts
If she was for historical accuracy, she wouldn't ascribe to Gnosticism 😂
@@Si_Mondo of course that’s the whole point of theology scholars, unless they’re atheists, they lean towards confirmation bias
@@Si_Mondo look at francesca stavrakopoulou
Could you expand on why you think the 4 that were selected are more historically accurate?
@@Si_Mondo that’s the point that there’s confirmation bias by theology scholars, that prioritise belief over historical accuracy of events or information in texts. Pick and choose to fit their narratives. Check out the work of Francesca Stavrakopoulou. 😉
It seems like so many people are used to opinionated views that when someone just lays the facts out they don't think that it's legitimate information this is a great interview thank you
I found this discussion extremely fascinating; it resonated with some of my own thoughts about religions and Bible texts. I have listened to it ten times, and each time I go back, I discover another gem. One takeaway: I feel the first trinity is a mother, father, and son, not a father, son, and a spirit.
Thank you for this interview. I've been fascinated with Gnosticism for a couple years now. I was raised Catholic and when I got older, I began to have many questions. The teaching of Christianity never really added up but when I began to study Gnosticism it began to all come together. These teachings tied up a lot of loose ends. It makes it all more believable. Although I don't know if I'll ever have complete faith.
They are filled with Greek philosophy which differs from disciples which is mainly based Jewish and old testament
I'm sure she's brilliant, but it seems that she is fairly uncritical of the text, even going so far to affirm that the people who produced the texts are those whose name's the text have been given.
Yeah, something progressive biblical critics don’t do for the gospels.
she says so but she probably knows it's just tradition
@@toonyandfriends1915Yeah I think if Alex really pressed her she’d admit she doesn’t actually think Thomas or Philip wrote the gospels attributed to them
Duh. She's only interested in undermining Christianity, not truth
@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr1 She is quite clearly a Christian. I don’t doubt you and her disagree over details but she is a Christian all the same
Amazing interview Alex. Listening while I fly home from Florida.
What would you feel if Alex asked a question related to paprika specifically in this interview? Is there any possible way this could be related to paprika in any way without changing the subject?
What an interesting subject and guest! So much went over my head but her passion for the subject made it quite inspiring, looking forward to the future discussions
THE GOAT 🐐 ALEX O’CONNOR BACK AT IT AGAIN, I’ve learned so much from you my man, so grateful you’re around on RUclips. LEGEND 🔥
And what do u believe ?
Can't wait to see you in Atlanta!
This revelation revealing Missing Gospel which you called Gnostic Gospel is like a missing Cream on the Cake only to be a "COMPLETE CAKE" I'm so blessed and excited to read the Gospel in Fullness and glad now coming out from the hidden rocks. Thank God for all these revelation. Love you all 🇵🇬 🇵🇬 🇵🇬
I'm only 5 minutes in but I absolutely love the authentic joy Elaine has talking about the findings from 1945. It's so contagious, I love it. :)
You should interview David Bentley Hart. So much to talk about.
This!
Couldn’t agree more
I was about to say just that.
Wonderful to see Elaine on the podcast. I’ve been following her work for more than 20 years. Crucial insights on my spiritual journey. Thanks and cheers to you both.
"The gnostic gospels don't contradict the canonical gospels"--well that's a lie!
She's still trying to convince herself the gnostic gospels are authentic secret teachings of Jesus!!!!!😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
Are you aware of her ever acknowledging/addressing "A Course in Miracles"? I recently discovered it and am thunderstruck by its quality. I noticed similarities to some gnostic teaching, and some of those who study it have referred to it as "Neo-gnostic."
Edit: I've reviewed some part of work, on youtube and elsewhere, but I've yet to see any reference to ACIM.
@@jenniferabel2811 no
Aww it's heart warming to see her eyes light up when you asked a sensible interesting question.
There is a 5th century Armenian church father called Yeznik of Koxb. He mops the floor with gnostics. His book is available.
Interesting discussion! I know that the title's a bit too long already, but I feel like you should include the guest's name in the title as you have with (almost?) all other guests
“So that they will not understand” reminds me of the paradoxical pointing-out instructions of Zen and Tibetan Dzogchen Buddhism. So fascinating. We have been given such a narrow view of Christianity for thousands of years. In the light of intellectual investigation, something much deeper and (in my opinion) wiser emerges.
Which is?
@@Fernando-ek8jp An approach to spirituality which is much less preoccupied with doctrine than it is an experiential, integrated way of being in the world. Seeing the Divine as the “ground of being,” the mystery of the universe, rather than a petty God with tribalistic concerns. I think that might have been what Jesus meant by the “Kingdom.” Might just be wishful thinking, though.
That being said, these are all very mystical ways of talking about what we know by way of Natural Science. The universe is vast and we are a small part of it. That’s enough for me. :)
@@this_alec I may be completely misunderstanding, but the value I get from your response is basically the admission that we can't really be sure about everything so why not just accept that and stop pretending like we do, there's loads to learn out there.
@@Fernando-ek8jp Certainly not what I meant :)
@@this_alec Then I'm still not understanding what you meant.
Maybe you're just applying the principle of speaking in ways explicitly meant to hide their meaning?
Wonderful interview. Keep going dude
This is an incredible interview!
It's fantastic to see such a fantastic atheist thinker really enjoying discussing Christian history and theology. I was an atheist myself most of my life. Its so wonderful to see that people who don't believe in the supernatural elements still seeing value in the philosophy. That's how I switched teams originally. If you enjoy this you would also enjoy ESOTERICA who Alex had on last week and Filip over at th channel LETS TALK RELIGION that covers mysticism in a similar way to this , especially Sufi mysticism but Christian and Jewish also. I think Alex is absolutely wonderful.
The short answer - and the best - is : fairly late writings (noted at a late date, if not actually written later than the last of the texts accepted as of apostolic origin), i.e. those that did not make it into the Catholic canon (list) of texts used for the Liturgies. Many of the better types (and those frequently used in Catholic circles) are still found in the listings associated with The Fathers, or used in various traditions .. e.g. of scholarly or pastoral use, The Protoevangelium of James, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, The Gospel and Acts of Thomas, others are more like modern popular 'novels' of the 'Ben Hur' or 'The Robe' types, as in The Assumption, Letter of Pontius Pilate, Apocalypse of Moses, etc.
These and other early Christian texts - specifically or incidentally not included in the term 'all scripture' can be found online (free) at New Advent - Catholic Encyclopedia - Fathers. These include some texts that could have made it into the Canon of the Catholic Holy Bible, 1 Clement, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Liturgy of James, Didache .. but were not sufficiently widely known, used, or listed (the current Apocalypse in the Catholic list of Scripture very nearly did not make it into the list for the same reasons, but familiarity in some the oldest or most respect 'Sees' like Rome, Alexandria, Antioch seem to have won the day, and Hebrews also had a bit of bumpy ride, along with 2 Peter and Jude).
The division of Gnostic (mystical, sectarian, or occult knowledge) and Catholic (creedal, liturgical, common use) types was not always as clear-cut as history (or rather as historians) may like to present it; as present within the Catholic Church until the Reformation, i.e. the Saints' Lives (Perpetua and Felicity, Barlaam and Josephat, Sergius and Bacchus, Magdelene, Nicholas or George or Martin or Monica), the mystics (Novatian's Concerning the Trinity, Gertrude of Helfta's 'Insinuationes divinae pietatis', Julian of Norwich 'Revelations of Divine Love'); and even today .. requiring approval of the local Ordinary, the Holy Office (now a Dicastery), or a reigning Sovereign Pontiff (aka the Pope, cf the slightly dubious 'Divine Mercy' devotion of Faustina Kowalaska) .. and such like ....
Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)
A lot of the times, when Alex releases his videos, I become a bit skeptical of whether it would be interesting to watch or not simply because he has been discussing on a wide variety of topics lately. However, I'm quite delighted to announce that once I start watching any of his videos, I become hooked and can't really stop watching. I reckon I've got to stop doubting his ability to produce excellent content.
Edit - I have begun to truly admire how he seeks to learn new concepts. I wish I really had his enthusiasm to learn.
He is a stellar and practiced conversationalist who always works to bring out the best of his partner.
@codegeek98 Certainly! He has earned a name for not only a conversationist, but also for a great interviewer!
This is an incredible interview for a skeptic by a skeptic. I am interested in her perspective, but I wouldn't have gotten it anywhere else. This was done respectfully. Thank you.
I’d heard that Pagels was ill and might not make it. I’m glad to see her up and around again.
This will be excellent!
Eyeopening conversation
This woman has interesting information to consider.. Really appreciate this interview.
It opens our mind.. Thank you so much!
Absolutely fascinating episode. Thank you, both.
How embarrassing! She appeals to Mark 4 and claims it doesn't give the secret teaching when it's right there if you keep on reading. The secret was the interpretation of the parables. These are the levels of self-deceit that one has to descend to in order to take these "gospels" seriously.
The reader only gets the secret explanation for the first of the four parables detailed in that chapter, and Mark finishes that discourse by saying that in public, Jesus used parables exclusively, and the disciples received the full explanations only in private. 🤷♂
@@serversurfer6169and, its pretty clear and easy interpreting those parables. Do they have to give the plain version for every one? Though i can't remember one parable thats not explained.
And why does he say they're given in parables? So the people will have ax n excuse not to yndetstand, an excuse to claim they didnt understand, a way to fuzzy the story so that the person would not be condemned to hell. Since its prophesied a time of teaching will come, and things be made plain to ALL, he said its better some dont get it right now because they couldnt achieve understanding.
There is no mysterious teaching. No secret power. If you read it, its all totally plain and the the truth is simple. It needs one thing, exercise, enactment, practice. The individual must put the lesson into practice, that's faith and obedience. THAT is the secret to achieving the righteous state of being.
Yeah I thought that was bizarre and perhaps intectually dishonest. Especially considering Alex brought up Mark first, and she as a historian should have immediately provided context, but instead played off. God bless Irenaeus 🙏
The Gnostic texts of Pistis Sophia is a fun read. Jesus explains to Sophia (according to the text she was the first to see him after resurrection ) the 12 dimensions and the beings that dwell there as he passed through on the way to meeting God in the 13th Dimension. She constantly asks great questions.
A parable can be seen as a first explanation. First explanations will almost always be so simplified that they give answers contradicting the later conclusion.
Wow, Elaine Pagels is a beautiful person. Thanks for the introduction to her and her work. You're doing God's work, Mr. O'Connor.
Read "Not In His Image" by John Lamb Lash, who translated the Nag Hamadi scrolls.
Completely different (gnostic) creation story.
I really enjoyed this video Alex , thank you
Loved this interview! 10/10
Great stuff, Alex. I love this road you are taking. I'm envisioning many conversations between you and Derek of Mythvision down the line.
A very interesting interview. I loved hearing Elaine Pagels share her knowledge. Thank you Alex!
Her knowledge and wisdom is appreciated thank you for delivering this!!
My older brother handed me Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels in the mid-80s, not so long after its publication. The discovery of these documents is fascinating, and Pagels' take on them is interesting. A great read.
I'll stick with Athanasius, thank you.
"babies in Christ" has a nice ring. I'm going to change out "my brother in Christ" for it.
Ahhh Elaine Pagels!! She's great!!! She is an excellent guest! Thanks for a great conversion
Bravo and thank you, Alex and Elaine 🙏🤗
Another great guest you have here Alex 👌🏾keep it up 👏🏾
I'm so excited to watch this video ❤ thank you
THIS IS MY DREAM COLLAB. I love Elaine Pagels so so much!!
Cant wait to see her again in upcoming interviews!!!!
I really like this! Academics need more outlets for what they find, and so for you to platform them are great :D
What a delightful interviewee, you can tell how passionate she is about her work-- always makes for a lively discussion. Wonderful as always Alex!
In Kerala, India we believe that St. Thomas came to India in AD 52.
Such a cool and passionate scholar! Been loving her work for decades. What a privilege to live in the online age!
"The gnostic gospels don't contradict the canonical gospels"--well that's a lie!
She's still trying to convince herself the gnostic gospels are authentic secret teachings of Jesus!!!!!😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
@@James-ll3jb I really don’t think so. I sense you may be deaf to nuance. Do you have strong pre existing beliefs about the reality behind the gospels?
@@Sveccha93 Not particularly. I have 2 advanced degrees in this stuff and have more than once nabbed Ehrman lying on the facts.
It has nothing to do with "nuance."
The yoyo for years denied Jesus thought himself divine until recently shown a Marcan passage confirming the opposite. The poor s.o.b. wasn't even able to acknowkedge his error!
(And his rationale for disbelieving the Resurrection belong in logical comedy whether you believe in it or not!)
@@James-ll3jb no offense, but yours are not the words of a serious person, right or wrong. I see nothing but transparent ideology and emotion. Certainly Bart and Elaine get things wrong, but your dismissiveness is empty defensiveness. Yawn. Good luck to you.
@@Sveccha93 I know overt lying when I see it. And good luck to you, sir lol
Banned? How about “not included in the canon”?
I mean, somewhere around "ordered to bury your copies in the ground" we're going in the direction of a ban
@@nicholascarter9158its true, they weren't banned or ordered destroyed . They just werebtvinckuded in the cannon, but they were all over the scholarly world.
I thought the same thing. Like it's an appeal to forbidden, secret stuff when nothing could be further from the truth.
Great interview. Learned a lot and I'm looking forward to more discussions on the Gnostics. Please have Elaine back - religious historians are fascinating. She's has so much knowledge about religious texts and I'd love to hear more.
I’m coming to see you in Atlanta !
Fellow Gnostic enthusiast here and Elaine Pagels fan. Elaine is an absolute saint, but a few things people need to understand regarding what/how/why she said some things:
- Alex is new to Gnostic ideas, so he's naturally more interested in the radical ideas that separate it from Orthodox Christianity. Elaine prefers to stay in the "comfort zone" of Gnosticism which can more easily be tied to traditional Christianity. She is focused on the Gospel of Thomas because that's the most well-known and studied of the banned texts, and one we can most easily try to place into the theological framework of the canonical gospels, as well as use as an introduction to the "forbidden teachings" for people who aren't super familiar with this topic. As interesting as the Gospel of Judas and other texts traditionally understood as "Gnostic" are, their theology, cosmology and approach to spiritually is radically different from traditional Christian orthodox. It's understandable that she, and other scholars, are just more comfortable talking about Thomas.
- She prefers "not to comment" on Judas because as I said, this "wider Gnosticism" is more radical than orthodox Christianity. Let's say you have "light heresy" and "heavy heresy". "Light heresy" can still be included in orthodox Christianity if you're more liberal and open to mysticism. This is where Thomas, Valentinus and so on fall into. "Heavy heresy" is this wider, more uncomfortable realm that even liberal believers like Pagels are uncomfortable with.
- For instance, Alex was baffled by the mention of "Barbello" in Judas. In Gnostic Christianity, there is an additional realm next to Heaven - the Plemora. This is where Jesus' God (called the Monad) resides. He emanates lower divine beings, called Aeons. The first of those was Barbello, who is so close to the Monad that she's considered to be his female aspect. But that's TOTALLY different from the cosmology you find in standard Christianity.
- I'm not sure she's entirely correct about the Demiurge. Yes, the idea of the OT/NT God being different was coined by Marcion in 100 AD, but it was still one of the core, uniting ideas of all Gnostic sects. Marcion was a very, very good friend of Valentinus. We're talking buddy cop comedy level. The only real difference between for example Valentinians and Sethians (another major Gnostic school), is that they did not agree on WHY the Demiurge/OT God was the way he was. Valentinians claimed he was simply an ignorant Craftsman who did not know any better, whereas the Sethians considered him to be malevolent. But the core idea of the separation of the OT/NT God was still present.
- The Gnostic cosmology, including Barbello, is also a part of Valentinianism. I'm not sure why she's against the "heavy heresy" when elements of it are found in the "light heresy" she defends.
I found this very useful for filling in some blanks which were the parts I find more interesting for the reasons you stated about Alex.
Thanks.
This was absolutely fascinating. She is amazing. Thank you for posting this interview.. ..just amazing.
They should call the Gnostic gospels the remix gospels cuz that’s all they did. Remix the Gospels to the point where you are like I kinda hear the old melody mixed in there but this is not the same song. All all. And I don’t like it. lol. But this lady loooovvveees the remix.
12:13 Unscholarly and unschooled in the Bible. In Mark 4, from verses 13 to 20, Jesus goes on to interpret and teach the parable to his disciples alone and thereby gives them the model by which to interpret all parables. Elaine says that Jesus doesn’t tell them what it is. Anyone ready enough to simply fact check will no longer trust people of such little professionalism as to lie outright, wanting something to be true so bad, it is no longer lack of knowledge but sentimental delusion.
"So Pilate said to him, 'Then you are a king?' Jesus answered, 'You say I am a king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice.'"
- John 18:37
My hypothesis, and perhaps already expressed so by many of the Orientalists, is that Islam is a slow evolution of the theological churnings that were happening in the 4-6th century fertile crescent area. Qur'an is a product of a fringe sect of Christianity - Unitarians.
We are a group of atheists/ex-muslims. We talk about religions but mostly Islam and challenge the fundamentals of religions through rational and philosophical arguments. Looking to get some support from western audience on what we do.
Hey I think you’re on to something, . Saint John of Damascus documented the beginnings of Islam, you might be interested in this. According to him, Muhammad had been speaking to an Arian monk named Bahira, and that Islam was a continuation of Arianism. Idk much about it but it might be a good resource.
i only read your first paragraph then responded, you probably already know about this then.
I'm curious - is there a direct correlatable link between Christian Unitarians and Islamic Sufism do you think?
@@EdgarRamG St. Maximus also wrote about Islam at its advent.
Hi, Alex, super interesting video, very cool!
it is time for you to leave this worthless sick obsessive empty stupid toxic cult called atheism, get the dignity you lost when you stopped to believe in God (and you can only kiss the a... of those godless alone people, that is disgusting) and come back freerly to God, Ok? (also because every Godenier is a lier and you know that) (we all know you are the worst generetion and none will cry when you will be gond) so go back to God and get some dignity back, ok?..
@@Mar-dk3mp bro think he will convert people by offering them😂😂🤣. If atheism is a cult,what is religion?
Best guest possible for this subject.
brilliant as always
The Apocryphon of John does in fact have “yaldaboath” who is indicated to be the Demiurge and creator of the material world, mistakenly though, as the real creator was ‘Sophia’. That text is just what Irenaeus claims it to be.
I get a lot of the sense that this woman has just imposed her own views on all of it (as believers are wont to do).
@@jursamajI absolutely got the same feeling. To not want to even comment on that side of the texts was disappointing.
@@jursamaj not necessarily. The majority of the "gnostic" gospels do in fact align with Paul's 7 authentic epistles and Jesus' parables from the 4 major Gospels. And most of the so called "gnostics" did not think the creator was evil.
@@GnosticInformant "most" is the important part of your comment thats relevant to this comment thread. She seemed to dodge or wave away any mention of such a thing even being in the texts.
@@lambdanebula8473 It would be important to figure out whether Valentinus held these views and interpretations before or after he got passed over as Pope. Forming Valentinianism out of spite for the Church is Irenaeus's viewpoint, who was extremely biased and bitter towards anyone and anything not strictly Church-related.
Also, I gotta correct you here, he did not place Sophia as the demiurge. The demiurge is still Yaldabaoth, aka. the Old Testament God, or as Valentinus called him - the Craftsman. Sophia was only responsible for creation of Yaldy and subsequently an attempt to salvage his creation by injecting her wisdom into it, as you said. But as far as I know that's not contrary to what Valentinus taught.
Dr. Pagels is an amazing person! Great catch Alex.
🙏🙏🙏
Gift for all even fallen angels 💞 j e s u s energy wash Enjoy
Um no, she’s way off base, the parables were meant to explain things in simpler terms for the general public who were mostly the lower class can relate to. Saying that Jesus didn’t want them to understand what he was teaching is utterly ridiculous. Jesus later says more will understand when the Holy Spirit arrives after His death. Everyone who has basic understanding of the New Testament knows this yet she misconstrues this to fit her narrative.
Low Bar Bill doesn't agree! He can name 20 better scholars!
@@NuanceOverDogma
But why would Jesus say: "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven" ?
It's like Jesus didn't feel like forgiving them, so strange.
Dr. Pagels is such an excellent scholar! Wonderful discussion!
really good stuff
Please have on Thomas W. Clark. He's the founder of The Center for Naturalism, and coined the term "Generic Subjective Continuity" (Sam Harris did a podcast episode on it). Tom speaks on consciousness, atheism, determinism, death, morality, AI, and other philosophical topics. He will be in an upcoming interview with Sam's wife, Annaka Harris.
Wow. This was a beautiful discussion.
If (interpreted, R.) "I will make her male so she will be equal to you man", should be replaced by : "I will activate her YANG-aspect" so she ( in her overloaded Yin-aspect) will become EQUAL in SPIRIT to you MAN", than (in this case studie Zohar) the meaning of: Being man OR woman versus: In essence we are ALL (individual) ONE, is completely clear to me. Thank you for your interesting information around this subject.
She has exclusive knowledge, but it becomes inaccessible due to her raving spirituality. She sounded like a missionary, very unfortunate.
Excellent guest. Dr Pagels is an outstanding scholar and speaker and you interacted with her perfectly.
I agree. Alex didn't let her off the hook when she claimed the God of the Orthodox interpretation was just made up by Irenaeus and Marcion but is actually within the texts that she espouses.
Elaine is very sneaky like Jordan Peterson.
On min. 1:1:38 Her reaction to the bad translation of what he was reading was priceless
Thank you. Very interesting. For me the named truths or paths are not ethernal, but have the same meaning as in Math: supposing A1, A2, if H then T is True. And there as many truths as you can choose, and you decide to follow the paths that and when you find them interesting. There are many paths.
The promote problem with Pagels is her extreme relativist presuppositions.
It's always impressive to see the resemblance between the bagavat gita and the early christian gospels. About the non duality and indivisibility of all being from god.
Jesus did not have some secret teaching that contradicted His public teaching. The secret teaching was just the explanation of His public teaching. That's why immediately after He talks about the knowledge being given only to them, He explains the parable he has just told. He, in my opinion, talked in parables, so only those would understand it, who wanted to understand it. Those who didn't "close their eyes" on purpose. So they would not have the excuse that they didn't hear the truth. They heard the truth, and if they cared to understand it, Jesus would have explained it to them. But their hearts were hardened. Just like today. People's hearts are hardened and they don't want to hear the truth. They rather believe any made up complicated stories and explanations instead of the truth that is much less complicated.
How do you know? He very well could have. It was a common religous practice in the Roman world of the time.
@@Sphere723 Just because some people did something, it doesn't mean that everyone did it. And Jesus said elsewhere that "I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue and in the temple whither the Jews always resort, and in secret have I said nothing"
And the fact that He said that they "closed their eyes" means that they did't see the truth because they didn't want to see it, not because Jesus hid it from them. The truth was there before them, and they could have understood it, if they wanted to, but they didn't want to, because their hearts were hardened.
I agree that the old testament God(s) were punishing and could be very judgemental and cruel, I resonate with the theory that the Arc of the Covenant was radioactive, which is why one couldn't go near it without the specific garments that are very clearly described in the Bible.
This was one of the times God tries to warn the people for their sake, rather than punish them for going to near to something that was saving them.
I would like to challenge this lady on her interpretation of the phrase “embrace what is inside you, else be destroyed by what is inside you.” She is still reading these teaching thru the lens of a classic Christian follower instead of what God really is.
If we are created in the image of God and God is pure light, then who created the darkness? I believe this lesson is not saying to embrace the light within but instead saying to embrace who you truly are and don’t oppress yourself. We are both light and dark, just like God if you believe in that. Every decision you make is to be made with inner peace and synchronicity, you’ll soon find those decisions both good and bad are always in benefit of yourself and those around you.
I don’t believe in all the teachings of Carl Jung bc I feel he was not a good man. but I do believe in his synchronicity teachings and this video just solidified that.
It's true that many, many people percieve and experience god as a light. I had a NDE/Kundalini awakening once in which i met 'the light' and very much in tune with the gospel of Thomas, i was awed and amazed, realised this was truly what i was and where i came from, and yes 'undivided'. However to my understanding the light itself is an apparition, ... a hallucination if you will, giving form to the formless. Notice how the gospel of Thomas says "From the place where the light came into being' and not "from the light". Admittedly in some translations i think Thomas does say thing like "from the light" but to my mind that's a flawed simple understanding ... it's descriptive but misses the mark. It's been a while since i read it.
I think darkness is just ignorance. It's a blind spot. It's a gap in our seeing of what is happening which leads to the belief that this moment could be some other way when it in fact cannot. Everything is light, but in the spaces where we don't see the light, there appears darkness. The darkness in us is all our unconscious and subconscious habits we are not aware of and the layers of perception we take for granted.
This was excellent Alex and Elaine, thank you.
Ah, finally, I've been waiting for this. Can't wait to see the rest
That is it! We were lied to about the writings that didn't make it into the new testament and the old as well. They said that those books were diabolical evil and we should never touch or listen to anything from them. But it is all not true. They are good writings and give meaning and answers to the Bible.
Thank you Alex! These conversations are so fascinating and informative. You are a wonderful host and respected scholar in your own right. Bravo! 👏