Відео

Didn't Jesus have brothers?

Not even in the LATIN VULGATE, the words "Brothers and Sisters" were used and not the words COUSINS, RELATIVES, or BRETHREN (Brotherhood)... Two (2) Gospel Writers (Matthew and Mark) ATTESTED to this matter but the R.C.C. totally rejected this matter... St. Paul warned us all, "DO NOT GO/EXCEED TO WHAT IS WRITTEN."... (ref. 1 Corinthians 4:6)... St. Paul also said, "Let God's CURSE (Anathema/Condemn Eternally) be upon those who taught and preached different Gospel other than what the Apostles had taught and received from them... (ref. Galatians 1:8)... Are the R.C.C. more better and knowledgeable than the Apostles of Christ Jesus in the 1st Century A.D.?... NOPE... They created many HERESIES (Blasphemy) against the Word of God... TRUE WORSHIPPER, worship God in SPIRIT and in TRUTH... without the R.C.C. Idols/Images/Statues and Dogmas of Blessed Mary... The True Worshipper of God (True Christians), loved, respected, honored, and acknowledged the Blessed Mary in the Biblical Way... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen

The R.C.C. preferred to be a SELF-RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE who knows more than the Apostles and Gospel Writers... Were the Nazarene Israelite Jews who knew the Family of Joseph, the carpenter very well, said wrongly to Christ Jesus, "YOUR MOTHER, BROTHERS, and SISTERS are here outside looking/seeking for you?" ...(ref. Mark 3:31 / Matt. 12:47)... There are 2 Gospel Writers (Matthew and Mark) who attested that they were Christ Jesus' MOTHER, BROTHERS, and SISTERS... and not BRETHREN or COUSIN or RELATIVES... Why does NOBODY use the word COUSINS in any English Translation Version?... Even in other FOREIGN Translations, the word COUSINS was not used in that passage... Even in the Catholic Bible with Imprimatur did not translate it into the word "COUSINS" if that was the true meaning of "Brothers and Sisters" in Hebrew or Greek Languages... Not even in LATIN VULGATE... Facts and Truth of the Mattes, Biblically and logically speaking... Praise be to God in Christ...

Ce qui m’agace dans ces discours insanes, c’est que ces beaux discoureurs tirent leurs conclusions de leur faible mental ( mental, mensonge et menteur, en français ont la même racine que mentir) . Mais êtes-vous gynécologue pour discourir de la virginité de Marie 2000 ans après sa Dormition ? Menteurs !De plus, prenez au moins en compte l’avis des contemporains de Marie á Nazareth ! Ce que l’Eglise transmet depuis plus de 2000 ans sans déformation est plus sûr que vos élucubrations insanes.

In reading some of Jeanine's work and a lot of prior reading about various ideas about ultimate reality like the book Hartshorne edited on "Philosophers Speak of God" and McEvilley's magnificent tome, "The Shape of Ancient Thought", the huge diversity makes me wonder what personal psychological factors/issues might be in play that influence an individual to favor a specific position. Positions like a personal/impersonal ultimate, what the "en" in panentheism means, God being "perfect", divine action, transcendence/or not, and so on. I've done a search for research on this but can't find anything. Does anyone know of scholars who have tackled this question?

Fascinating conversation. I wasn't aware of Jeanine's ideas but have started reading some of her papers and the introduction to the book she edited. Great stuff. I agree that the idea of evolution is an important one in thinking about God. In my view, the Divine Life is an evolutionary tale that is steeped in meaning and purpose. It is a narrative of what I call God-as-living where God incarnates (takes on finite being) in everything from quantum fields, their excitations into what we call particles, to molecules, inanimate entities, animate creatures, all the way to sentient beings wherever they may be in the cosmos. This all occurs in the Divine Mind so a Divine Idealism. One concept that I think should be abandoned is the idea of salvation. This came out of the phase of religious thought when the major religions emerged roughly during the axial age. It was a phase where world rejection was ubiquitous (see Robert Bellah's the evolution of religion). This was a tragic metaphysical mistake, in my opinion, because it sets up a horrible theology that casts a dark shadow on creation and God's competence as creator. It also instigates a carrot-or-stick mentality that is so destructive.

Among the five alternatives, mystical ascent, process theology, and Tillich’s ground of all being all have a very distinct, neoplatonic content and flavor. I would even argue that Whitehead’s process philosophy is a modern version of Plotinus’ understanding of reality, and just as Plotinus identifies being itself (or more precisely, that which transcends both being and nothingness) with the One, so does Tillich identify being itself with God.

When I wonder whether certain faith traditions could be considered religions or just living philosophies, I ask “is there any worshipping involved. Prayers, candles, supplications…that kind of stuff. I don’t think Confucianism meets these criteria except when it is practiced within the context of Buddhism. Doesn’t it is not a valuable philosophical tradition…just not spiritually informed. However, I reserve the right to be wrong. 😅

These religions Islam Christianity and Judaism they all considers women as a property than a living being. Even could be another animal that they owned. There is very little account of women in details as that of men than them being married off. You can see how this has impacted men today. Many will pay a huge lot for little girls even today.

The french word for "spirit" is "esprit" ;)

Yes

Profound scholarly thoughts presented in plain lay-person's language. Thanks!

I want Russian subtitles

Dr. B., Tillich's theology seems to be a exemplar of what critis of modern protestant theology would call a new docetism or gnosticism, in which the figure of the Saviour is not much more than a mediator of wisdom and salvation is in fact nothing else or more than enlightenment. I can imagine that he was confronted with such criticism in his active years. If so, how did he answer to them?

Thank you for sharing this interesting information!

Thank you for sharing this interesting interview! In my opinion, the distinction he points out is quite important.

Well we do not make ourselves but it’s actually humans that… “make” humans.

Who are you? Do I believe you or 2000 years of Christianity.

I'm still confused about the use of symbols as understood by Tillich. I find it very much risky and kind of elitist as well. I need to read and understand better !

Apostles and Early Christian Churches in the 1st Cent. A.D. believed that Blessed Mary was VIRGIN before she gave birth to the Savior/Son/Word of God manifested into FLESH, named Jesus, but not after the birth... Blessed Mary claimed that she "KNEW NOT" her Husband (Joseph) till (before) she gave birth to their FIRSTBORN SON, Christ Jesus... (ref. Matt. 1:18-25)... Did God restore her Virginity after giving birth to the Savior till her death?... God never revealed that to anyone, neither Christ Jesus nor the Apostles revealed her PERPETUAL VIRGINITY to nobody... the R.C.C. claimed this doctrine for her... and called her VIRGIN MARY instead of Blessed Mary... Blessed Mary never claimed nor ever written in the Scriptures that she was PERPETUAL VIRGIN, and never claimed she had no other Sons and Daughters from her Husband, Joseph before he died... Does restoring Blessed Mary's Virginity have something to do with our SALVATION?... What was the Purpose why God must do such a thing for her?... According to the Bible, God (YHWH) does NOT have FAVORITISM (Impartiality) to those who do HIS WILL. (ref. Romans 2:11)... Christ said, "Anyone who does the WILL of My Father (God) is MY Mother, Brothers, and Sisters." (ref. Matt. 12:50)... Does God really want it for her, or that was what the R.C.C. wanted for her?... Any Biblical or written Proof?... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.

Yes, Mary remains ever-virgin. Read Mark 15:40 and John 19:25 and you will see who the mother of Jesus’ “brothers” was: Mary of Clopas.

Was Mary a virgin?Yes--when she married Joseph. SHE WAS ALSO A JEWISH wife!!! She MUST follow ALL the mitzvot laws that apply to Jewish women!!! For Joseph-----Mitzvat #124 Not to withhold food, clothing, and relations from your wife. (Exodus 21:10) For Mary----#125. To have children from her. -If she did NOT obey. she THUS has disobeyed GOD!!!! Thus making her a sinner!!!! ---Also: what is the purpose of marriage?? To pro create!!! ----In Genesis 2:24 it says, “… A man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” ONE FLESH!!! Being intimate!!! >>>1 Corinthians 7:5 Do not withhold yourselves from each other unless you agree to do so just for a set time, in order to devote yourselves to prayer. Then you should come together ... ---Quote any VOW of celibacy between them!!! ----Who claims Mary never sinned??? Did Mary??? NEVER!!! Why?? Simple. 1 John 1:8-10 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. IT IS the Catholic church that claims Mary never sinned.. That verse 1 John 1:8-10, then implies the Catholic church ARE LIARS!!! --Who claim Mary remained a virgin?? The Catholic church!! NOT Mary!!! By ORDER of GOD she MUST bear children for Joseph!@! ----

Obviously not. She had a kid. Thats how getting pregnant works. Either Joseph was the father or another local man was.

I think something like the Anthropological and Transcendental models are the most appropriate for many of today's situations across societies. The rise of disaffiliation and pluralism challenges provincial attitudes not only for individuals but also for societies in general. However, I would lump them together in what might be called an existential model. Here I'm following Paul Tillich's method of correlation but broadening it where the answers to the current existential questions are not just sought within a particular tradition but rather within the entire corpus of human explorations including religion, philosophy, art, science, experiences, dialog, etc. There are some "transcendent" questions that necessarily arise from being finite creatures. Many of these questions/issues are universal to the human condition within a world and culture. How those universal questions are answered depends on both the personal and cultural context of the time. As the context changes over time the answers may or may not be the same as in the past. The task of theology and religious philosophy could be to navigate all the complexity of past and present sentiments and seek something relevant for today that still attempts to ground itself in metaphysical truth.

An excellent and engaging summary, thank you. This is a help in my undergraduate theological studies.

None of the three. God is being itself. The only being whose essence is His existence. He is pure spirit in nature and timeless in existence. He then revealed His triune nature as three persons that share the divine nature.

The usage of the Gospels as texts of evidence regarding his family’s names but not the Christian belief in a bodily resurrection is absurd. The resurrection of Jesus is not just a theological claim. It is a historical claim. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Christian faith is false. Paul says as much in his own writings.

Great episode!

Mark, this was a fantastic summary that really helped me absorb both Gadamer and Habermas’ ideas on hermeneutics. I’ve heard their ideas separately, but your connecting the dots between them here was invaluable for me. Liked and followed, and I look forward to watching your other videos.

Yes, Mary was a virgin. But, she didn't stay a virgin. She had sons and daughters. Mary's being a perpetual virgin is just a Catholic lie.

Confucianism is both a philosophy and a religion. The three religions in China refer to Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Today Confucianism is one of the six official religions recognized by the government in Hong Kong and Indonesia.

She made a life long vow of virginity. See Numbers 30 to see how it worked back then. God is not going to share her womb with anyone else just like just had his own cross and own tomb. Never used by anyone else.

And she was still a virgin after birth with the Hyman still intact they state

Mary lied. Did Joseph buy it ? Maybe he thought it might be fun to have a son of god around the house getting free stuff from wise men, turning water into wine, etc. unfortunately for Jesus such talk can create psychological damage to young minds and even though it might work for a time, eventually you will run up against Rome that does not have a sense if humor. Jesus was not the first, and not the last to have divine visions of self. A few slip out of the net and start a new religion.

Ya, no. You do an okay job debunking an interpretation of what the bible says, but not so much what the bible actually says. For one, this nitpicky word obsession doesn't fit. Yes, the old Hebrew uses a word translated to young woman or young maiden, not the exact word virgin. Still, for one, that doesn't preclude her being a virgin. In fact, the fact that such a word is typically translated to maiden implies virginity. When a bride chooses a friend to stand with her at her wedding, she can choose a maid of honor or a matron of honor. Today, these titles don't mean much anymore, but for most of their existance in the English language, being a maid of honor absolutely implied the girl or woman titled was a virgin, or at least expected to be a virgin. In the English language, there were many different word associations to imply virginity ot lack of virginity. For instance, you would call virgins miss or nonvirgins Mrs. Today we are told this is associated with their marital status, but in history, it was definitely associated with virginal status. As for the or stories of beings also being sons of God's, that doesn't play well with what the bible actually says about Jesus. Not what many religions say about him, but what the bible actually says. The bible doesn't claim God someone had sex with Mary and they had a child together. No, Mary was really nothing more than a surrogate mother. The bible claims that Jesus already existed before his birth as a godlike being. That's another term for angel. It says he have up that existance to come down to Earth and be placed in Marry as a human, to live an actual human existance. The key reason why Mary had to be a virgin, wasn't to fulfill an old prophecy, but was because the entire reason for Jesus coming down to Earth. He had to be a sinless human. He was the new Adam, as such, he had to be like Adam, a sinless human being. Adam, after sinning, was stricken down. The bible doesn't get into specifics how, but from our current day scientific understanding, it strongly implies that a genetic flaw was given to him. A fatal one that was so deeply embedded that he passed it onto all his children. Something our current scientific knowledge tells us is that when a fertilized egg is placed into a woman's womb, it shares non of her DNA. Also, funnily enough, a surrogate can be a virgin mother. It happens today. We just don't call it a miracle. Why the virginity was needed. It had more to do with Jesus being sinless, or in modern terms, perfect, than to just fulfill prophecy. If Joseph had been married to her beforehand, many would have claimed it was simply the birth of two sinful imperfect humans and his status would have been questionable. Also, the bible doesn't claim that while on Earth, Jesus has a deity like Hercules. While it claims he was a sinless human, it only claims he was a human. There are many passages that claim he was more, sure, but that was outside his Earth existance. Before he was born, he was an Angel. When he was raised, it wasn't as a human, but he was given back his original angelic existance. Angels in the Hebrew scriptures were shown all the time appearing in human form, but not actually being humans. That was how Jesus was able to change his appearance after being raised. He was an Angel, or godlike being again. Later, because of his faithful sacrifice, he was elevated above other angels as God assigned authority to him. Authority of kings judge, priest, and god. So, it is true that Jesus post resurrection can be called a god, it is as a title more than a name. In the bible, being a god meant you had power over whether others lived or died. Judges in Israel were rightly titled gods. Jesus is a god in the same way Moses was God. God told Moses he was making him God to Aaron and Pharoah. This meant that God was sending Moses in his name. When Moses spoke, he was speaking what God told him to say and with God's authority to say those things. They were to be taken as if spoken directly by God. Jesus in the bible many times said he spoke, not his words, but the words of his father. Even in his kingly splendor in the book of Revelations, he claims to do and say only the things God commanded him to say and do. The entire reason for Jesue existansr to be a sinless human who died without sin, to balance the scales for Adam's sin. The law stated a life for a life. If someone's innocent life was taken from them, it demanded the price of a life. Still, Jesus had to be born in the promised line. This is why Joseph was still his father. Just because Joseph didn't actually father Jesus, he was legally his father. It fulfilled God's promises to his ancestors. I get that many come to the bible with the idea or it not being inspired already firmly entrenched in ther minds, so all of this will sound like nonsense to them. That is okay. This was merely point out that much more of the bible than they think spoke to Jesus. The man who would bruise the serpent in the head. Abraham's being asked to act our sacrificing his son was a method of conveying to him the import of the cost to God of the promise he was making to him. How, he would bless Abraham's offspring by actually sacrificing his son. Note that angels were also known as sons of God. The later promises to various men down through Israel like to David. How Jesus sinless nature was prophecised by unleavened bread being used at Passover and in sacrifices. Leaven was a symbol of sin. Or the blood used to save the Israelites in Egypt or in sacrifices. Many like to claim it is blood magic, but it actually was just a prophetic symbol of Jesus spilled blood. Even the design of the temple was a prophesy of Jesus. It's physical design was a way of describing man's relationship to God and when Jesus died, the curtain in the temple was torn, showing a change in the nature or man's relationship with God. Jesus as the High Priest of heavenly Jerusalem could freely enter into God's presence as he was sinless unlike all preceeding High Priests. In any event, it was about more than the translation of a single word in an ancient text.

Very good.

Jesus had brothers. That means that even if Jesus was born miraculously Mary did not remain a virgin, assuming that Jesus ever lived which is a topic of debate.

Absolutely!!! Jesus was miraculously conceived by the Holy SPirit. Did Mary REMAIN A VIRGIN??? absolutely not, she and Joseph raised their own family and had children naturally of their own. The Roman Catholic HERESY means absolutely NOTHING.

To the end q: human condition I think it is a good category to help understand religious traditions better, cs we need first to know why, why we need to know this & that, to be able then to understand how, w this saying, is like taking a rope from the middle & thinking that by turning it around we will find one of its tails, rather wouldn't be better to turn around firstly to find one of its tails from the first (not messing things more in our heads). For example in xtianity the idea of the supreme sacrifice, how we got to that? What's the need to it? It's been bugging my mind so much... ive asked on it on the Orthodox Easter, & still didnt get a satisfactory answer from m anyone...

On buddhism, a comment that i liked under a post on why achieve Nirvana, how they actually see the world (im aware thats probably not a monolith) What separates Buddhism from nihilism is acknowledging that how we interact with the world is bad. Not that the world itself is bad. The first noble truth is often misinterpreted as “life is suffering”. But that is not true. The first noble truth is that “the five aggregates create suffering”. The way we live our lives is to satisfy our five aggregates, who cling to impermanent phenomena and thought. So existence itself is not suffering. Nirvana, the end of that suffering, is not when you no longer exist. The Buddha lived several more years after attaining Nirvana under the Bodhi tree. Existence and Nirvana inter-be. Confusing Buddhism with this anti-material “life sucks” attitude is what leads to many wrong views about the Buddhist teachings and how to apply them to your life.

Panikkar's myth sounds like a lot of woo woo. Shouldn't our goal be to eliminate as many untrue (defined as not rooted in real history) myths as possible? Sure, it may be valuable and even inevitable to hold onto certain core myths, but that doesn't make them true or always beneficial. I also believe that the "losing of innocence" should negatively affect one's ability to regain innocence.

I'm sure there are subtleties to Ricoeur's position but I disagree with his anti-author intentionalism. Now, it may be difficult to understand the intentionality of an ancient author but through historical studies sometimes we might get a sense of it. If we can, I think that can help with both deconstruction and reconstruction. As finite creatures, humans do have some common existential questions and issues that are universal to the species. Things like: who and what am I, what is the purpose of existence and my existence, what is the ultimate reality and the relationship of creatures to that reality, and so on. If we can get of sense of the existential issues an ancient author is grappling with and emphasizing, then we can examine the answers they come up with, and better evaluate those answers as they might pertain to our own questions. All that requires understanding the personal and cultural context within which they were formed. Upon examination of their "solutions," we can then decide if we agree with them or not for our current situations. I view these ancient texts with their symbols and myths as testaments regarding people's struggle to make sense of things that are important to them. If we look broadly at the millennia of wisdom literature surely great insights can be gleaned from many of those struggles and that can inform our own choices.

I have a hard time following you sometimes . You speak so fast and the lip smacking and noises throw me off .. otherwise I find your research fascinating and at times mind blowing !

Wow, so this explains why the book of Daniel speaks about Babylon , Medo-Persia and Greece, but doesn't mention Rome by name.. Since it was written in the Greek period, they could only write about present and past things but not future. So therefore , Daniel is not a prophetic book, it was written after the events took place... wow

I’m glad Ten on Religion decided to break the chains of temporal limits for this session. Some topics just deserve more time. Expanding the horizons here, just as so many of us have done over our lifetimes, is a key process for intellectual, spiritual, and emotional development. So where’s the door in the human mind that can open for this developmental process? It seems to differ to some extent across individuals. Richard Rohr has said that the way you think about anything is the way you think about everything. I’m not sure this stands as a universal principle, but it’s a good way to think of some fundamental characteristics of the mind. The emphasis in the talk at hand on the problems with binary thinking is a clear and pervasive example. It’s a cognitive habit that closes off the broader horizon. Not to mention that it’s a barrier to the emergence of truth. We humans, many or most of us, are intellectually lazy and want to find The Answer for yourselves, reify it as a universal we’ll never have to think of again, and file it away somewhere. And a thanks in general to Mark for asking the question: “What’s the difference between philosophical deconstruction and popular deconstruction?”The watering down of technical language may be inevitable (e.g. raising a question now “begs the question”), but it’s confusing.

Interesting discussion (although a little more than "ten on" religion 😀). Thanks to Aaron and Mark. A few random opinions : 1. IMO, if somebody's starting point is fundamentalist Christianity, then both progressive Christians and atheists are travelling along the same road, in the same direction. It's just that one stops short of reaching the final destination, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you find a place that is to our liking, that's the place to stop. There's an undercurrent in this video that somehow exangelicals who become atheists have somehow gone too far, and the "correct" middle ground is progressive Christianity. I'm not sure that's right. If Christianity is to survive (unless brute force and ignorance are used to shove it down people's throats), it can only be the progressive version IMO. The fundamentalist form is losing adherents by the second, and rightly so. 2. I would also question whether the other YT channels mentioned needed to provide the reconstruction that Mark mentions. They each have their own interests, but broadly they are trying to get people to understand history and archaeology better, trying to get people to read their Bibles better, and trying to help people that are questioning their faith. I'm not sure that any of these channels are trying to make Christianity, the Bible etc look bad, and none of them are trying to push people away from the faith. At least not in my experience. Also worth mentioning a couple of other YT channels (there's plenty out there) : Digital Hammurabi and possibly the grand daddy of them all, Bart Ehrman. 3. I'd be curious to know how progressive Christians conceive of God. I find it hard to believe that they would conceive of some being out there somewhere that made everything. This does not seem like an idea that a progressive mind would entertain. And if there is no such figure, then what is Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism ? How is one to fill that God-shaped hole ? I understand the social and ethical frameworks in the origins of religion, I understand Dan McClellan when he talks about pro sociality and the cognitive science of religion, I understand the idea of getting a community unified and moving in the same direction, I understand the benefits of getting together once a week even it is simply to say hi. But I don't believe in a personal god, i don't believe in an anthropomorphic god, I don't believe in miracles, I don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection, I don't believe in heaven and hell. And I find it hard to believe that any prog Christian would. If you take those things out, is it still Christianity ? Sorry for the long comment. I can go on a bit once I'm on a roll.........

I’ve been thinking about deconstruction for awhile, sometimes in different forms. Aaron and I had a conversation on this a few months ago, on my channel. My experience with Christianity and especially with identity has left me believing Christianity isn’t real, especially with the how far Christians are willing to gaslight people out of existence. Part of my deconstruction as been due to this gaslighting, I was never a Christian, because of this or that, because as I continued through the faith, I found myself moving away from the identity markers, and the more that happened the more I was told I was never a Christian. I embraced that and I’ve used that as my guide, if I was never a Christian then my conclusion is that Christianity doesn’t exist. The gaslighters don’t exist and they certainly aren’t Christian, and if they can say to me I was never taught “true Christianity” (whatever that is), these are the people who I was taught by (college or church), can say to me “you were never a Christian” then I can say right back at them, Christianity doesn’t exist then. That’s the logical conclusion of these gaslighters. I think many people who have left Christianity can sympathize with this issue, we are all being gatekepped out of Christianity and it’s like these people want to destroy the faith for their own selfish means and gains of protecting their identity and politics at the expense of everyone else.

Great conversation. So important as the rise of the unaffiliated continues. It's a really tough question about how to offer something spiritually meaningful in the face of the skepticism of religious systems today. Alternatives can be very important for those unaffiliated who still want something fairly explicit that is presented in a way they can understand. A lot could be said about all this but I think one crucial step toward anything that can meet the diverse needs of spirituality today is to abandon the idea of salvation. This idea is such a destructive force against change. Not only is it theologically horrid, it also instills a fear that thwarts spiritual growth both individually and culturally. If we look at the history of religious thought we can see how it came about and why we could consider abandoning it today. It came about because of the widespread world rejection in the period when the major world religions originated. It's easy to see this because all the major world religions have some sort of salvation scheme (soteriology). This includes Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. Essentially, it means that there is something fundamentally flawed with reality or the individual and it needs to be "fixed". What a horrible way to view creation. Prominent sociologist of religion, Robert Bellah has a wonderful paper on this and other aspects of religious evolution. I can't put a link in this comment but it can be found by looking for RELIGIOUS EVOLUTION ROBERT N. BELLAH

These days Mary would be considered jailbait..amen

I actually believe your take more that the praying class explanation..amen.