Alex has in deed grown dramatically and not because he started badly. He started UA-cam as a tanager in high school. He now interviewing a lot of the greatest in his field and beyond.
@@Wolfenkuni Agreed. He didn't start out bad. He's always been an above average polemicist. However, now it seems like he's integrated nascent wisdom into his already remarkable intellect. It's just thrilling to see.
@@meccamiles7816 I would say his talent here is his ability to engage Jordan in a realm of religious dialogue that has him so excited to have somebody both on his level and not after him somehow. I'm not religious but it is fun to listen to somebody so empassioned.
The problem with appealing to the gnostic tradition is that none of the people who met Jesus face-to-face and followed him espoused it. There is no record of anyone who followed Jesus denying the resurrection. Another problem with gnosticism is that it elevates knowledge above grace. That position is contrary to the entirety of Scripture.
@@thepope9023 No. Grace is unearned (or unmerited) favor. Specifically, God's grace is shown to us in the blood of Jesus as a sacrifice to atone for our sins. We accept His grace through faith which is also a gift from God.
Read Philo. His entire perspective is about elevating knowledge. He describes Moses as a philosopher, which...funny enough so does the other pseudonymous author "Josephus.". "Josephus" also brags in a supposed autobiographical tale about how people thought he had died in a shipwreck...and that people will believe whatever makes sense to them regardless of how far it is from the truth, and that genuine knowledge will vary by degrees to the source of an event. This was the very mindset that was used to craft the satirical gospel campaign. The Judeans who were crucified, starved, and enslaved would know the truth about Titus' rampage. Others would carry a poetic spiritual message forward for generations that satirized his destruction of Jerusalem as the coming of a Messiah.
I learned as much as I possibly could about all of these traditions, they are very similar to one another, but upon finding James Lindsay I'm having to be very self-critical and having second thoughts about its safety
Most of these questions are incredibly low level and were solved within the 3rd century by the main church line. This is what happens when we ignore philosophy, all the sudden it seems like some hidden truth when it had always been in front of us
After the crucifixion, the disciples scattered. The resurrection brought them back together. Subsequently, the disciples had disputes over various issues (circumcision, the Gentiles, law, etc...) but not about the resurrection. This they saw, heard, and touched for themselves.
A friend of mine, Jim, his wife died some years ago. A few days after her death, he was standing in the kitchen and saw her. Not an apparition of her, but he saw her. He was not dramatic about it whatsoever, but was puzzled by this. I don't doubt that he experienced that. Her body was still indeed in a casket, on this planet. I cannot believe for a moment that Jesus physical body "resurrected". It remained dead and he transitioned as we all do, to whatever there is.
@@NineIndex I wouldn't doubt your friend's experience either. A difference is that in the biblical accounts of Christ's resurrection, this was more than visual. Jesus, whose body was not where it should have been, ate with and held conversations with people who were just as puzzled as your friend by what they were experiencing.
@@tedclemens4093 We should all remember that the earliest gospel which is mark and the the evangelion of marcion has no ressurection account . It was a later addition to the jesus narrative
@@jhake67 In their letters, Peter talks about a "living stone," and John about a present tense fellowship with Christ, confirming the resurrection accounts in the book of Acts. Do they need to say more?
I actually deeply appreciate Alex's discussion. I never agreed on him since day 1 but he came really far into being eloquent, he educated himself on theology and he discusses ideas without attacking the person. If I had to debate on a theological topic on any atheist he would be the first or the close second I'd be interested in
Two things missed here which I have come to understand researching the Eastern Orthodox tradition: 1) It is believed that the Incarnation was ALWAYS the plan. Christ would take on human form even if the fall never happened. He was always going to join humanity. What changed with Adam & Eve's mishap is that Christ had to die to fix everything. 2) "knowledge of good and evil" is used frequently throughout the old testament as a reference to growth and maturity. It wasn't that Adam and Eve were to NEVER eat of the fruit, but that they would have to wait until they were mature and ready enough to handle the knowledge. Both the Serpent and Man tried to put themselves in God's place by the declaration that they knew better than Him.
Indeed the EO understanding is quite brilliant and removes the silly talk of "PlanB" as some atheists articulate. Instead God always intending to meet with his creation is actual so much more powerful.
The first is part of the Roman Catholic Tradition, also, but I've heard Protestant Pastors in the American South giving such a sermon stating this as such, without question, as having been the plan since the beginning of Creation, also. I think that it's just a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith, both in our respective Apostolic Churches/Traditions, as well as among protestant (and not just "high church" Anglican/Lutheran, but effectively Southern Baptist or Pentecostal churches in the US, certainly with this example from local radio that I heard flipping through while driving, recently (relatively - perhaps last year or the year before, at most) confirms. Per the second I've never actually heard this but I am curious to read more on this idea. I know that the Eastern Church/Christians have this thing about the wood from the Cross that would be used to crucify Christ Jesus is said to have come from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, at least partially. I think Peterson even recounts the gist of this one during one of his 4-hour+ appearances on Joe Rogan's podcast (the one where he shows up in a tuxedo, IIRC). RE the Cross, I like the emphasis in the Orthodox tradition that states that the location of which the crucifixion would occur, Golgotha (sometimes called Calvary in more contemporary translations), which is something like, "Island of the Skull" and is said to have been the resting place of Adam, whose skull is thought to have been under Christ at the base of the cross, which the Eastern Orthodox Cross symbolizes with the diagonal "plank" or plaquard at the foot of the crucifix, which is particularly important because Christ is the "New Adam" By and large, I think both the Greek/Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic or Latin Church have the same Sacred Tradition, though, which is something that certainly IS missing/absent from protestant Christian churches, who rely solely on the Holy Bible, which our shared Apostolic Church compiled for the first time several hundred years after the time of Christ's crucifixion/resurrection/ascension in the early days of the Church when we were but One Church, founded by Christ Himself - for the first 1000 years, even. Thanks for the second bit of info, though, that's very interesting. I'll have to read more up on it.
@@texanologyThe bottom plank of the Orthodox cross firstly is just a footrest, they often depict Christ nailed in each foot, not through both. The symbolism of the slant being the scales of justice, sheep and goats, those on the right of Christ (like the good thief,) go to be with God, those on the left, (like the one who mocked Christ,) go down to Hell. The tradition of Adams skull under Golgotha is held though, but I've never heard the bottom plank relating to it. This tradition is no doubt where that fraud Ron Wyatt (iirc, I may have got his name wrong,) got the idea from when he claimed to find Adams skull and the Ark, blood on the mercy seat etc.
The "Resurrection" the gospel satirizes referred to dead bodies being lifted from the underground tunnels of Jerusalem where rebels had to escape and to those starving to death attempting to live off the deceased remains, including the crucified victims of the Romans. "Josephus" who was a wealthy and well connected Alexandrian who feigned being a Judean but was actually an avid accomplice in the entire rise of Flavian dynasty records the piles of dead bodies in the wake of the siege during the Roman Judean war...and thus the inspiration for the satirical gospel account of many people rising from the grave. Eleazar/Lazarus the most key rebel leader "resurrects" in the sense of being dismembered torturously and crucified.
@@booksquid856 nonsense. Jesus’s disciples saw him resurrected and were transformed from cowardly men hiding from the authorities to save their skins to bold men who were mostly martyred for their testimony of the resurrection. Jesus rose bodily, appeared to thousands, ascended into heaven and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Believe in him and you will be saved. Reject him and you will be damned.
@@simonbrown1486 I agree with your assessment fully, except for the final sentence. Not sure what you mean by "reject" him. Just for the sake of argument, what happens if someone never heard of Jesus? Or say a 15 year old boy in Iran, who is indoctrinated into Islam by his parents (through no fault of his own), dies in a car crash. Would he be damned?
@@simonbrown1486Nothing nonsense about it actually. Rome wasn't a monolithic empire but rather competing mob families sponsoring and creating different cults. In the year Vespian came to the throne three others had been assassinated before him. The Flavians in particular harnessed all forms of propaganda to assert their presence and authority. Obviously no Judean peasants would have been educated enough to write the amount of detailed gospel/"epistle" references to external historic and contemporary co-created material that satirized specific details of Titus' war against Jerusalem or the fate of Eleazar/Lazarus. There are clues left everywhere in the body of text which Rome herself preserved to give us a clear understanding that we are reading satire.
Obviously the Gnostic Gospels got some things wrong, but some of their points make more sense than the "standard" Christian interpretation of the whole story. The knee-jerk reactions of many Christians in the comments are similar to statements of cultists: belief without analysis or perspective.
I think there is a parallel between the biblical discussion around serpents and the experience of a Kundalini awakening, which is often described as an energetic serpent traveling up the spine. In both traditions, the serpent brings gnosis. Even in the garden, the serpent brings a gnosis - their eyes were "opened", and they ate of it in pursuit of wisdom.
I don't think Alex has considered "what is death in the spirit realm"? He sees dying from a materialistic atheistic view point, but spiritual religious death is to be "severed from the tree" to be cut loose alone from God. Adam and Eve did die and we can only be restored from the Fall through Christ through Resurrection .
I guess the bible could've been more precise than in it's speech then as Peterson alwaysbsays to be. Add one word "spritualy" before die and you have no confusion.
If he did know Hebrew he would have noticed that the word used for “cunning” is used a verse prior and translated radically different as naked, i.e., עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (arummim) Genesis 2:25. This comes from the root word ur that means to be exposed or to bare. In Biblical text comparison it’s best to begin with comparison within the sepher (the scroll), so while the psalms may used arum as sensible or wise, i would advise caution. An alternate reading of Genesis 3:1 bringing it into harmony with 2:25 reads, “And the serpent was more naked than the beasts of the field.” And why was the serpent naked? Because Satan has no physical body having fallen from grace as Christ said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18). This adds to the sanctity of the body, as Satan is denied this sacred privilege.
It is always great to listen someone with real arguments 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻. Also Satan (translated like "the adversary") is the master of lies, that's why people get so confused thinking that the tree of good and evil was related with knowledge but one thing is "Knowledge" and other so different is "the knowledge of good and evil". Represented very clear in Genesis with the Tree of life and then the other tree that holds the malevolent fruit. So Adan and Eve chose to follow Satan instead of the Tree of Life.
@@Hoi4oActually, the Bible says the opposite both definitionally and anecdotally. By definition, in both Greek (angelos) and Hebrew (malach) both mean “messenger”. The messengers God sends can be either corporeal, like the angels God sends to Lot to remove him and his family from Sodom, or incorporeal, or a spirit. Many instances speak of angels having physical bodies, such as those entertained by Abraham or the one with which Jacob wrestled. The fact is that the Bible makes no mention of God creating a separate class of beings, i.e., angels. The notion that a different race of beings exists is more fiction than faith. Rather, angels are messengers, the spirits of man before or after birth and just men made perfect like the translated inhabitants of the City of Enoch who God took into heaven itself.
@@JoelWHoodthat is because Angel is a role. All direct agents of God are spirits. Even Jesus himself was called the word, hence him being a messenger or "Angel". Sometimes even prophets can be "angels" temporarily.
1 Corinthians 15:14 Amplified Bible and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain [useless, amounting to nothing], and your faith is also vain [imaginary, unfounded, devoid of value and benefit-not based on truth].
@IFeelQuiteHungry you can always read the whole chapter. I don't take things out of context. Teaching things that are not true in scriptures makes someone a false teacher. False teachers burn in the lake of fire Revelation 20:10, 22:18-19
@IFeelQuiteHungry .... If you understood old testament prophecy then the Messiah must be risen after 3 days. Just say you don't understand or read Scripture and stay out of the convos.
One of you - BOTH OF YOU - Please interview Father Josiah Trenham. An Othrodox priest out of California who is incredibly well-spoken and well-informed about his faith. It would be a wonderful thing to see for all of us. Thank you!
@11:00 " . . knowledge of good and evil . . " What he's missing, and what Jordan is trying to articulate is that it's not just the knowledge of good and evil. It's the FRUIT of the knowledge of good and evil. Once eaten, these innocent, timeless creatures walking with God DO die. Their innocence died there and then. The product, the consequence of it is to corrupt their innocence and to birth a new creature in their place. A fallen, cynical, murderous mankind, capable of great evil. THAT was the 'fruit' of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't the knowledge itself. It's the consequences of holding that knowledge in merely human minds.
Right. In Eden before the fall, knowledge was not grasped or taken it was given and received. Like grace. In paradise we posses everything but appropriate nothing. The eating of the apple was the loss of chastity in the true meaning of the word; as in disloyalty to God , breaking the union with God by giving in to temptation. One can only be eternal beings when in union with God who is eternal and one can only be withering and dying beings if we break our union with the eternal being. How can it be otherwise?
if they had no knowledge of good and evil, then how would they have even known following god was the good thing to do, and disobeying him was the bad thing? they were completely naive and uninformed about why they were supposed to be doing what they were simply told to do and then blamed for making the wrong decision. i could never come to terms with how this story is supposed to justify suffering or that humans are somehow responsible for every horrible thing that exists. it seems to be a very weak attempt at justifying Gods twisted behaviour.
But they HAD been given that knowledge @@brianbridges8124 God specifically warned them what would happen and commanded them to leave it alone. Even a half trained puppy dog knows when it does wrong and disobeys its master. What arrogance to judge God's behaviour! You obviously have some serious knowledge gaps when it comes to scripture. Don't you know that you are parroting a twisted and satanic interpretation of these passages which has been shown false many times? Serious scholars have debated the righteous judgements of God for thousands of years, and concede He is justified in all His dealings with man. Where do you get the balls to repeat this railing accusation against God? I mean your first point (they were completely naive and uninformed) is blatantly 100% wrong on a face reading of the text. Did you even think this point through before you made it?Would you care to dig this hole any deeper Brian, or is that enough blasphemous slander of God for you today?
@@brianbridges8124 The mistake is confusing the knowledge of good and evil with the knowledge of right and wrong. They were neither naive nor uninformed. The text is clear on that. They are however innocent of moral responsibility and in harmony God. Also, they fell, not due to any moral deficiency, but due to their inherent human nature. A dog knows right from wrong, and loyalty from betrayal. It doesn't know how to forge credentials, steal the secrets to build a nuclear device, murder the witnesses and plant evidence to blame a third party, triggering a genocidal war of extermination, all as revenge for something that happened ninety years ago, or as part of a righteous struggle against oppression, or even as part of a larger de-population agenda, for the greater good of humanity! No dog will ever be able to conceive of any of that, but due to the nature of our hearts and the capacity of our intellects, all humans are capable of such pre-meditated acts of evil. You had to squint at this pretty hard to miss that point. Do you honestly see yourself and others as innocent because we were made this way, and therefore it's God's fault we're like this? You said you thought the story of Adam and Eve was supposed to justify suffering, or accuse humanity of being responsible for all that is evil. All I can say is, you need to engage with this stuff yourself, and seek Him in His Word. Contrary to popular belief, God's existence is not some ultimately unknowable matter of conjecture. Each of us can have a real encounter with Him, enter into a real relationship with Him. In Romans 8:16 it says "His Spirit will witness with your spirit." That's a promise of a direct encounter with God, leaving us in no doubt whatsoever. All you have to do is meet Him in His Word, and His Word tells us repeatedly that we can only approach Him on His terms. Do you read? Have you read the gospels? The instructions on how to do this are found throughout the bible, and are different for each of us, but I think they are best summed up in Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Once we diligently seek Him, humbly and in faith, THEN we find Him. We ask, and we receive. We knock, and doors are opened to us. That's the way it works, so unless we've actually read and responded to this stuff, we can't really speak honestly about it, or ever hope to understand the deep hidden layers of wisdom held in such verses as those which you have so carelessly misunderstood and dismissed here. I pray that you are able to humble yourself before Almighty God your creator, and earnestly hear the clear instructions that He has left us, on how to find Him. Then, and only then will the deep wisdom of all these things be revealed unto you.
If one looks back to the original Sumerian texts, The Serpent was the god Enki, the same one who created humans to serve the gods. His brother, Enlil, was the one who wanted to keep humans from becoming enlightened, as they might become more difficult to order around. Enki was also later to be the one who saved mankind from being wiped out in the flood. Enki was on humanity's side. Note that the Sumerians were the original inhabitants of the fertile crescent, and were later replaced by the Babylonians. Abraham was from UR, a city state in that region. It is believed by some that some of the old testament was either written, or revised during the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews would have access to some of the original stories that underpinned their religion.
Enki wasn’t depicted as a serpent in Sumerian mythology, although he was cunning. The Epic of Gilgamesh was a closer story which existed in surrounding culture at the time.
@@steve_onyoutube I seem to recall, and I forget the source, that Enki was sometimes referred to as The Serpent. I could be wrong on that point, however, it's been a while since I had looked into the subject.
Enki was present in the garden of eden. He plays the same role in the story as the serpent. His son Ningeshzida (Thoth) was referred to as the feathered serpent (Quetzalcoatl) in central america. The cult of Enki and the Enlil are the cult of the serpent and the cult of the eagle. Think of how this relates to the mexican flag which depicts the eagle eating the serpent. The conflict of these 2 groups goes back to the garden of eden. Before the great flood. And yes, the god referred to that instructs Noah to build the ark, thus saving humanity, was Enki. The names are removed and all gods are just referred to as god or in some instances El or Elohim (which was plural and meant more than one god).
@@Amanda1234-nqc John 20:all NIV The Empty Tomb 20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” 3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene 11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. 13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus. 15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?” Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”). 17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her. Jesus Appears to His Disciples 19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Jesus Appears to Thomas 24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” The Purpose of John’s Gospel 30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John was written with combating gnostic views in mind. The authors agenda could have well been motivating the fabrication of such a story but well never know.
Adam and Eve DID die on that day, spiritually. They could no longer walk with and talk with God face to face. And they became mortal. This is how scripture presents the scripture.
Yes, and they were set against their environment for the rest of their (recently) finite lives. The Hebrew phrase translated as " you will surely die" has a word meaning "die" twice. Like "dying to die" or something like that. Like you said, the point is that they are cut of from God and destined to go to Sheol. The work of the serpent is undone by Christ who saves us from Sheol.
Ah, yes, the ol' "It didn't happen physically, but spiritually." This fallback is used whenever a prophecy isn't proved true, which, seems to happen A LOT.
@@scottscheperif you actually read Hebrew, and Hebrew translations it actually does say “doomed to die.” Not, immediately fall down and croak. The stubborn denial that this is a perfectly fine read the story itself OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTS is intentional ignorance at the highest level
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue ah, yes, the ol' "let's use a vague Hebrew phase that says the same thing but allows us a little wiggle room in case it doesn't become true" tactic.
@@scottscheper a little wiggle room that transparently are supported in the story - and that NON RELIGIOUS JEWS TRANSLATE AS SUCH - like Robert Alter. If you want to say it MAS TO MEAN IMMEDIATE DEATH - YOURE THE ONE THAT HAS TO PROVE THAT, dummy. If the text can and DOES allow for it - it is not only an acceptable read - it is a read that is supported in context and defies the premise you are attempting to make. Robert Alter is ONLY a Hebrew Scholar interested in restoring the literary value of the text. He is not religious and is not trying to prove anything in his translation - that reads "doomed to die." Your bare the burden of proof - else that wiggle room is gaping wide and dissolves your premise in an instant.
The serpent said Adam and Eve would be like god knowing good and evil, irony is they were already like god he said so earlier in genesis that he made man in his own image. So I think the real temptation was wanting to be god, to become their own individual gods.
God's whole plan is for us is to become like Christ (who is exactly like The Father) and be joint-heirs with him. Adam's transgression (technical violation of God's law) did bring the consequence of death arriving (spiritual as well as physical), but the Atonement allows us to overcome both (resurrection, and the possibility of Eternal Life {Living the way that God Lives}). Christ himself declared "Ye are Gods" (psalm 82:6, John 10:34-38). Acts 17: 28-29 states that we are the offspring of God.
We differ from animals in kind. We differ from God by degree. We are children of God. The Resurrection of Jesus is _real_ ! Children have the potential to become like their parents. Even Heavenly Parents. "Let us make man (and woman) in our image." Who was the pattern for that woman Eve? The very Bible when taken whole and in proper context teaches that man&womankind have the potential to become like our Heavenly Parents!
That's kinda how I make sense of God banishing them so they can't eat of the Tree of Life; God can't allow them to both (a) become evil by determining morality on their own and (b) become immortal as he is, or even give them the power to create life that is fundamentally evil, so they have to be cast out and be allowed to biologically decay, and inevitably die, in this world, while still being given the opportunity to voluntarily repent and ultimately be brought back to union with God and perfect creation.
If God really made them “in his image” they wouldn’t have been made out of clay. They would be able to create and reason like himself. The snake lead them to the biggest lie of them all.
he's intellectually outmatched here. it reminds me of how I would speak to my university professors when i was pretending to know what they were talking about
It's simple, and all you need are two definitions and understanding of them. Orthodoxy="Correct" thought, chosen by some human authority. Heresy= Free thought. I'll take the latter.
Nah it’s because Jordan Peterson practices what he preaches which is to be weary of your own beliefs because they can consume you so a couple metaphysical steps later and Jordan Peterson detach himself from his own beliefs and critiques them accordingly and Alex’s debate style is to shake your belief system but you can’t do that to Jordan Peterson because he critiques himself first Basically he’s beat Alex to the punch and understands what he believes
I have never seen Alex being disrespectful. I think he shows different levels of "closeness" to people and he would question them on any potential error but I would never say that Alex is disrespectful of anyone.
The genesis story is essentially an allegory about the transition from the ignorance of childhood toward a stage in which we become morally accountable. It's really surprising how often this is overlooked, but the original 'sin' wasn't disobeying God and eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but denying one's accountability in doing so. For only once the fruit had been eaten and that knowledge gained do we become morally accountable for our actions. The serpent is merely a scapegoat in this narrative, neither good nor evil and it was in denying their accountability that Adam and Eve first sinned, passing on the blame to a talking serpent, for only at this point could they act with moral agency (Satan, even if that is what the serpent represents isn't 'evil' as such- he still works for God. He is there essentially to tempt us, which is to say, test us. Job, which is the oldest narrative in the Hebrew Bible makes this clear. The idea of Satan as an adversary, who can act independently of God is a later, possibly Zoroastrian-influenced development and doesn't belong to the original Hebrew framework in which these stories' messages must be understood). Now, the different trees essentially represent doorways into new stages of being and consciousness. There are actually five trees in total, which is a Semitic idea that actually appears in one of the logia of the Gospel of Thomas, but seems to have been lost or forgotten when Christianity imposed its own pagan-influenced interpretation on what the Jewish scriptures actually say. The fact that it does appear in GThomas is internal evidence that the Thomas traditions may go back fairly early, possibly to Jesus or even John the Baptist and the Essenes at Qumran. The Essenes, like the Gnostics, and later the Kabbalists (and all the esoteric spiritual teachings in all religion) emphasized the importance of knowledge. However, just like the word 'faith' the word 'knowledge' is a poor translation, since it suggests intellectual mastery, or theoretical understanding, when gnosis itself means something much deeper. It's a kind of knowledge that is transformative, revelatory; spiritual insight that suddenly sheds light on what before we only understood in a kind of abstract way. I think 'knowing' is a better translation than 'knowledge'. In this sense you can't help but be transformed, both morally and spiritually by what has been revealed to you, and how you implement it in your life. Incidentally, Jesus did stress the importance of this type of knowing. It wasn't simply the belief in vicarious atonement that leads to salvation, which is a later Pauline idea. If you read and really try to understand Jesus' parables both in Thomas and the Canonical gospels this becomes clear (all of which were anonymous btw- we really have no idea who the original authors were, and it is doubtful that any of them knew Jesus personally, however the Q tradition, which finds its way into all 5 gospels, but which GThomas has probably the most complete record of, is our earliest source, and as such, the key to understanding Jesus' parabolic teachings. Since vicarious atonement is something that conflicts with the teachings of the Tanach, which is essentially what Jesus knew and drew from consistently throughout his ministry, it can and should be discarded as a false teaching.) Orthodox Christianity started losing the light with Paul, and even more so when it adopted the heretical Nicene/Trinitarian doctrine. We can credit Paul at least with making Jesus known to the Gentile world, however, he did a lot to mislead potential followers by going around emphasizing the 'salvation through faith over good works' doctrine. By the way, Paul gets this from the book of Habbakuk, but he inverts the meaning of the original statement. It is because of our faith (which, in its Hebrew essence means something more like 'trust' or 'fidelity' than doctrinal belief) in God that, if we do as he commands in the Torah, will lead us to salvation, not simply faith in the resurrection. Luckily we have the epistle of James, which was probably written in response to Paul or his followers' misappropriation of scripture, to steer us straight; works are essential (specifically the ethical conduct that Jesus emphasizes over and over again. See Matthew 25:31-49) but gnosis is what allows us to see why those works are essential. We don't act morally simply because we are commanded to; we act morally, because we know it's in our own best interest and that of others. The closer our communion with the Divine, the more clear this becomes. Back to the Garden of Eden story; this was a stage in human consciousness that necessarily had to come to an end. There are other trees remaining. Again, they represent, of course not literal trees, but new levels of understanding. The reason Adam and Eve had to leave the Garden, is because knowing isn't something that happens all at once; it is something that is played out over the course of a lifetime, or even many generations and ages (we're still on the 7th day) as we learn the practical ramifications of that knowledge. The knowledge that came with eating that fruit simply established the condition in us to be able to learn what that knowledge means. Only once we have mastered this knowledge, will be ready to taste of the other trees. The endgame is, as the gospels relate, eternal life. Those who are saved will inherit the kingdom of God, in a transformed way of being that is beyond our current worldly understanding of what it is "to live". Without salvific knowledge, presumably the soul ceases to be. The "second death" means non-resurrection, not ascending to a renewed, non-perishing form. Early Christians differed among one another on what this meant, with some believing that at the end, all souls are saved, with a purgatory interim period. This is what the burning lake of fire is about in Revelation; it doesn't represent hellfire or eternal torment (a later development, which goes against what Jews, including the historical Yeshua believed and taught) but purification of the soul. In the iron age in which it was written, the reader would have made the association with the burning vessel in which metal is purified or simply the valley of Gehenna, outside the walls of Jerusalem (the symbolic domain of God's kingdom) where corpses were disposed of. There were early Christian writers, like Origen, who suggested a kind of reincarnation journey over many lives, at the end of which all would come to be saved.
You leave out the main character, God. Only he knows the why and what of the Eden tale. It is no coincidence the gnostic take is favorable to the nachash. They want to double down on eating the forbidden fruit. The temptation of special knowledge, power, and glorification is too great for them and their idol of pride. This blinds them to the fact that they place faith in the word of the deceiver and some scarce old books/scrolls over the word of God brought by his prophets. Only a fool enters into a struggle on the side of rebellion when one doesn’t know or have a grasp of what the perceived struggle really is. As to bashing Paul, if he indeed misled, wouldn’t God have course corrected? Jesus was more than just the lamb. His ministry and life as well as his sacrifice and resurrection have had global impact like no other. Other religions don’t adequately account for him and his effect, not even the other Abrahamic ones. Nor is their accounting for the power in his name to this day. There is so much we don’t know and possibly are not meant to know.Gods character has been consistent and faithful and does not match their narrative/deception.
The ancient Greek word for the snake is "όφις" initially, was "Fόφις". F here is pronounced as S. From this root comes the word σοφός sofόs meaning the wise. So, the snake was a symbol of wisdom and that is why the goddess Athena is depicted with snakes around her.
@spirosdoukakis7215.....Please where did you find that letter F (letter F...vau) was prounounced as S?. In old greek teksts for example word for wine... (F)oinos....on Latin language vinum......english wine....was prounounced as V. Later in old greek language they write and prounounce oinos.....without F.
@The44th That may be just someone with a limited understanding speaking, though. I often wonder what God may think about things, but to be smug for smugness sake, to rip on the creator of the universe seems rather petulant. Perhaps God wants us to choose, but choose correctly? Perhaps something else? It appears to me that God doesn't want slaves, but free men and women.
You should look into the only living gnostic religion, the Mandaeans. We reject Jesus as a false prophet and our last prophet is John the Baptist. We are very different from the Christian gnostics, I think Jordan and yourself would find our ethno-religious group very interesting.
Gnostic Gospels are found in much more quantities by archeologists than the oldest christian Gospel of Mark. It shows how gnosticis views and teachings were not only conteporary to orthodox christians than but more prevalent. Orthodox teachings at one point started to shift from commonly shared views that originally had with gnostics because christianity from the very begginings had plethora of views and ideas that shared mutually and integrated many parts of ideas from one another, and there was also rivalry between various gnostics christians or non christian sethian gnostics. Orthodox/Catholic views managed to take roots and sway in Rome, where it become religion of the rulers. After that spreading its creed forcibly throughout Roman Empire and set ablaze Alexandrian Library. Proclaiming gnostic's teachings as a heresy and that way winning the race.
Alex is reading things into scripture that it doesn’t actually say, the death did come to Adam and Eve eventually in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense it was instant. The reason they died was due to rebellion against the infinitely holy righteousness God, seeking to become like him. The remedy was provided in Genesis chapter 3 when God says the seed of the woman shall crush the serpents head, that took place on Calvary when Jesus brought reconciliation by becoming our substitute
Its fascinating when ignorant Atheists try to exegete scripture when the haven’t a clue of orthodox Christian theology. There ideas are normally based from liberal theologians who reject the supernatural and read the Bible through the lens of Deconstructionist methods and theories
@@jeremybridges6015another instance of the Bible actually meaning something else rather than what it says but it also means something else if you argue against it making it truth.
This is how the snake got in right? God didn't explain what he meant by death. If by physical death, wouldnt he have said that they will not eat of the fruit of life and eventually die? It is almost like he knew what would happen and let them fall. Regardless the more I study Genesis the more profound and interesting the book is. First of all every word of ancient Hebrew is aligned to the ancient Hebrew alphabet is aligned to verse and passage of genesis. For example YHWH is 4:26(4 letters and adds to 26) and is found in Genesis 4:26. There is more to what God wants of us than we will ever know and i think a pure understanding of good and evil in absolutes is misunderstanding the bible entirely.
For me, I believe one of the key points of the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple is that they both choose to use their divine gift of free will to choose to eat the forbidden apple and defy the single commandment of God. When God asks them about it (he already knows what they did), both of them refuse to take responsibility for their own choice. Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the serpent. Free will means freedom, and having freedom means taking responsibility for ones self and owning the consequences of your actions. The sin was not choosing to eat the apple, the sin was lying to God about what they had freely chosen to do against his commandment. Not taking responsibility for our choices while exercising free will is the root for all sin. You can't be in the presence of God "in Paradise" if you do not own responsibility and atone for your wrong actions. That is the power of the sacrament of Reconciliation. To take responsibility for all of your choices and actions and all of the good and bad consequences before God.
Free will doesnt exist, If Eve wasn't made with an inherent want for power she wouldn't eat the fruit. And if it does, then it's random, meaning God can't judge righteously.
@@VVooshbait The Free Will at work was denying the Truth to God when He asked them and they blamed the other, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. We cannot lie our way out of our moral responsibility and the resulting consequences.
Their expulsion from the Garden was necessary for Adam and Eve to have children. They had no blood coursing through their veins and had known each other sexually. It is interesting the blame each place for eating the fruit.
Eve didnt have a want for power, she is just a woman. Snakes are low to the Earth, hence the snake is representative of “earthly” or “worldly” things. Eve was the one seduced by the snake, symbolizing that women are more earthly persuaded than by the higher reasoning associated with God (which is observationally true)
If you say that the only thing that matters is what Jesus said, my question would be: "Why does it matter at all what He said?" The answer is of course: "Because He is risen, otherwise none of it matters".
What He did was exceedingly more important than what He said. Jesus could talk till He was blue in the face but if He didnt descend from Heaven, be born of a virgin, live perfectly and then die on the cross for our Sins and Salvation then nothing He had to say would matter all that much. Gnosticism perverts literally everything about God and Christ, Redemption and everything in between it is the inverse of the Truth and yet another False Religion created by Satan to deny the one Truth that brings people salvation and freedom, the Gospel of Christ.
I am a catholic, but even with that, the múltiple ways of reading the Old Testament are fascinating to me, it is true, the serpent bringer of light, well a lot of people have said they bring light and we end up in a mess, you have Robespierre, Hitler, Mao and Lennin who proclaim to bring light and truth and make us closer to gods, and they tried to consume {to destroy and re define} morality, and their regimes end up killing millions, be careful of other prophets.
I'm a Gnostic. I look upon the eating of the tree of good and evil as an inevitability. We had to start evolving by leaving our innocence and childhood behind us - we needed to grasp our futures. We needed to explore the entire universe and learn, that meant leaving childhood behind us. When we return to the garden of the Father through a deeply spiritual life, and relationship with Christ, we return after countless lifetimes of experience and growth of wisdom, we have grown wise through the shear effort of living multiple lives. We are ready to serve God as worthy servants. We aren't spiritual children any longer, we are adult souls that have learned and grown. Wisdom is always worth the effort and work that it demands. I believe that Christ's body became pure energy, and, ceased to exist as a physical body, in the moment of resurrection. Our bodies do not matter in the sense that they will cease to exist after each lifetime. It is our souls that are immortal and are our real life.
@@rconger24 I was in error. I've changed it. Still stands though. We had to leave our innocence. Baby souls with an entire universe to learn about, with millions of experiences of ahead of us... in Gnosticism, we say that fell to earth because we fell in love with the things of the material universe. We are not made for paradise, nor peace, we are made for exploration and searching over the next hill, until the last horn sounds and the universe is no more. I think it is one of the reasons I will always love Christ and honor him, but never quite surrender to him, entirely, and why I've attempted the mystical path but I can not complete it. Maybe, in some future era, my soul will be ready to settle down and return home, to God, but I've still several things I need to deal with.. internal issues I can't resolve. That is why Utopia will always be an unfulfilled , impossible dream. Every time we seek utopia we end up with a dystopian nightmare. (it's direct opposite)
Not a gnostic myself but I agree that it was inevitable in the plan of God. The fall that is. Assumably because God thought a redeemed creature more pleasurable, glorious, (insert adjective) than a creature that was always holy. I hope that you see that Jesus did come to restore creation and ultimately He will. But you must repent and believe that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead to be saved from His just wrath. I pray this for you.
It’s always fascinating to me how readily atheists agree with the serpent and satan’s ideas of rebellion when they engage with the Bible and literature. He very much was the first atheist. People might consider that inflammatory, but many atheists, if not most, would openly agree with the devil’s position if any negative stigma or taboo was removed from it. They often admit it without realizing it when they say that if they discovered God was real they would hate him or rebuke him for creation.
The identification of the serpent, satan and devil are a post Biblical Christian invention. Serpent is nowhere in the Bible identified with Satan. Satan is not a character, more a title, until Enochian literature. Devil is borrowed from Zoroastrianism. Oh, similar for Lucifer.
If you think Yahweh is the good guy in the Bible, you haven't read the old testament closely enough. I'd gladly align with lucifer in rebellion against such a monstrous dictator.
If God exists and abhramic God is true God and things written in the bible are true, then yes I wouldn't like that kind of God. If it was God of Jainism or Sikhi, I can get behind them. They seem a lot more moral compared to ywvh. Like I have nothing against God. I have moral intuitions and if their actions go against those intuitions, i wouldn't like them.
@@GaganSingh-nx2yv Moral intuitions can be wrong though, can’t they? If the abrahamic God exists (who created everything, knows everything, and is the only eternal, uncreated thing) whose moral intuitions do you think are more *likely* to be wrong? His or yours?
@@beorntwit711 the serpent is identified with Satan in Revelation. It's absolutely not post-biblical. This idea that the serpent was Satan is some tradition outside of the Bible is just completely wrong and is basically only brought up by atheists who've only read cherry picked Bible verses to "le own the fundies"
If the Garden of Eden is a state of ultimate perfection then how can that perfection be comprehended until the one has experienced all that is? We leave Paradise like perfect fools, divided, and will return to our orginal state with perfect wisdom, whole. Empty and complete at the same time. Transformed and unchanged. Its pure poetry.
If you even partially believe that the Christian tradition contained in the Bible could possibly be true in any way then remember that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood only. Keep up the good work and may God bless you and your family.
One of the problems of this discussion is Gnosticism was never a Christian movement it was an accusation. And proto-orthodoxy was not a movement either it is an academic term that strings together the evolution as to what would become orthodoxy. The accusation of Gnosticism was towards the Marcion followers who had the Demiurge idea, but also accusation was towards the Ebbionites who believed the opposite of the Marcion followers and focused on an idea of Jesus as the first Adam before being divided. And Clement of Alexandria held Gnostic beliefs and yet was canonized as a saint. And Origen a major critic of Marcion, and anti-literalist, was nearly consider the father of the church and the most popular Christian writer of his era was later considered a Gnostic and heretic, and also formulated the Trinity, and is a major part of the Catholic tradition, especially repopularized by Erasmus. So it is a bit non-sense to divide early Christianity as proto-orthodoxy vs Gnosticism.
Neither of them were gnostic. Tho they considered themselves the "true gnostics". The gnostics had an antinomial disconnect of the spirit and the flesh. Orgin and Clement did not have that.
When debating gnostics- an early church father stood up, walked across the room and punch the speaker in the face, that leaders name was Saint Nick: Santa was a savage
@@dr.spaceman9193 If I decided that you weren't allowed to use emoticons, would you be a hypocrite for that last reply or would I just be making up rules for you based off nothing and calling you one when you didn't concede them?
This would be a difficult argument if we didn’t have the apostle Paul making things crystal clear about all of it. Anybody who still struggling with gnosticism as a possibility is going to have to reject the biblical revelation. It’s just that simple. That’s what I worry, Jordan Peterson is going to fall into in the end.
Peterson has been a gnostic snake in the grass from the very beginning. His biblical lectures purposely misinterpret the scriptures in ways no one as intelligent as him could do by accident.
Too bad Paul never met Jesus... Just a story that he met the ghost of Jesus...guess you forgot that huh? Probably forgot how the early church disliked Paul for exactly that reason...he never met Jesus. So who is Paul to teach anything?
@RockerfellerRothchild1776 Paul was a Prophet and the Apostle chosen by Christ to reveal Christ ( the bridegroom) to the church ( the bride). The other Apostles also understood the authority Paul was given, and so much so that when he openly rebuked Peter, no one challenged him. Not even Peter had the authority that Paul had. He was the prophet angel/messenger to the first church.
@@ZeroOne46That's completely untrue. The actual apostles barely tolerated Paul. They only agreed to meet with him at all because he offered financial support from the gentile churches for the Jerusalem church.
Not complicated. Dad “don’t drink that alcohol it’ll kill you” cousin “you’ll just get drunk like your parents” kids have lost their innocence prematurely and can’t re-enter the garden without making the ultimate sacrifice. They’ve been traumatized by premature consciousness. They would have been allowed to eat when they were older If the shining one is a higher god then why is it punished ?
@@BryanKirch you can extrapolate almost any meaning you want from the Old Testament, that’s why there are 3 very different religions based on it. What you said is your interpretation. It’s nice that you found a way to justify your faith, but to say “not complicated” like it explicitly says anything about this in the text is disingenuous.
The Tanakh/Old Testament is not itself part of the Islamic tradition, where as the Holy Bible's Old Testament is simply another name for what is originally known as in Hebrew as the Tanakh. The Quran is a self-contained and completely novel text, which does not attempt to use the source texts from the Hebrew Scriptures or NT Gospels, but is to some degree a sort-of condensed retelling or summary of many of the events describes in the original books contained by the Biblical authors, rather than a direct translation like the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are of the TANAKH.
@@Avogadros_numberI assume Islan is not one of the three religions which build on the old testament. Because Muslims have no clue what is in the bible and they never read it. All they do is read what Mohammed wrote that is supposed to be in the Bible. But he never read it himself either.
I think it’s so interesting and respectable that Alex has studied the early church despite being an atheist. I appreciate his commitment to understanding the very history of the Church. I think it’s safe to say he would become Catholic rather than join one of the Protestant denominations if he began to believe in Christ.
Why? He knows the orthodoxy that would become catholic is only one of the many sides. More over, he stated recently that one of the denominations that comes closest to his world view is the Mormons.
Even assuming an unsophisticated interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil," the gnostic interpretation of God as unfairly withholding something good doesn't necessarily follow. One could easily interpret the seizure of the "knowledge of good and evil" as representing the shift between instinctive pursuit of good (like the animals and good angels) and the awareness of the full range of goods which entails the frustrating need to choose between them. This is, obviously, a wildly ambiguous state of existence. It's what drives us to launch rockets to the stars while cows are happy eating grass in a field all day... but it also guarantees that nothing in this world will ever fully satisfy us. Imposing such a fate on innocent creatures could call God's goodness into question where imposing it as a punishment would not. So the serpent is allowed to tempt man and man is allowed to fall to bring about the terrible intermediate step necessary to bring about the greatest possible good. Of course, that greatest possible good is accomplished through death, so it would be a very bad thing if man took the fruit of the Tree of Life and became immortal -- not because it would make him a god, but because it would make him a vampire, condemned to an eternity of dissatisfaction. That, I believe, is the traditional position. And I believe it's probably JP's position as well.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross One down side to growing up Christian is that it's very easy to get the kid versions of the explanations in CCD/Bible school, age out before getting the adult versions, and assume the kid versions are all that exist.
@@heliod7 Not in official sense. Most of what I know comes from a mix of high-level UA-cam resources like Bishop Barron, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, Fr. Mike Schmidt, Bible Project, and the Thomistic Institute, as well as a significant amount of reading from websites like The Catholic Thing and people like Rene Girard, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, C.S. Lewis, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Hans Urs Von Balthazar, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, G.K. Chesterton, etc. In other words, we've all got the resources readily available nowadays to understand as much as we want if we have the time and make the effort to do so. ;)
No one said they were immortal before eating the fruit. If God meant to say that they would become mortal and not that they would just die immediately and that the whole human linage would be mortal now, he lied by omission anyway. Dying and becoming mortal are very different things.
On Alex's claim that God "lied" to Adam and Even in the garden when he said they shall "surely die", but they didn't: The concept of death in the biblical context can be understood in multiple dimensions-spiritual, physical, and eternal. When God said, "you shall surely die," it can be interpreted as an immediate spiritual death and the initiation of the process leading to physical death. Also, Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18 state that God cannot lie.
I suggest that lies are only necessary when you are in a position of relative weakness. God definitionally is never in that position. It's not so much that he cannot lie, but that he has no good reason to do so.
Physical death occurred. God killed an animal to provide skins as a covering for their nakedness. It was the first sacrifice in a system that would point as a type and shadow to the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
Says, "but if you read the text at face value," and then continues to interpret the text using cherry-picked gnostic sources which actually represent a different spiritual tradition and are written more than a thousand years after the text he is interpreting. It's like attempting to interpret the New Testament through the writings of Eckhart Tolle.
@@jimmyintheswamp Your whole notion of the texts being "written more than a thousand years after the text" is baseless. the gnostic gospels were written in 100-200 CE. Same time as John. Furthermore, the term "Christian" wasn't a thing for the first 200 years. They were all followers of Jesus with various interpretations. It wasn't until ~300 CE with the council of Nicea until the canon was formed. The whole "Gnostic" label is frequently used to undermine the Nag Hammadi library. In reality, "Gnostic" wasn't a thing. Fact is, Christianity as we know it is really just Paul's religion. Christian is a Greek term. Jesus didn't speak or understand Greek. James the Just (the actual brother of Jesus) is the core source and wasn't a fan of Paul. Paul invented many odd notions that people today claim as the word of God.
@@LuiicianoBecause the fact that it exists at all, in such an enduring and intuitive way, means there’s probably something true about it. However, we’ve lost most of its texts, most of its history, and have had its intellectual development stifled for 1500 years.
@@Adam-tp8py i agree with you, authorities dont waste much time to destroy false information, they just point out that its not true and why... but when truth stands in an authorities way theyll use all their resources to destroy/erase or discredit it.
It still lives. In many other shapes and forms, but unfortunately seems like most practitioners of it in its many shapes end up confused and weaker. Why? Because when you think that matter is inherently bad, you inevitably wind up doing harm to yourself, at the very least psychologically.
I think in really simple terms, the purpose of the forbidden fruit was to create a choice. If there were no other options than to Love God, then that love would not be genuine. There had to be a choice so that man could freely choose God and His will.
But why must there be a choice? What is so special about human choice? Does god need human choice to fulfill his will, especially considering that he is an all powerful and all knowing god? And if you take the view that god predetermined everything, is there even a choice?
There dosnt have to be a choice. That's God's freedom. We aren't God and we can make automatons without free choice. But God can also make creatures who are free in His image. Like the many paradoxes in Christianity--a self sufficient God needs nothing, yet creates, Christ is God and Man at the same time, the Father Son and Holy Spirit each are God, yet there are not three Gods....these are not logical contradictions; they are paradoxes. So too, freewill and God's predestination are not contradictions; they are paradoxes. I think the more one studies concepts in physics, such as relativity, that such paradoxes are entirely possible.
I think the early Christians understood "Knowledge of Good and Evil" as an experiential knowledge. Not just learning facts but actually coming to know what being evil is like, embracing it, making it a reasonable choice next to good. Just as saying "knowing" a man or woman isn't simply a euphemism for sex but obtaining intimate knowledge of someone outside an institution that is supposed to keep a person safe from the violation and chaos of the rest of the world: marriage.
I think the main point to get across is that the modern Christian scriptures are a highly curated set of texts that represent only one sect of Christianity. Bodily resurrection wasn't a big part of a lot of early Christianity. Even Paul doesn't really mention it. Keeping the Jewish law was a big topic that nobody really cares about today. The Trinity is a pretty late idea and much of the Christian world rejected it. There's an incredibly rich theological history. And in a lot of ways its a political history as well. Roman Emperors had no small part in shaping what Christians believe today.
@Mike10143 Marcion of Sinope, born 85AD, founded a popular Christian Church which taught that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser, evil God, and that the God that sent Jesus Christ, was the greater, true God.
@@jameswest9469 It wasn't formulated until the 4th century so no not late but I think Original Commenter meant "not early" because it wasn't early Christians either.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 The same catholic church that has hunted down, tortured, and killed gnostics in mass just for daring to have a different set of beliefs? Yeah... Something tells me they aren't the good guys in this reality.
One of the most revealing and remarkable clip videos of Jordan Peterson's (religious) thought. An educated young atheist that naturally sympathizes with the idea of the Gnostic identification between Jesus and Satan put the finger in the central issue concerning what kind of "believer" Peterson really is: a Gnostic Heretic. And what is exactly the answer of Peterson to that terrible and big accusation? He says simply with a timid smile that in fact he is one. Wow. I didn't expect this undoubtedly evidence of false doctrine and heresy given through his own mouth. A little matter here? All the Patristic tradition and the sound doctrine of the canonical New Testament indicate that is not a little theological and doctrinal problem we're dealing here. But to be fair to both figures in the clip we should certainly say this: very educated and eloquent men.
We are all heretics in the infinite scope of knowledge, but the person and nature of Christ is one of the most clearly defined and reasoned doctrines in Christian history. It literally defines Christianty. You have to try REALLY HARD to miss it. And JP is trying REALLY HARD.
Jesus Christ was the son of Mary and a descendant of David. Matthew 1 NIV The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah 1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12 After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, 15 Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. 17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah. Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son 18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”). 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Anyone who's read the Gnostic Gospels know there are things in there that are way crazier than any of the Bible stories. One of them says that Jesus grew to be 900 ft tall at one point. Another one has Peter asking if Mary must grow a penis to be righteous like one of us. There are good reasons why they are not canon. They are basically fanfiction
Aren't anti-venoms and other medicine, made from the venom of snakes? A scientist from my country Costa Rica (born in Nicaragua) did lots of work on that subject, Clorito Picado. Very cool to think about from the spiritual sense too, it seems like you guys are "venom researchers" as well, just in the spiritual sense. In the end trying to overcome/understand/move past/solve evil, is being a venom researcher. Anyway!, Saludos!! Best Regards
Fascinating to watch an intellectual talk himself into the very logic of the Fall and play it out afresh in the present, without any self-awareness that he has just done so.
From an entirely philosophical and, of course, theological perspective, it is entirely coherent for God to warn against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The command was note merely a test of Adam and Eve’s obedience and free will but testimony to their true freedom as autonomous beings made in his image. They are not merely animals subject to the demands of the biological impulses. God gives them the freedom to choose whether or not to follow His will, i.e do the right thing preferring willing obedience rather than forced compliance. Jordan Peterson balances philosophy, psychology and theology really. He does it in a way that commentators like Alex O’Connor are unable to do as they invariably fall into one camp as it is massively difficult to talk about the bible and not end up sounding like a vicar or a minister. However, in addition to positing that the warning is testimony to authentic human freedom in a way that other creatures weren’t, , the tree symbolises the limit of human knowledge and authority. Telling Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree can be understood to show that only God possesses full knowledge of good and evil and subsequently acknowledges that only he has authority over moral law. In purely philosophical terms, it suggests/acknowledges that we as humans are not able to use our subjective understanding as a basis for objective morality. This, in turn, ties into the idea that after the death of Christ many people started to jump on the bandwagon and so those who were closest to the events or were taught by them agreed among themselves what were valid claims and interpretations (i.e the Councils). That something like the gospel of Timothy and others were rejected is a positive aspect of Christian belief, not least because of its cynical gnostic approach but because what emerged is not the work of one individual but a group of people who validated the process.
I love the gnostic tradition, it saved my life for sure my soul vibrates when I read some of the sacred books. It’s only really for people willing to shed their egoic concepts and it’s beautiful. I believe true Christianity turned into political and material battles that mean nothing when meeting Christ. With gnostic concepts I found Christ and most people will judge and debate this believing conversion and missionaries are for growing their physical church but I will tell you the church isn’t some physical thing and works more like a WiFi heart connection of all that are ready. There are some strange gnostic books for sure but there are some strange Christian traditions that people believe too. When the Holy Spirit truly wakes you up to the inner Christ there is no reason to debate anyone about it. I get sad by all the judgment and fear that is thrown at gnostic traditions. As Christ appears in this age I am willing to bet it will and is the modern claimed Christian’s that will condemn and deny just as the Pharisees and Sadducee’s of the last age. Humans keep repeating the same patterns again and again. Go inward and learn to know thyself. LET GO OF FEAR. Do not fear god, love god. Good luck on the path. ❤😊
This is why it is pointless to talk to Christian intellectuals about spirituality. They take everything you say and refilter it through their Christian context and respond to that. Peterson isn't really listening. He's recasting everything from his perspectives so he's really having a conversation with himself while the guest serves only as the occasional prompt to work from.
Alex has gone so far and beyond in these religious discussions. Great to see him debate the absurd details despite religion already being absurd at face value.
The young man obviously needs more work with his interpretation, not realizing the explosion from the Garden and prohibition from the Tree was an act of God's Grace...
There are countless interpretations of this and other passages. The young man, Alex O'Conner, is one who studied Theology at Oxford and no doubt is very aware of these variations. He is a brilliant young man and has a channel that I highly recommend!
Jordan should let him talk, he wouldn't like it if he was being interrupted that much, i like Dr. P but still, my point is valid. His old videos where he is teaching his class at university are really good. 🙄😀
It struck me as a sort of nervous laughter coming from JP during some of the interruptions. I wonder if he was a little intimidated by him? Maybe he was just genuinely thrilled about their discussion.
Well obviously Dr. Peterson is a not a disciple of the Lord because he does not believe in the physical resurrection and is ashamed to stand for the name Jesus or Yeshua, but nonetheless we are all grateful for his work and hope and pray that he aligns his acted out faith with his mouth - because both is needed to be saved, be it the first one is more difficult in general, but if you are famous I can see that the second one becomes difficult as well. Existentialism and sacrifice to your future self will not bring you into the kingdom of God. Christ is the door and no amount of symbols, archetypes or neurological structures will change that. Cheers
It is not for you to say who is, and who is not, a disciple of Jesus Christ. God's heart is larger and more encompassing than any mere human heart can ever be. OnlyHe can judge.
@@handsomegiraffe I read both of his books, plan to read maps of meaning, watched multiple interviews, podcasts, am almost finished with all of his lectures, literally I listened hundreds of hours to this man speaking. Believe me when I say that not once has he preached the gospel nor has he stood up for the name Jesus Christ as the messiah who died for your sins so. He is an existentialist and if in his heart of hearts he actually believes, then he is ashamed of the name.
@@kathleenhensley5951 God gave me an intellect and eyes. Who are you to say that what I said is not very carefully articulated and well thought through sister?
The core issue to understand is this: until you stop treating the Bible’s narrative as literal, these are the kinds of videos we’ll get-all barking up the wrong tree.
Something important to note, the philosophies of Marxism, Gnosticism, Satanism all share an underlying theme which can be summed up as the Luciferian philosophy. Essentially it is the opposite of Christianity, in that it holds Man himself as having the ability to be above morality or to dictate morality (no action is considered right or wrong) and therefore that makes them “God” (the lie of the serpent in Genesis) and because they think they are “God” ALL actions, both good and evil, are a form of divinity. Instead of man reaching up to God, this philosophy brings God down to man’s level. On the other hand, Christian’s are taught by Jesus to believe exactly the opposite, and live their lives dedicated to humility, love, compassion and charity for all. Complete selflessness.
Gnosticism doesn't opose Chirst or his teachings. Christ advocated acountabilit multiple times. That's what Gnosticism is about. If you would read the gnostic text's you'd learn real reason why Paul was named rock. The compasion and love are alien to Old Testiment, since those who follow it worship the true Satan like being Yaltabaoth. Yeshua talks about it multiple times, that that's not a true loving father figure, John 8:44. If you would read Gnostic text's you'd learn that Yaltabaoth and it's demons, after realising they cannot corrupt Yeshua, decided they will corrupt his message by possesing the appostles. Your claims are baseless because they arise from your ignorance.
@@Letsbecalmandhealthy Yes,and Gnosticism and marxism are polar apposites,one is absolute spirit while the other total matter,severely futile making people war each other based on their differences (in this case,class),something the "god" of this world would certainly do. Marx ruined Hegel's ideals.
THANK YOU. I'm SO tired of James Lindsay bashing Gnostics as Marxists. Gnosticsm literally holds some of the oldest spiritual wisdom the West has. We've got enough people bashing Western culture.
To be fair, what I've seen him do is bash Marxists as Gnostics, not Gnostics as Marxists. He considers Marxism to be a type of Gnosticism, not that Gnosticism is a type of Marxism.
@@matthewsmith5967 Marxists are anti-Gnostic. As with everything else, they co-opted & inverted it. Gnosis is meant to be PERSONAL. It's a system of self-help & learning how to be the best YOU. It doesn't mean you know better than everyone else how the world should be. Actual Gnosticism threatens Marxism because it offers people personal empowerment & accountability.
The Church father Alex alluded to in the beginning was Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a student of Saint John the Apostle, and Bishop of one of the 4 main Cathedras. He is way more reliable than any random gnostic text written by randoms.
@@Typexviiib How exactly? He was a student of one of the apostles, and he was Bishop of one of the 4 Cathedras. Bishops also need to be validly ordained as priests in order to be bishops… so yet titles matter.
@@legendman97 if the question is whether enron or exon mobile (or both) are involved in accounting fraud, being a high placed executive in enron does not make your claims more valid than a random exon mobile employee. In fact many high placed enron executives with very fancy degrees from prestigious accounting schools are known to have lied. Lots of people have also lied about being best friends with someone to try to look more important. Theres no real evidence to support any of these claims, theyre just claims made by people with a very vested interest in people believing they are true. If a general in the us military says the burn pits are safe, does that keep the nameless private manning them get less cancer? Like, i could go on for days with examples of people having positions of power that are known liars.
@@legendman97 further, to get on topic. We have no actual evidence that ignatius ever met john. He doesnt ever mention john in any of his letters, which is pretty odd considering. He was largely concerned with convincing people to listen to bishops and not jewish teachings, which is one reason i particularly dont care about his status in the church. It’s very self aggrandizing
I’ve been really interested in Genesis for the past few months and I’m in agreement with Alex. It’s so fascinating that most people don’t read the text like that.
I wonder if the gnostics would think that discussions like this reflect thinking too much about things, over thinking rather than trying to experience 🤔
But that’s the question isn’t it. Experience What? God, Jesus, Mother Earth. Fundamental Truth is unknowable by the individual. An individual may very well have his or her, “own truth” determined by their feelings and experiences but can that with any certainty represent fundamental truth? I’d argue your experiences can open doors but you should always maintain fidelity to some rational epidemiological and hermeneutical basis, especially in theology but also in empirical science. Consider Newton’s “Laws” lasted less than 400 years and Darwin considerably less than that.
@@Sourcemind333 Respectfully, not an answer. The question is how can you know? What epistemology can gnostics apply to suggest that their experience of God is true and correct?
@@SaltShack respectfully, experience is what it is, it’s contact with the noumena. If you have never experienced anything though it is very hard to understand Gnosticism. When you experience such phenomena you are left in no doubt about what happened.
@@Sourcemind333 I think you might be misreading Immanuel Kant, one and two you have offered no epistemological framework to suggest that what you are hoping to or have experienced is not imaginary, neurotic or the influence of, shall we say the enemy.
The ultimate rightness of righteousness as found in Christ as the embodiment of heaven on earth is really the primary crux of any winning argument for Christianity. Unmerited favor that shows us our own flaws to better ourselves and others.
When people in these comments mention the earliest manuscripts do not mention the ressurection. They do not mean the earliest chapter in the present bible. They mean literal historical manuscripts wrote almost 2000 years ago. These in fact show the resurrection was added later on. At least to Mark if I'm not mistaken, and maybe even Matthew and Luke.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the earliest complete New Testaments. Both reference the resurrection extensively. There is no hope for Gnosticism, it’s too thoroughly debunked. It was just a group of people so far removed good instruction that deceived many others. Christ warned us of that.
@@brd6184 Im sorry but you have cognitive dissonance here. I mentioned earliest because I mean EARLIEST. You have just cherry picked 4th century sources. Pre 4th century as far as I’m aware it’s not there. And these sources exist so just go check them out and be open minded instead of clinging onto a narrative that confirms your belief. Oh ye I’m not a gnostic.
@@dombing9101 this is true. i dont get why people trust the romans as an authority on the bible when it was the romans who killed jesus and funnily enough killed the gnostics. seems like the are hiding something. Christians today (and most other religious groups ) are for the most part following a government issued religion. and government want control.
Another important hypothetical question to consider is since the story has no time frame and except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil every tree is free for them to eat, and since the tale didnt mention how long after their creation the pair decided to nourish themselves and therefore can be easily assumed that since there was no prohibtion on the other trees it is very plausible that they would have also eaten from the tree of life. It is therefore a forgone conclusion what God would have done to the forbidden tree for obvious reasons, and as a consequence Christ would no longer be in the picture for mankind would be forever in paradise freely doing the will of God.
I have to say, I am really impressed with Alex's maturity, humility, good-faith dialogue, and clear evidence of growth since his debut on UA-cam.
Alex has in deed grown dramatically and not because he started badly. He started UA-cam as a tanager in high school. He now interviewing a lot of the greatest in his field and beyond.
@@Wolfenkuni Agreed. He didn't start out bad. He's always been an above average polemicist. However, now it seems like he's integrated nascent wisdom into his already remarkable intellect. It's just thrilling to see.
@@meccamiles7816 I would say his talent here is his ability to engage Jordan in a realm of religious dialogue that has him so excited to have somebody both on his level and not after him somehow. I'm not religious but it is fun to listen to somebody so empassioned.
@@robertmorrison107 -Fair appraisal.
The only thing I would say is he never actually let Jordan articulate his thoughts on the resurrection and just kept interrupting
The problem with appealing to the gnostic tradition is that none of the people who met Jesus face-to-face and followed him espoused it. There is no record of anyone who followed Jesus denying the resurrection. Another problem with gnosticism is that it elevates knowledge above grace. That position is contrary to the entirety of Scripture.
Knowledge is truth. Truth and Knowledge are God's grace.
@@thepope9023 No. Grace is unearned (or unmerited) favor. Specifically, God's grace is shown to us in the blood of Jesus as a sacrifice to atone for our sins. We accept His grace through faith which is also a gift from God.
Read Philo. His entire perspective is about elevating knowledge. He describes Moses as a philosopher, which...funny enough so does the other pseudonymous author "Josephus.".
"Josephus" also brags in a supposed autobiographical tale about how people thought he had died in a shipwreck...and that people will believe whatever makes sense to them regardless of how far it is from the truth, and that genuine knowledge will vary by degrees to the source of an event. This was the very mindset that was used to craft the satirical gospel campaign. The Judeans who were crucified, starved, and enslaved would know the truth about Titus' rampage. Others would carry a poetic spiritual message forward for generations that satirized his destruction of Jerusalem as the coming of a Messiah.
I learned as much as I possibly could about all of these traditions, they are very similar to one another, but upon finding James Lindsay I'm having to be very self-critical and having second thoughts about its safety
@@billmcleangunsmithto accept: a verb
I love these high level intellectual discussions about religious topics.
High level is Aquinas.
Most of these questions are incredibly low level and were solved within the 3rd century by the main church line. This is what happens when we ignore philosophy, all the sudden it seems like some hidden truth when it had always been in front of us
I find them a bit intellectual and religious.
This is not high level, this is the bare minimum, go read the Saints
@@MTCatholic Athanasius the Great, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas
After the crucifixion, the disciples scattered. The resurrection brought them back together. Subsequently, the disciples had disputes over various issues (circumcision, the Gentiles, law, etc...) but not about the resurrection. This they saw, heard, and touched for themselves.
i beg to disagree.. although pauls christology centers on the ressurrection
the earliest apostolic fathers does not
A friend of mine, Jim, his wife died some years ago. A few days after her death, he was standing in the kitchen and saw her. Not an apparition of her, but he saw her. He was not dramatic about it whatsoever, but was puzzled by this. I don't doubt that he experienced that. Her body was still indeed in a casket, on this planet. I cannot believe for a moment that Jesus physical body "resurrected". It remained dead and he transitioned as we all do, to whatever there is.
@@NineIndex I wouldn't doubt your friend's experience either. A difference is that in the biblical accounts of Christ's resurrection, this was more than visual. Jesus, whose body was not where it should have been, ate with and held conversations with people who were just as puzzled as your friend by what they were experiencing.
@@tedclemens4093
We should all remember that the earliest gospel which is mark and the the evangelion of marcion has no ressurection account . It was a later addition to the jesus narrative
@@jhake67 In their letters, Peter talks about a "living stone," and John about a present tense fellowship with Christ, confirming the resurrection accounts in the book of Acts. Do they need to say more?
"I don't want to derail you from your tangent". I will not forget this one easily.
I actually deeply appreciate Alex's discussion. I never agreed on him since day 1 but he came really far into being eloquent, he educated himself on theology and he discusses ideas without attacking the person. If I had to debate on a theological topic on any atheist he would be the first or the close second I'd be interested in
I can’t believe I’m saying this, because it almost never the case, but the comments are more thought provoking than the actual video 🤯
Absolutely! The comments testify that it’s not the “wise men after the flesh” that will understand that concerning the gospel (1 Cor 1:26-31)
im unable to find wisdom where 2 people who don't know god talk about the Bible
@@solo-pro Than you will miss a lot of wisdom in the world
@@kdemetter anything is possible, but haven't yet.
@@solo-pro"from the mood of babes comes forth wisdom"
Two things missed here which I have come to understand researching the Eastern Orthodox tradition:
1) It is believed that the Incarnation was ALWAYS the plan. Christ would take on human form even if the fall never happened. He was always going to join humanity. What changed with Adam & Eve's mishap is that Christ had to die to fix everything.
2) "knowledge of good and evil" is used frequently throughout the old testament as a reference to growth and maturity. It wasn't that Adam and Eve were to NEVER eat of the fruit, but that they would have to wait until they were mature and ready enough to handle the knowledge. Both the Serpent and Man tried to put themselves in God's place by the declaration that they knew better than Him.
CS Lewis’ book Perelambria (SP?) goes into this a little bit.
@@jjkrayenhagen Prelandra. 2nd of the space trilogy.
Indeed the EO understanding is quite brilliant and removes the silly talk of "PlanB" as some atheists articulate.
Instead God always intending to meet with his creation is actual so much more powerful.
The first is part of the Roman Catholic Tradition, also, but I've heard Protestant Pastors in the American South giving such a sermon stating this as such, without question, as having been the plan since the beginning of Creation, also. I think that it's just a fundamental tenant of the Christian faith, both in our respective Apostolic Churches/Traditions, as well as among protestant (and not just "high church" Anglican/Lutheran, but effectively Southern Baptist or Pentecostal churches in the US, certainly with this example from local radio that I heard flipping through while driving, recently (relatively - perhaps last year or the year before, at most) confirms.
Per the second I've never actually heard this but I am curious to read more on this idea. I know that the Eastern Church/Christians have this thing about the wood from the Cross that would be used to crucify Christ Jesus is said to have come from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, at least partially. I think Peterson even recounts the gist of this one during one of his 4-hour+ appearances on Joe Rogan's podcast (the one where he shows up in a tuxedo, IIRC).
RE the Cross, I like the emphasis in the Orthodox tradition that states that the location of which the crucifixion would occur, Golgotha (sometimes called Calvary in more contemporary translations), which is something like, "Island of the Skull" and is said to have been the resting place of Adam, whose skull is thought to have been under Christ at the base of the cross, which the Eastern Orthodox Cross symbolizes with the diagonal "plank" or plaquard at the foot of the crucifix, which is particularly important because Christ is the "New Adam"
By and large, I think both the Greek/Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic or Latin Church have the same Sacred Tradition, though, which is something that certainly IS missing/absent from protestant Christian churches, who rely solely on the Holy Bible, which our shared Apostolic Church compiled for the first time several hundred years after the time of Christ's crucifixion/resurrection/ascension in the early days of the Church when we were but One Church, founded by Christ Himself - for the first 1000 years, even.
Thanks for the second bit of info, though, that's very interesting. I'll have to read more up on it.
@@texanologyThe bottom plank of the Orthodox cross firstly is just a footrest, they often depict Christ nailed in each foot, not through both. The symbolism of the slant being the scales of justice, sheep and goats, those on the right of Christ (like the good thief,) go to be with God, those on the left, (like the one who mocked Christ,) go down to Hell.
The tradition of Adams skull under Golgotha is held though, but I've never heard the bottom plank relating to it.
This tradition is no doubt where that fraud Ron Wyatt (iirc, I may have got his name wrong,) got the idea from when he claimed to find Adams skull and the Ark, blood on the mercy seat etc.
The thing about the bodily resurrection of Christ is not that it’s an antidote to the gnostic doctrine, but that it’s TRUE.
The "Resurrection" the gospel satirizes referred to dead bodies being lifted from the underground tunnels of Jerusalem where rebels had to escape and to those starving to death attempting to live off the deceased remains, including the crucified victims of the Romans. "Josephus" who was a wealthy and well connected Alexandrian who feigned being a Judean but was actually an avid accomplice in the entire rise of Flavian dynasty records the piles of dead bodies in the wake of the siege during the Roman Judean war...and thus the inspiration for the satirical gospel account of many people rising from the grave. Eleazar/Lazarus the most key rebel leader "resurrects" in the sense of being dismembered torturously and crucified.
@@booksquid856go back to heresyland
@@booksquid856 nonsense. Jesus’s disciples saw him resurrected and were transformed from cowardly men hiding from the authorities to save their skins to bold men who were mostly martyred for their testimony of the resurrection. Jesus rose bodily, appeared to thousands, ascended into heaven and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Believe in him and you will be saved. Reject him and you will be damned.
@@simonbrown1486 I agree with your assessment fully, except for the final sentence. Not sure what you mean by "reject" him. Just for the sake of argument, what happens if someone never heard of Jesus? Or say a 15 year old boy in Iran, who is indoctrinated into Islam by his parents (through no fault of his own), dies in a car crash. Would he be damned?
@@simonbrown1486Nothing nonsense about it actually. Rome wasn't a monolithic empire but rather competing mob families sponsoring and creating different cults. In the year Vespian came to the throne three others had been assassinated before him. The Flavians in particular harnessed all forms of propaganda to assert their presence and authority. Obviously no Judean peasants would have been educated enough to write the amount of detailed gospel/"epistle" references to external historic and contemporary co-created material that satirized specific details of Titus' war against Jerusalem or the fate of Eleazar/Lazarus. There are clues left everywhere in the body of text which Rome herself preserved to give us a clear understanding that we are reading satire.
Obviously the Gnostic Gospels got some things wrong, but some of their points make more sense than the "standard" Christian interpretation of the whole story. The knee-jerk reactions of many Christians in the comments are similar to statements of cultists: belief without analysis or perspective.
The knee jerk reaction is baked in because they are taught that anything that causes you to question God's word is Satanic.
it’s true it brings up a lot of questions but then it also brings up questions about all the old testament references of the new testament
I think there is a parallel between the biblical discussion around serpents and the experience of a Kundalini awakening, which is often described as an energetic serpent traveling up the spine. In both traditions, the serpent brings gnosis. Even in the garden, the serpent brings a gnosis - their eyes were "opened", and they ate of it in pursuit of wisdom.
I don't think Alex has considered "what is death in the spirit realm"? He sees dying from a materialistic atheistic view point, but spiritual religious death is to be "severed from the tree" to be cut loose alone from God. Adam and Eve did die and we can only be restored from the Fall through Christ through Resurrection .
Ding ding ding🎉
I guess the bible could've been more precise than in it's speech then as Peterson alwaysbsays to be. Add one word "spritualy" before die and you have no confusion.
He didn’t say they would die immediately.. he said they would die.. which they did
He said they would die the day they ate the fruit. Adam died 900 years later that day. So he did lie.
@@levongevorgyan6789 you could try reading the comment you’re replying to and responding to it
If he did know Hebrew he would have noticed that the word used for “cunning” is used a verse prior and translated radically different as naked, i.e., עֲרוּמִּ֔ים (arummim) Genesis 2:25. This comes from the root word ur that means to be exposed or to bare. In Biblical text comparison it’s best to begin with comparison within the sepher (the scroll), so while the psalms may used arum as sensible or wise, i would advise caution. An alternate reading of Genesis 3:1 bringing it into harmony with 2:25 reads, “And the serpent was more naked than the beasts of the field.” And why was the serpent naked? Because Satan has no physical body having fallen from grace as Christ said, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven” (Luke 10:18). This adds to the sanctity of the body, as Satan is denied this sacred privilege.
It is always great to listen someone with real arguments 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻. Also Satan (translated like "the adversary") is the master of lies, that's why people get so confused thinking that the tree of good and evil was related with knowledge but one thing is "Knowledge" and other so different is "the knowledge of good and evil". Represented very clear in Genesis with the Tree of life and then the other tree that holds the malevolent fruit. So Adan and Eve chose to follow Satan instead of the Tree of Life.
Those were two interesting comments. In case any of you want to expand on it I'm curious to hear more.
Good points. However, aren't all of the heavenly forces (archangels and angels) disembodied by their very nature (the way God created them)?
@@Hoi4oActually, the Bible says the opposite both definitionally and anecdotally. By definition, in both Greek (angelos) and Hebrew (malach) both mean “messenger”. The messengers God sends can be either corporeal, like the angels God sends to Lot to remove him and his family from Sodom, or incorporeal, or a spirit. Many instances speak of angels having physical bodies, such as those entertained by Abraham or the one with which Jacob wrestled. The fact is that the Bible makes no mention of God creating a separate class of beings, i.e., angels. The notion that a different race of beings exists is more fiction than faith. Rather, angels are messengers, the spirits of man before or after birth and just men made perfect like the translated inhabitants of the City of Enoch who God took into heaven itself.
@@JoelWHoodthat is because Angel is a role. All direct agents of God are spirits. Even Jesus himself was called the word, hence him being a messenger or "Angel". Sometimes even prophets can be "angels" temporarily.
1 Corinthians 15:14 Amplified Bible
and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain [useless, amounting to nothing], and your faith is also vain [imaginary, unfounded, devoid of value and benefit-not based on truth].
So do you feel like your preaching is valuable and changing the world for the better? If yes, then Christ has risen.
@IFeelQuiteHungry you can always read the whole chapter. I don't take things out of context. Teaching things that are not true in scriptures makes someone a false teacher. False teachers burn in the lake of fire Revelation 20:10, 22:18-19
@IFeelQuiteHungry .... If you understood old testament prophecy then the Messiah must be risen after 3 days. Just say you don't understand or read Scripture and stay out of the convos.
@@Deathl2ow Jonah in the whale 🐳.
@@Deathl2ow Iron sharpen iron.
One of you - BOTH OF YOU - Please interview Father Josiah Trenham. An Othrodox priest out of California who is incredibly well-spoken and well-informed about his faith. It would be a wonderful thing to see for all of us. Thank you!
Father Peter Heers too
YESSSS fr Josiah would be a great guest.
@11:00 " . . knowledge of good and evil . . "
What he's missing, and what Jordan is trying to articulate is that it's not just the knowledge of good and evil. It's the FRUIT of the knowledge of good and evil. Once eaten, these innocent, timeless creatures walking with God DO die. Their innocence died there and then. The product, the consequence of it is to corrupt their innocence and to birth a new creature in their place. A fallen, cynical, murderous mankind, capable of great evil. THAT was the 'fruit' of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't the knowledge itself. It's the consequences of holding that knowledge in merely human minds.
Right. In Eden before the fall, knowledge was not grasped or taken it was given and received. Like grace. In paradise we posses everything but appropriate nothing. The eating of the apple was the loss of chastity in the true meaning of the word; as in disloyalty to God , breaking the union with God by giving in to temptation. One can only be eternal beings when in union with God who is eternal and one can only be withering and dying beings if we break our union with the eternal being. How can it be otherwise?
if they had no knowledge of good and evil, then how would they have even known following god was the good thing to do, and disobeying him was the bad thing?
they were completely naive and uninformed about why they were supposed to be doing what they were simply told to do and then blamed for making the wrong decision. i could never come to terms with how this story is supposed to justify suffering or that humans are somehow responsible for every horrible thing that exists. it seems to be a very weak attempt at justifying Gods twisted behaviour.
But they HAD been given that knowledge @@brianbridges8124 God specifically warned them what would happen and commanded them to leave it alone. Even a half trained puppy dog knows when it does wrong and disobeys its master.
What arrogance to judge God's behaviour! You obviously have some serious knowledge gaps when it comes to scripture. Don't you know that you are parroting a twisted and satanic interpretation of these passages which has been shown false many times? Serious scholars have debated the righteous judgements of God for thousands of years, and concede He is justified in all His dealings with man. Where do you get the balls to repeat this railing accusation against God? I mean your first point (they were completely naive and uninformed) is blatantly 100% wrong on a face reading of the text. Did you even think this point through before you made it?Would you care to dig this hole any deeper Brian, or is that enough blasphemous slander of God for you today?
Brilliant comment.
@@brianbridges8124 The mistake is confusing the knowledge of good and evil with the knowledge of right and wrong. They were neither naive nor uninformed. The text is clear on that. They are however innocent of moral responsibility and in harmony God. Also, they fell, not due to any moral deficiency, but due to their inherent human nature. A dog knows right from wrong, and loyalty from betrayal. It doesn't know how to forge credentials, steal the secrets to build a nuclear device, murder the witnesses and plant evidence to blame a third party, triggering a genocidal war of extermination, all as revenge for something that happened ninety years ago, or as part of a righteous struggle against oppression, or even as part of a larger de-population agenda, for the greater good of humanity! No dog will ever be able to conceive of any of that, but due to the nature of our hearts and the capacity of our intellects, all humans are capable of such pre-meditated acts of evil.
You had to squint at this pretty hard to miss that point. Do you honestly see yourself and others as innocent because we were made this way, and therefore it's God's fault we're like this? You said you thought the story of Adam and Eve was supposed to justify suffering, or accuse humanity of being responsible for all that is evil. All I can say is, you need to engage with this stuff yourself, and seek Him in His Word. Contrary to popular belief, God's existence is not some ultimately unknowable matter of conjecture. Each of us can have a real encounter with Him, enter into a real relationship with Him. In Romans 8:16 it says "His Spirit will witness with your spirit." That's a promise of a direct encounter with God, leaving us in no doubt whatsoever. All you have to do is meet Him in His Word, and His Word tells us repeatedly that we can only approach Him on His terms. Do you read? Have you read the gospels? The instructions on how to do this are found throughout the bible, and are different for each of us, but I think they are best summed up in Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Once we diligently seek Him, humbly and in faith, THEN we find Him. We ask, and we receive. We knock, and doors are opened to us. That's the way it works, so unless we've actually read and responded to this stuff, we can't really speak honestly about it, or ever hope to understand the deep hidden layers of wisdom held in such verses as those which you have so carelessly misunderstood and dismissed here. I pray that you are able to humble yourself before Almighty God your creator, and earnestly hear the clear instructions that He has left us, on how to find Him. Then, and only then will the deep wisdom of all these things be revealed unto you.
If one looks back to the original Sumerian texts, The Serpent was the god Enki, the same one who created humans to serve the gods. His brother, Enlil, was the one who wanted to keep humans from becoming enlightened, as they might become more difficult to order around. Enki was also later to be the one who saved mankind from being wiped out in the flood. Enki was on humanity's side.
Note that the Sumerians were the original inhabitants of the fertile crescent, and were later replaced by the Babylonians. Abraham was from UR, a city state in that region. It is believed by some that some of the old testament was either written, or revised during the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews would have access to some of the original stories that underpinned their religion.
Enki wasn’t depicted as a serpent in Sumerian mythology, although he was cunning. The Epic of Gilgamesh was a closer story which existed in surrounding culture at the time.
@@steve_onyoutube I seem to recall, and I forget the source, that Enki was sometimes referred to as The Serpent. I could be wrong on that point, however, it's been a while since I had looked into the subject.
Enki was present in the garden of eden. He plays the same role in the story as the serpent. His son Ningeshzida (Thoth) was referred to as the feathered serpent (Quetzalcoatl) in central america. The cult of Enki and the Enlil are the cult of the serpent and the cult of the eagle. Think of how this relates to the mexican flag which depicts the eagle eating the serpent. The conflict of these 2 groups goes back to the garden of eden. Before the great flood. And yes, the god referred to that instructs Noah to build the ark, thus saving humanity, was Enki. The names are removed and all gods are just referred to as god or in some instances El or Elohim (which was plural and meant more than one god).
Very spot on
John 20:27 ► NIV
Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe
Yeah the right side the right hemphisphere.
@@Amanda1234-nqc
John 20:all NIV
The Empty Tomb
20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.
Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene
11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
The Purpose of John’s Gospel
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John was written with combating gnostic views in mind. The authors agenda could have well been motivating the fabrication of such a story but well never know.
@@notloki3377 I did. I quoted scripture. If you want context read the whole chapter.
@@notloki3377 Some things need reason. Some things are obvious.
Adam and Eve DID die on that day, spiritually. They could no longer walk with and talk with God face to face. And they became mortal. This is how scripture presents the scripture.
Yes, and they were set against their environment for the rest of their (recently) finite lives. The Hebrew phrase translated as " you will surely die" has a word meaning "die" twice. Like "dying to die" or something like that. Like you said, the point is that they are cut of from God and destined to go to Sheol. The work of the serpent is undone by Christ who saves us from Sheol.
Ah, yes, the ol' "It didn't happen physically, but spiritually."
This fallback is used whenever a prophecy isn't proved true, which, seems to happen A LOT.
@@scottscheperif you actually read Hebrew, and Hebrew translations it actually does say “doomed to die.” Not, immediately fall down and croak.
The stubborn denial that this is a perfectly fine read the story itself OBVIOUSLY SUPPORTS is intentional ignorance at the highest level
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue ah, yes, the ol' "let's use a vague Hebrew phase that says the same thing but allows us a little wiggle room in case it doesn't become true" tactic.
@@scottscheper a little wiggle room that transparently are supported in the story - and that NON RELIGIOUS JEWS TRANSLATE AS SUCH - like Robert Alter.
If you want to say it MAS TO MEAN IMMEDIATE DEATH - YOURE THE ONE THAT HAS TO PROVE THAT, dummy. If the text can and DOES allow for it - it is not only an acceptable read - it is a read that is supported in context and defies the premise you are attempting to make.
Robert Alter is ONLY a Hebrew Scholar interested in restoring the literary value of the text. He is not religious and is not trying to prove anything in his translation - that reads "doomed to die."
Your bare the burden of proof - else that wiggle room is gaping wide and dissolves your premise in an instant.
The serpent said Adam and Eve would be like god knowing good and evil, irony is they were already like god he said so earlier in genesis that he made man in his own image. So I think the real temptation was wanting to be god, to become their own individual gods.
God's whole plan is for us is to become like Christ (who is exactly like The Father) and be joint-heirs with him. Adam's transgression (technical violation of God's law) did bring the consequence of death arriving (spiritual as well as physical), but the Atonement allows us to overcome both (resurrection, and the possibility of Eternal Life {Living the way that God Lives}). Christ himself declared "Ye are Gods" (psalm 82:6, John 10:34-38). Acts 17: 28-29 states that we are the offspring of God.
We differ from animals in kind.
We differ from God by degree.
We are children of God.
The Resurrection of Jesus is _real_ !
Children have the potential to become like their parents. Even Heavenly Parents. "Let us make man (and woman) in our image." Who was the pattern for that woman Eve?
The very Bible when taken whole and in proper context teaches that man&womankind have the potential to become like our Heavenly Parents!
That's kinda how I make sense of God banishing them so they can't eat of the Tree of Life; God can't allow them to both (a) become evil by determining morality on their own and (b) become immortal as he is, or even give them the power to create life that is fundamentally evil, so they have to be cast out and be allowed to biologically decay, and inevitably die, in this world, while still being given the opportunity to voluntarily repent and ultimately be brought back to union with God and perfect creation.
If God really made them “in his image” they wouldn’t have been made out of clay. They would be able to create and reason like himself. The snake lead them to the biggest lie of them all.
A very good point. As I recall, after God had created man he said himself "It is good"
Jordan Peterson listening: "YeAh ... yEaH ... yEaH ... YeAH ... yeaH ... YEaH"
He was in violent agreement lol
"Sure, sure."
😂
He's a therapist, give the guy a break. There are some professional, well based manneurisms. Ticks, so to say.
he's intellectually outmatched here. it reminds me of how I would speak to my university professors when i was pretending to know what they were talking about
It's simple, and all you need are two definitions and understanding of them.
Orthodoxy="Correct" thought, chosen by some human authority.
Heresy= Free thought.
I'll take the latter.
Alex seems speak to Jordan in a much more respectful manner than he does to other people he debates.
Nah it’s because Jordan Peterson practices what he preaches which is to be weary of your own beliefs because they can consume you so a couple metaphysical steps later and Jordan Peterson detach himself from his own beliefs and critiques them accordingly and Alex’s debate style is to shake your belief system but you can’t do that to Jordan Peterson because he critiques himself first
Basically he’s beat Alex to the punch and understands what he believes
@@cristiancastor7888 very well put. Spot on mate.
I have never seen Alex being disrespectful. I think he shows different levels of "closeness" to people and he would question them on any potential error but I would never say that Alex is disrespectful of anyone.
Brings to Question the "Be Wise as Serpents, and Harmless as Doves..."
Knowledge, Wisdom...
The genesis story is essentially an allegory about the transition from the ignorance of childhood toward a stage in which we become morally accountable. It's really surprising how often this is overlooked, but the original 'sin' wasn't disobeying God and eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but denying one's accountability in doing so. For only once the fruit had been eaten and that knowledge gained do we become morally accountable for our actions. The serpent is merely a scapegoat in this narrative, neither good nor evil and it was in denying their accountability that Adam and Eve first sinned, passing on the blame to a talking serpent, for only at this point could they act with moral agency (Satan, even if that is what the serpent represents isn't 'evil' as such- he still works for God. He is there essentially to tempt us, which is to say, test us. Job, which is the oldest narrative in the Hebrew Bible makes this clear. The idea of Satan as an adversary, who can act independently of God is a later, possibly Zoroastrian-influenced development and doesn't belong to the original Hebrew framework in which these stories' messages must be understood).
Now, the different trees essentially represent doorways into new stages of being and consciousness. There are actually five trees in total, which is a Semitic idea that actually appears in one of the logia of the Gospel of Thomas, but seems to have been lost or forgotten when Christianity imposed its own pagan-influenced interpretation on what the Jewish scriptures actually say. The fact that it does appear in GThomas is internal evidence that the Thomas traditions may go back fairly early, possibly to Jesus or even John the Baptist and the Essenes at Qumran. The Essenes, like the Gnostics, and later the Kabbalists (and all the esoteric spiritual teachings in all religion) emphasized the importance of knowledge. However, just like the word 'faith' the word 'knowledge' is a poor translation, since it suggests intellectual mastery, or theoretical understanding, when gnosis itself means something much deeper. It's a kind of knowledge that is transformative, revelatory; spiritual insight that suddenly sheds light on what before we only understood in a kind of abstract way.
I think 'knowing' is a better translation than 'knowledge'. In this sense you can't help but be transformed, both morally and spiritually by what has been revealed to you, and how you implement it in your life.
Incidentally, Jesus did stress the importance of this type of knowing. It wasn't simply the belief in vicarious atonement that leads to salvation, which is a later Pauline idea. If you read and really try to understand Jesus' parables both in Thomas and the Canonical gospels this becomes clear (all of which were anonymous btw- we really have no idea who the original authors were, and it is doubtful that any of them knew Jesus personally, however the Q tradition, which finds its way into all 5 gospels, but which GThomas has probably the most complete record of, is our earliest source, and as such, the key to understanding Jesus' parabolic teachings. Since vicarious atonement is something that conflicts with the teachings of the Tanach, which is essentially what Jesus knew and drew from consistently throughout his ministry, it can and should be discarded as a false teaching.)
Orthodox Christianity started losing the light with Paul, and even more so when it adopted the heretical Nicene/Trinitarian doctrine. We can credit Paul at least with making Jesus known to the Gentile world, however, he did a lot to mislead potential followers by going around emphasizing the 'salvation through faith over good works' doctrine. By the way, Paul gets this from the book of Habbakuk, but he inverts the meaning of the original statement. It is because of our faith (which, in its Hebrew essence means something more like 'trust' or 'fidelity' than doctrinal belief) in God that, if we do as he commands in the Torah, will lead us to salvation, not simply faith in the resurrection. Luckily we have the epistle of James, which was probably written in response to Paul or his followers' misappropriation of scripture, to steer us straight; works are essential (specifically the ethical conduct that Jesus emphasizes over and over again. See Matthew 25:31-49) but gnosis is what allows us to see why those works are essential. We don't act morally simply because we are commanded to; we act morally, because we know it's in our own best interest and that of others. The closer our communion with the Divine, the more clear this becomes.
Back to the Garden of Eden story; this was a stage in human consciousness that necessarily had to come to an end. There are other trees remaining. Again, they represent, of course not literal trees, but new levels of understanding. The reason Adam and Eve had to leave the Garden, is because knowing isn't something that happens all at once; it is something that is played out over the course of a lifetime, or even many generations and ages (we're still on the 7th day) as we learn the practical ramifications of that knowledge. The knowledge that came with eating that fruit simply established the condition in us to be able to learn what that knowledge means. Only once we have mastered this knowledge, will be ready to taste of the other trees. The endgame is, as the gospels relate, eternal life. Those who are saved will inherit the kingdom of God, in a transformed way of being that is beyond our current worldly understanding of what it is "to live". Without salvific knowledge, presumably the soul ceases to be. The "second death" means non-resurrection, not ascending to a renewed, non-perishing form. Early Christians differed among one another on what this meant, with some believing that at the end, all souls are saved, with a purgatory interim period. This is what the burning lake of fire is about in Revelation; it doesn't represent hellfire or eternal torment (a later development, which goes against what Jews, including the historical Yeshua believed and taught) but purification of the soul. In the iron age in which it was written, the reader would have made the association with the burning vessel in which metal is purified or simply the valley of Gehenna, outside the walls of Jerusalem (the symbolic domain of God's kingdom) where corpses were disposed of. There were early Christian writers, like Origen, who suggested a kind of reincarnation journey over many lives, at the end of which all would come to be saved.
Hi
Nice, I'm saving this essay for myself...
You’re a 🤡, you know not what you speak of.
Philosophical vomitus…
You leave out the main character, God. Only he knows the why and what of the Eden tale. It is no coincidence the gnostic take is favorable to the nachash. They want to double down on eating the forbidden fruit. The temptation of special knowledge, power, and glorification is too great for them and their idol of pride. This blinds them to the fact that they place faith in the word of the deceiver and some scarce old books/scrolls over the word of God brought by his prophets. Only a fool enters into a struggle on the side of rebellion when one doesn’t know or have a grasp of what the perceived struggle really is. As to bashing Paul, if he indeed misled, wouldn’t God have course corrected? Jesus was more than just the lamb. His ministry and life as well as his sacrifice and resurrection have had global impact like no other. Other religions don’t adequately account for him and his effect, not even the other Abrahamic ones. Nor is their accounting for the power in his name to this day. There is so much we don’t know and possibly are not meant to know.Gods character has been consistent and faithful and does not match their narrative/deception.
The ancient Greek word for the snake is "όφις" initially, was "Fόφις". F here is pronounced as S. From this root comes the word σοφός sofόs meaning the wise. So, the snake was a symbol of wisdom and that is why the goddess Athena is depicted with snakes around her.
LEGEND bro... Sweeping the shit off the truth!💜👍
Universal Sovereign Citizen
@spirosdoukakis7215.....Please where did you find that letter F (letter F...vau) was prounounced as S?. In old greek teksts for example word for wine... (F)oinos....on Latin language vinum......english wine....was prounounced as V. Later in old greek language they write and prounounce oinos.....without F.
@kreso4794 For example, according to the Hysehious dictionary, the word έδρα, was initially σέδρα, then it became Fέδρα, and finally έδρα.
@@kreso4794 Hedra means the sit, the chair, the headquarters.
In Latin, the Greek word "έδρα" is "sed".
As a gardener, it is impossible to keep snakes out of the garden. 😉
only when you put up a fence...
And Christ is a gardener, a la John 20
shouldn't be impossible to a god who is all knowing and powerful..
@The44th That may be just someone with a limited understanding speaking, though.
I often wonder what God may think about things, but to be smug for smugness sake, to rip on the creator of the universe seems rather petulant.
Perhaps God wants us to choose, but choose correctly?
Perhaps something else?
It appears to me that God doesn't want slaves, but free men and women.
Gnosis is the antidote to all forms of religious mind control.
You should look into the only living gnostic religion, the Mandaeans. We reject Jesus as a false prophet and our last prophet is John the Baptist. We are very different from the Christian gnostics, I think Jordan and yourself would find our ethno-religious group very interesting.
Oh and we don’t really know our origins, scholars are torn between us being pre-Christian and being developed with Christianity at the same time.
Gnostic Gospels are found in much more quantities by archeologists than the oldest christian Gospel of Mark. It shows how gnosticis views and teachings were not only conteporary to orthodox christians than but more prevalent. Orthodox teachings at one point started to shift from commonly shared views that originally had with gnostics because christianity from the very begginings had plethora of views and ideas that shared mutually and integrated many parts of ideas from one another, and there was also rivalry between various gnostics christians or non christian sethian gnostics.
Orthodox/Catholic views managed to take roots and sway in Rome, where it become religion of the rulers. After that spreading its creed forcibly throughout Roman Empire and set ablaze Alexandrian Library. Proclaiming gnostic's teachings as a heresy and that way winning the race.
Alex is reading things into scripture that it doesn’t actually say, the death did come to Adam and Eve eventually in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense it was instant. The reason they died was due to rebellion against the infinitely holy righteousness God, seeking to become like him. The remedy was provided in Genesis chapter 3 when God says the seed of the woman shall crush the serpents head, that took place on Calvary when Jesus brought reconciliation by becoming our substitute
Ah, yes. The perennial excuse of, "They didn't die physically, but metaphorically."
@@scottschepernot metaphorically; but spiritually
Its fascinating when ignorant Atheists try to exegete scripture when the haven’t a clue of orthodox Christian theology. There ideas are normally based from liberal theologians who reject the supernatural and read the Bible through the lens of Deconstructionist methods and theories
@@jeremybridges6015another instance of the Bible actually meaning something else rather than what it says but it also means something else if you argue against it making it truth.
This is how the snake got in right? God didn't explain what he meant by death. If by physical death, wouldnt he have said that they will not eat of the fruit of life and eventually die? It is almost like he knew what would happen and let them fall.
Regardless the more I study Genesis the more profound and interesting the book is. First of all every word of ancient Hebrew is aligned to the ancient Hebrew alphabet is aligned to verse and passage of genesis. For example YHWH is 4:26(4 letters and adds to 26) and is found in Genesis 4:26.
There is more to what God wants of us than we will ever know and i think a pure understanding of good and evil in absolutes is misunderstanding the bible entirely.
For me, I believe one of the key points of the story of Adam and Eve eating the apple is that they both choose to use their divine gift of free will to choose to eat the forbidden apple and defy the single commandment of God. When God asks them about it (he already knows what they did), both of them refuse to take responsibility for their own choice. Adam blames Eve. Eve blames the serpent. Free will means freedom, and having freedom means taking responsibility for ones self and owning the consequences of your actions. The sin was not choosing to eat the apple, the sin was lying to God about what they had freely chosen to do against his commandment. Not taking responsibility for our choices while exercising free will is the root for all sin. You can't be in the presence of God "in Paradise" if you do not own responsibility and atone for your wrong actions. That is the power of the sacrament of Reconciliation. To take responsibility for all of your choices and actions and all of the good and bad consequences before God.
Well said.
Free will doesnt exist, If Eve wasn't made with an inherent want for power she wouldn't eat the fruit. And if it does, then it's random, meaning God can't judge righteously.
@@VVooshbait The Free Will at work was denying the Truth to God when He asked them and they blamed the other, Adam blamed Eve, and Eve blamed the serpent. We cannot lie our way out of our moral responsibility and the resulting consequences.
Their expulsion from the Garden was necessary for Adam and Eve to have children. They had no blood coursing through their veins and had known each other sexually. It is interesting the blame each place for eating the fruit.
Eve didnt have a want for power, she is just a woman. Snakes are low to the Earth, hence the snake is representative of “earthly” or “worldly” things. Eve was the one seduced by the snake, symbolizing that women are more earthly persuaded than by the higher reasoning associated with God (which is observationally true)
If you say that the only thing that matters is what Jesus said, my question would be: "Why does it matter at all what He said?"
The answer is of course: "Because He is risen, otherwise none of it matters".
But Peterson said that the only thing that matters is what Jesus said.
Truly He is Risen! ✝️☦️
Words words words
Still no solid evidence of resurrection. Hearsay is weak
What He did was exceedingly more important than what He said. Jesus could talk till He was blue in the face but if He didnt descend from Heaven, be born of a virgin, live perfectly and then die on the cross for our Sins and Salvation then nothing He had to say would matter all that much.
Gnosticism perverts literally everything about God and Christ, Redemption and everything in between it is the inverse of the Truth and yet another False Religion created by Satan to deny the one Truth that brings people salvation and freedom, the Gospel of Christ.
The most interesting part of this discussion is the philosophical approach to a fallacy. It's Platonic roots shine brightly.
I am a catholic, but even with that, the múltiple ways of reading the Old Testament are fascinating to me, it is true, the serpent bringer of light, well a lot of people have said they bring light and we end up in a mess, you have Robespierre, Hitler, Mao and Lennin who proclaim to bring light and truth and make us closer to gods, and they tried to consume {to destroy and re define} morality, and their regimes end up killing millions, be careful of other prophets.
Oooh, yes. Ancient religions & especially early Christianity is so interesting.
I'm a Gnostic. I look upon the eating of the tree of good and evil as an inevitability. We had to start evolving by leaving our innocence and childhood behind us - we needed to grasp our futures. We needed to explore the entire universe and learn, that meant leaving childhood behind us. When we return to the garden of the Father through a deeply spiritual life, and relationship with Christ, we return after countless lifetimes of experience and growth of wisdom, we have grown wise through the shear effort of living multiple lives. We are ready to serve God as worthy servants. We aren't spiritual children any longer, we are adult souls that have learned and grown. Wisdom is always worth the effort and work that it demands. I believe that Christ's body became pure energy, and, ceased to exist as a physical body, in the moment of resurrection. Our bodies do not matter in the sense that they will cease to exist after each lifetime. It is our souls that are immortal and are our real life.
Two trees.
1) Tree of Life
2) Tree of knowledge of good and evil.
@@rconger24 I was in error. I've changed it. Still stands though. We had to leave our innocence. Baby souls with an entire universe to learn about, with millions of experiences of ahead of us... in Gnosticism, we say that fell to earth because we fell in love with the things of the material universe. We are not made for paradise, nor peace, we are made for exploration and searching over the next hill, until the last horn sounds and the universe is no more. I think it is one of the reasons I will always love Christ and honor him, but never quite surrender to him, entirely, and why I've attempted the mystical path but I can not complete it. Maybe, in some future era, my soul will be ready to settle down and return home, to God, but I've still several things I need to deal with.. internal issues I can't resolve.
That is why Utopia will always be an unfulfilled , impossible dream. Every time we seek utopia we end up with a dystopian nightmare. (it's direct opposite)
If Gnosticism is right, why would God allow the Christians to lie to the world?
Not a gnostic myself but I agree that it was inevitable in the plan of God. The fall that is. Assumably because God thought a redeemed creature more pleasurable, glorious, (insert adjective) than a creature that was always holy. I hope that you see that Jesus did come to restore creation and ultimately He will. But you must repent and believe that God raised Jesus bodily from the dead to be saved from His just wrath. I pray this for you.
This makes more sense to me than much of Catholicism.
It’s always fascinating to me how readily atheists agree with the serpent and satan’s ideas of rebellion when they engage with the Bible and literature.
He very much was the first atheist.
People might consider that inflammatory, but many atheists, if not most, would openly agree with the devil’s position if any negative stigma or taboo was removed from it. They often admit it without realizing it when they say that if they discovered God was real they would hate him or rebuke him for creation.
The identification of the serpent, satan and devil are a post Biblical Christian invention. Serpent is nowhere in the Bible identified with Satan. Satan is not a character, more a title, until Enochian literature. Devil is borrowed from Zoroastrianism.
Oh, similar for Lucifer.
If you think Yahweh is the good guy in the Bible, you haven't read the old testament closely enough. I'd gladly align with lucifer in rebellion against such a monstrous dictator.
If God exists and abhramic God is true God and things written in the bible are true, then yes I wouldn't like that kind of God.
If it was God of Jainism or Sikhi, I can get behind them. They seem a lot more moral compared to ywvh. Like I have nothing against God. I have moral intuitions and if their actions go against those intuitions, i wouldn't like them.
@@GaganSingh-nx2yv
Moral intuitions can be wrong though, can’t they?
If the abrahamic God exists (who created everything, knows everything, and is the only eternal, uncreated thing) whose moral intuitions do you think are more *likely* to be wrong? His or yours?
@@beorntwit711 the serpent is identified with Satan in Revelation. It's absolutely not post-biblical.
This idea that the serpent was Satan is some tradition outside of the Bible is just completely wrong and is basically only brought up by atheists who've only read cherry picked Bible verses to "le own the fundies"
If the Garden of Eden is a state of ultimate perfection then how can that perfection be comprehended until the one has experienced all that is? We leave Paradise like perfect fools, divided, and will return to our orginal state with perfect wisdom, whole. Empty and complete at the same time. Transformed and unchanged. Its pure poetry.
SPECTACULAR discussion ... shared!
If you even partially believe that the Christian tradition contained in the Bible could possibly be true in any way then remember that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood only. Keep up the good work and may God bless you and your family.
One of the problems of this discussion is Gnosticism was never a Christian movement it was an accusation. And proto-orthodoxy was not a movement either it is an academic term that strings together the evolution as to what would become orthodoxy.
The accusation of Gnosticism was towards the Marcion followers who had the Demiurge idea, but also accusation was towards the Ebbionites who believed the opposite of the Marcion followers and focused on an idea of Jesus as the first Adam before being divided.
And Clement of Alexandria held Gnostic beliefs and yet was canonized as a saint.
And Origen a major critic of Marcion, and anti-literalist, was nearly consider the father of the church and the most popular Christian writer of his era was later considered a Gnostic and heretic, and also formulated the Trinity, and is a major part of the Catholic tradition, especially repopularized by Erasmus.
So it is a bit non-sense to divide early Christianity as proto-orthodoxy vs Gnosticism.
No apostle was gnostic
Origen was never canonized for that very reason.
Neither of them were gnostic. Tho they considered themselves the "true gnostics". The gnostics had an antinomial disconnect of the spirit and the flesh. Orgin and Clement did not have that.
There is no gnostic tradition. There are several traditions now called gnostic. Within what we call Gnosticism are many conflicting threads.
Exactly this.
Expand? In curious. Don’t know much about gnostic stuff
Thank you 😊❤🎉
my fellow Christians look at me in such bewilderment when I propose this question
which
They shouldn't, listen to scholars like Michael hieser. It's a very very easy anwser.
What question? I'm no scholar but I could have answered all the points and questions they were wrestling with.
When debating gnostics- an early church father stood up, walked across the room and punch the speaker in the face, that leaders name was Saint Nick: Santa was a savage
I believe that was in Nicea with the Arians not gnostic, still it's absolutely interesting 😂
That’s not very Christian
@@dr.spaceman9193fallacy. Jesus wrecked the tables and flung them all over the temple. Christian are allowed to get angry
@@yahwehsaviour9083 typical Christian answer: Hypocrisy 🤣
@@dr.spaceman9193 If I decided that you weren't allowed to use emoticons, would you be a hypocrite for that last reply or would I just be making up rules for you based off nothing and calling you one when you didn't concede them?
This would be a difficult argument if we didn’t have the apostle Paul making things crystal clear about all of it. Anybody who still struggling with gnosticism as a possibility is going to have to reject the biblical revelation. It’s just that simple. That’s what I worry, Jordan Peterson is going to fall into in the end.
Peterson has been a gnostic snake in the grass from the very beginning. His biblical lectures purposely misinterpret the scriptures in ways no one as intelligent as him could do by accident.
Too bad Paul never met Jesus...
Just a story that he met the ghost of Jesus...guess you forgot that huh? Probably forgot how the early church disliked Paul for exactly that reason...he never met Jesus. So who is Paul to teach anything?
@RockerfellerRothchild1776
Paul was a Prophet and the Apostle chosen by Christ to reveal Christ ( the bridegroom) to the church ( the bride). The other Apostles also understood the authority Paul was given, and so much so that when he openly rebuked Peter, no one challenged him. Not even Peter had the authority that Paul had. He was the prophet angel/messenger to the first church.
@@ZeroOne46That's completely untrue. The actual apostles barely tolerated Paul. They only agreed to meet with him at all because he offered financial support from the gentile churches for the Jerusalem church.
@vortex_1336 Really. So, he was a false apostle, is what you're saying? I'm not sure what bible you're reading.
Not complicated. Dad “don’t drink that alcohol it’ll kill you” cousin “you’ll just get drunk like your parents” kids have lost their innocence prematurely and can’t re-enter the garden without making the ultimate sacrifice. They’ve been traumatized by premature consciousness.
They would have been allowed to eat when they were older
If the shining one is a higher god then why is it punished ?
Except it says this nowhere in the Bible.
@@Avogadros_number you’re new to symbolism I take it.
@@BryanKirch you can extrapolate almost any meaning you want from the Old Testament, that’s why there are 3 very different religions based on it. What you said is your interpretation. It’s nice that you found a way to justify your faith, but to say “not complicated” like it explicitly says anything about this in the text is disingenuous.
The Tanakh/Old Testament is not itself part of the Islamic tradition, where as the Holy Bible's Old Testament is simply another name for what is originally known as in Hebrew as the Tanakh. The Quran is a self-contained and completely novel text, which does not attempt to use the source texts from the Hebrew Scriptures or NT Gospels, but is to some degree a sort-of condensed retelling or summary of many of the events describes in the original books contained by the Biblical authors, rather than a direct translation like the Septuagint and Masoretic Text are of the TANAKH.
@@Avogadros_numberI assume Islan is not one of the three religions which build on the old testament. Because Muslims have no clue what is in the bible and they never read it. All they do is read what Mohammed wrote that is supposed to be in the Bible. But he never read it himself either.
I think it’s so interesting and respectable that Alex has studied the early church despite being an atheist. I appreciate his commitment to understanding the very history of the Church. I think it’s safe to say he would become Catholic rather than join one of the Protestant denominations if he began to believe in Christ.
Why? He knows the orthodoxy that would become catholic is only one of the many sides.
More over, he stated recently that one of the denominations that comes closest to his world view is the Mormons.
Even assuming an unsophisticated interpretation of "knowledge of good and evil," the gnostic interpretation of God as unfairly withholding something good doesn't necessarily follow.
One could easily interpret the seizure of the "knowledge of good and evil" as representing the shift between instinctive pursuit of good (like the animals and good angels) and the awareness of the full range of goods which entails the frustrating need to choose between them.
This is, obviously, a wildly ambiguous state of existence. It's what drives us to launch rockets to the stars while cows are happy eating grass in a field all day... but it also guarantees that nothing in this world will ever fully satisfy us.
Imposing such a fate on innocent creatures could call God's goodness into question where imposing it as a punishment would not. So the serpent is allowed to tempt man and man is allowed to fall to bring about the terrible intermediate step necessary to bring about the greatest possible good.
Of course, that greatest possible good is accomplished through death, so it would be a very bad thing if man took the fruit of the Tree of Life and became immortal -- not because it would make him a god, but because it would make him a vampire, condemned to an eternity of dissatisfaction.
That, I believe, is the traditional position. And I believe it's probably JP's position as well.
I grew up Christian, but never heard that.
@@TheJeremyKentBGross One down side to growing up Christian is that it's very easy to get the kid versions of the explanations in CCD/Bible school, age out before getting the adult versions, and assume the kid versions are all that exist.
Excellent explanation. Very satisfying.
That's a very interesting way to put it.
May I ask how do one comes to that kind of understanding? Do you have theological training?
@@heliod7 Not in official sense. Most of what I know comes from a mix of high-level UA-cam resources like Bishop Barron, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, Fr. Mike Schmidt, Bible Project, and the Thomistic Institute, as well as a significant amount of reading from websites like The Catholic Thing and people like Rene Girard, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, C.S. Lewis, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Hans Urs Von Balthazar, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, G.K. Chesterton, etc.
In other words, we've all got the resources readily available nowadays to understand as much as we want if we have the time and make the effort to do so. ;)
Well, we do die. The serpent definitely hustled us.
No one said they were immortal before eating the fruit. If God meant to say that they would become mortal and not that they would just die immediately and that the whole human linage would be mortal now, he lied by omission anyway. Dying and becoming mortal are very different things.
On Alex's claim that God "lied" to Adam and Even in the garden when he said they shall "surely die", but they didn't:
The concept of death in the biblical context can be understood in multiple dimensions-spiritual, physical, and eternal. When God said, "you shall surely die," it can be interpreted as an immediate spiritual death and the initiation of the process leading to physical death.
Also, Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18 state that God cannot lie.
I suggest that lies are only necessary when you are in a position of relative weakness. God definitionally is never in that position. It's not so much that he cannot lie, but that he has no good reason to do so.
Physical death occurred. God killed an animal to provide skins as a covering for their nakedness. It was the first sacrifice in a system that would point as a type and shadow to the ultimate sacrifice on the cross.
One of the conversations of all time
Says, "but if you read the text at face value," and then continues to interpret the text using cherry-picked gnostic sources which actually represent a different spiritual tradition and are written more than a thousand years after the text he is interpreting.
It's like attempting to interpret the New Testament through the writings of Eckhart Tolle.
Except your premise here is false.
@@scottscheper do tell...
@@jimmyintheswamp Your whole notion of the texts being "written more than a thousand years after the text" is baseless. the gnostic gospels were written in 100-200 CE. Same time as John. Furthermore, the term "Christian" wasn't a thing for the first 200 years. They were all followers of Jesus with various interpretations. It wasn't until ~300 CE with the council of Nicea until the canon was formed. The whole "Gnostic" label is frequently used to undermine the Nag Hammadi library. In reality, "Gnostic" wasn't a thing. Fact is, Christianity as we know it is really just Paul's religion. Christian is a Greek term. Jesus didn't speak or understand Greek. James the Just (the actual brother of Jesus) is the core source and wasn't a fan of Paul. Paul invented many odd notions that people today claim as the word of God.
cite something. Youre just broadly stating
@@scottscheperexcepts Acts 11:26, kind of says differently.
The death of Gnostism is the biggest tragedy in the history of Christianity.
Why do you say that?
@@Luiiciano It removed the mystical understanding of Christianity, enabling power hungry snakes to infiltrate and misuse the religion.
@@LuiicianoBecause the fact that it exists at all, in such an enduring and intuitive way, means there’s probably something true about it. However, we’ve lost most of its texts, most of its history, and have had its intellectual development stifled for 1500 years.
@@Adam-tp8py i agree with you, authorities dont waste much time to destroy false information, they just point out that its not true and why... but when truth stands in an authorities way theyll use all their resources to destroy/erase or discredit it.
It still lives. In many other shapes and forms, but unfortunately seems like most practitioners of it in its many shapes end up confused and weaker. Why? Because when you think that matter is inherently bad, you inevitably wind up doing harm to yourself, at the very least psychologically.
I think in really simple terms, the purpose of the forbidden fruit was to create a choice. If there were no other options than to Love God, then that love would not be genuine. There had to be a choice so that man could freely choose God and His will.
But why must there be a choice? What is so special about human choice? Does god need human choice to fulfill his will, especially considering that he is an all powerful and all knowing god? And if you take the view that god predetermined everything, is there even a choice?
There dosnt have to be a choice. That's God's freedom. We aren't God and we can make automatons without free choice. But God can also make creatures who are free in His image. Like the many paradoxes in Christianity--a self sufficient God needs nothing, yet creates, Christ is God and Man at the same time, the Father Son and Holy Spirit each are God, yet there are not three Gods....these are not logical contradictions; they are paradoxes. So too, freewill and God's predestination are not contradictions; they are paradoxes. I think the more one studies concepts in physics, such as relativity, that such paradoxes are entirely possible.
I think the early Christians understood "Knowledge of Good and Evil" as an experiential knowledge. Not just learning facts but actually coming to know what being evil is like, embracing it, making it a reasonable choice next to good. Just as saying "knowing" a man or woman isn't simply a euphemism for sex but obtaining intimate knowledge of someone outside an institution that is supposed to keep a person safe from the violation and chaos of the rest of the world: marriage.
Saying there was a debate in early Christianity concerning gnosticism is like saying there's a debate today about if the Earth is flat.
Your World view is showing.
@@MultipleGrievance I certainly hope so.
@@vedinthorn
Are you kidding?
People like you wouldn't be able to hide it.
@@MultipleGrievance why would I want to?
@vedinthorn
Ethics - principles
Bias is ugly. It informs critical thinkers that they are not dealing with one of their own.
I think the main point to get across is that the modern Christian scriptures are a highly curated set of texts that represent only one sect of Christianity. Bodily resurrection wasn't a big part of a lot of early Christianity. Even Paul doesn't really mention it. Keeping the Jewish law was a big topic that nobody really cares about today. The Trinity is a pretty late idea and much of the Christian world rejected it.
There's an incredibly rich theological history. And in a lot of ways its a political history as well. Roman Emperors had no small part in shaping what Christians believe today.
What are you talking about? The trinity is not a late idea. What makes you think that?
@Mike10143 Marcion of Sinope, born 85AD, founded a popular Christian Church which taught that the God of the Old Testament was a lesser, evil God, and that the God that sent Jesus Christ, was the greater, true God.
@@Sphere723and he was refuted as a heretic
@@jameswest9469 It wasn't formulated until the 4th century so no not late but I think Original Commenter meant "not early" because it wasn't early Christians either.
You're talking utter, uneducated rubbish
As a gnostic i loved this segment of this great conversation
Definitely.
Repent and convert! The catholic church has the Truth!!
@@jimmymelonseed4068Convert or die? Kick rocks.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 The same catholic church that has hunted down, tortured, and killed gnostics in mass just for daring to have a different set of beliefs? Yeah... Something tells me they aren't the good guys in this reality.
@@jimmymelonseed4068 Doesn't sound very Christian like. Jesus wanted one united CHISTIAN church. Screw your sect of a sect.
One of the most revealing and remarkable clip videos of Jordan Peterson's (religious) thought. An educated young atheist that naturally sympathizes with the idea of the Gnostic identification between Jesus and Satan put the finger in the central issue concerning what kind of "believer" Peterson really is: a Gnostic Heretic. And what is exactly the answer of Peterson to that terrible and big accusation? He says simply with a timid smile that in fact he is one. Wow. I didn't expect this undoubtedly evidence of false doctrine and heresy given through his own mouth. A little matter here? All the Patristic tradition and the sound doctrine of the canonical New Testament indicate that is not a little theological and doctrinal problem we're dealing here. But to be fair to both figures in the clip we should certainly say this: very educated and eloquent men.
Heresy is simply going against a churches teachings. We are all heretics.
@@Typexviiib heresy means going against the Church established by Christ, not just any church.
@@legendman97 thats not true.
We are all heretics in the infinite scope of knowledge, but the person and nature of Christ is one of the most clearly defined and reasoned doctrines in Christian history. It literally defines Christianty. You have to try REALLY HARD to miss it. And JP is trying REALLY HARD.
The Easter Proclamation sung at every Easter Vigil in the West and written by Saint Ambrose refers to the Fall as a "happy fault" and "necessary sin".
Interesting. I’ve read some Eastern scripture that describe it the same way.
Jesus Christ was the son of Mary and a descendant of David.
Matthew 1 NIV
The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah
1 This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,
13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor,
14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud,
15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
Joseph Accepts Jesus as His Son
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Amazing that a smart person like JP misses this.
Anyone who's read the Gnostic Gospels know there are things in there that are way crazier than any of the Bible stories. One of them says that Jesus grew to be 900 ft tall at one point. Another one has Peter asking if Mary must grow a penis to be righteous like one of us. There are good reasons why they are not canon. They are basically fanfiction
Less redacted by the church.
What are your views on the Old Testament? A 900 ft man doesn’t sound too far fetched for some of the stories in the old
If only that part of Peter asking if Mary needs to grow a penis was canon 😂
Right-eous, right brain left brain masculine feminine.. That's all I'm saying..
According to the canon god kills innocent babys, not sure how 900 feet (whatever the fuck that is) Jesus is somehow worse.
Aren't anti-venoms and other medicine, made from the venom of snakes?
A scientist from my country Costa Rica (born in Nicaragua) did lots of work on that subject, Clorito Picado.
Very cool to think about from the spiritual sense too, it seems like you guys are "venom researchers" as well, just in the spiritual sense. In the end trying to overcome/understand/move past/solve evil, is being a venom researcher.
Anyway!, Saludos!! Best Regards
Cool analogy!
Fascinating to watch an intellectual talk himself into the very logic of the Fall and play it out afresh in the present, without any self-awareness that he has just done so.
How
From an entirely philosophical and, of course, theological perspective, it is entirely coherent for God to warn against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The command was note merely a test of Adam and Eve’s obedience and free will but testimony to their true freedom as autonomous beings made in his image. They are not merely animals subject to the demands of the biological impulses. God gives them the freedom to choose whether or not to follow His will, i.e do the right thing preferring willing obedience rather than forced compliance.
Jordan Peterson balances philosophy, psychology and theology really. He does it in a way that commentators like Alex O’Connor are unable to do as they invariably fall into one camp as it is massively difficult to talk about the bible and not end up sounding like a vicar or a minister. However, in addition to positing that the warning is testimony to authentic human freedom in a way that other creatures weren’t, , the tree symbolises the limit of human knowledge and authority. Telling Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree can be understood to show that only God possesses full knowledge of good and evil and subsequently acknowledges that only he has authority over moral law. In purely philosophical terms, it suggests/acknowledges that we as humans are not able to use our subjective understanding as a basis for objective morality.
This, in turn, ties into the idea that after the death of Christ many people started to jump on the bandwagon and so those who were closest to the events or were taught by them agreed among themselves what were valid claims and interpretations (i.e the Councils). That something like the gospel of Timothy and others were rejected is a positive aspect of Christian belief, not least because of its cynical gnostic approach but because what emerged is not the work of one individual but a group of people who validated the process.
Here for the sacrifice to the Algo-gog
*tosses a comment to the algorithm*
@@gregorywitcher5618here’s another one for the algo god
If there is any confusion here, the serpent was Satan. See the verses in Revelation 20:2-3.
Consider looking into the "Nehushtan" that was in the temple. There were 2 Seraphim there (good and evil. The good one spoke with Isaiah).
You can’t use new testament to prove the old testament. Bro thinks Satan is actually a fallen angel😂. How the catholics will profit off you bro…
@@notloki3377 this is a public comment section who tf are you?😂
@@notloki3377 so ur comment was unnecessary? Good to know😂
@@notloki3377 bro will be amazed when he figures out all humans are apes😭💀
"What do you mean by 'what do you mean?' It's like NO"
I love the gnostic tradition, it saved my life for sure my soul vibrates when I read some of the sacred books. It’s only really for people willing to shed their egoic concepts and it’s beautiful. I believe true Christianity turned into political and material battles that mean nothing when meeting Christ. With gnostic concepts I found Christ and most people will judge and debate this believing conversion and missionaries are for growing their physical church but I will tell you the church isn’t some physical thing and works more like a WiFi heart connection of all that are ready. There are some strange gnostic books for sure but there are some strange Christian traditions that people believe too. When the Holy Spirit truly wakes you up to the inner Christ there is no reason to debate anyone about it. I get sad by all the judgment and fear that is thrown at gnostic traditions. As Christ appears in this age I am willing to bet it will and is the modern claimed Christian’s that will condemn and deny just as the Pharisees and Sadducee’s of the last age. Humans keep repeating the same patterns again and again.
Go inward and learn to know thyself. LET GO OF FEAR. Do not fear god, love god. Good luck on the path. ❤😊
If nothing else, this conversation reveals how laughable sola scriptura is.
Your pandering comment is laughable.
This is why it is pointless to talk to Christian intellectuals about spirituality. They take everything you say and refilter it through their Christian context and respond to that. Peterson isn't really listening. He's recasting everything from his perspectives so he's really having a conversation with himself while the guest serves only as the occasional prompt to work from.
He’s responding to specific things he says.
I know what you’re talking about though and I don’t think it’s profitable either.
it’s all ideologues. they aren’t open minded and aren’t interesting in stepping into someone else’s worldview.
That's a problem but not a Christian one
You are upset that atheist s don't get to frame Christianity the way they want? This is ridiculous.
Gnosticism may as well be called the Gospel of the Serpent
This just might be the best comment section I have ever came across
Alex has gone so far and beyond in these religious discussions. Great to see him debate the absurd details despite religion already being absurd at face value.
The young man obviously needs more work with his interpretation, not realizing the explosion from the Garden and prohibition from the Tree was an act of God's Grace...
You need work on interpreting fiction from reality
@@BallJuiceOfZeusyou, as an atheist, need to demonstrate an obligation to do ANYTHING
Explosion?
There are countless interpretations of this and other passages. The young man, Alex O'Conner, is one who studied Theology at Oxford and no doubt is very aware of these variations. He is a brilliant young man and has a channel that I highly recommend!
Jordan should let him talk, he wouldn't like it if he was being interrupted that much, i like Dr. P but still, my point is valid.
His old videos where he is teaching his class at university are really good.
🙄😀
It struck me as a sort of nervous laughter coming from JP during some of the interruptions. I wonder if he was a little intimidated by him? Maybe he was just genuinely thrilled about their discussion.
Well obviously Dr. Peterson is a not a disciple of the Lord because he does not believe in the physical resurrection and is ashamed to stand for the name Jesus or Yeshua, but nonetheless we are all grateful for his work and hope and pray that he aligns his acted out faith with his mouth - because both is needed to be saved, be it the first one is more difficult in general, but if you are famous I can see that the second one becomes difficult as well.
Existentialism and sacrifice to your future self will not bring you into the kingdom of God. Christ is the door and no amount of symbols, archetypes or neurological structures will change that.
Cheers
Where did he say he does not believe in the physical resurrection? Certainly not in this video.
It is not for you to say who is, and who is not, a disciple of Jesus Christ. God's heart is larger and more encompassing than any mere human heart can ever be. OnlyHe can judge.
@@handsomegiraffe I read both of his books, plan to read maps of meaning, watched multiple interviews, podcasts, am almost finished with all of his lectures, literally I listened hundreds of hours to this man speaking. Believe me when I say that not once has he preached the gospel nor has he stood up for the name Jesus Christ as the messiah who died for your sins so. He is an existentialist and if in his heart of hearts he actually believes, then he is ashamed of the name.
@@kathleenhensley5951 God gave me an intellect and eyes. Who are you to say that what I said is not very carefully articulated and well thought through sister?
The core issue to understand is this: until you stop treating the Bible’s narrative as literal, these are the kinds of videos we’ll get-all barking up the wrong tree.
id love to see jordan peterson discuss the lds doctrine
Something important to note, the philosophies of Marxism, Gnosticism, Satanism all share an underlying theme which can be summed up as the Luciferian philosophy. Essentially it is the opposite of Christianity, in that it holds Man himself as having the ability to be above morality or to dictate morality (no action is considered right or wrong) and therefore that makes them “God” (the lie of the serpent in Genesis) and because they think they are “God” ALL actions, both good and evil, are a form of divinity. Instead of man reaching up to God, this philosophy brings God down to man’s level.
On the other hand, Christian’s are taught by Jesus to believe exactly the opposite, and live their lives dedicated to humility, love, compassion and charity for all. Complete selflessness.
Way to tell us you don't understand Marxism without telling us.
Gnosticism doesn't opose Chirst or his teachings. Christ advocated acountabilit multiple times. That's what Gnosticism is about. If you would read the gnostic text's you'd learn real reason why Paul was named rock. The compasion and love are alien to Old Testiment, since those who follow it worship the true Satan like being Yaltabaoth. Yeshua talks about it multiple times, that that's not a true loving father figure, John 8:44.
If you would read Gnostic text's you'd learn that Yaltabaoth and it's demons, after realising they cannot corrupt Yeshua, decided they will corrupt his message by possesing the appostles. Your claims are baseless because they arise from your ignorance.
@@Letsbecalmandhealthy Yes,and Gnosticism and marxism are polar apposites,one is absolute spirit while the other total matter,severely futile making people war each other based on their differences (in this case,class),something the "god" of this world would certainly do.
Marx ruined Hegel's ideals.
THANK YOU. I'm SO tired of James Lindsay bashing Gnostics as Marxists. Gnosticsm literally holds some of the oldest spiritual wisdom the West has. We've got enough people bashing Western culture.
I really dislike gnosticism but I have to admit James Lindsey sees them under his bed and in his closet
To be fair, what I've seen him do is bash Marxists as Gnostics, not Gnostics as Marxists. He considers Marxism to be a type of Gnosticism, not that Gnosticism is a type of Marxism.
@@matthewsmith5967 Marxists are anti-Gnostic. As with everything else, they co-opted & inverted it. Gnosis is meant to be PERSONAL. It's a system of self-help & learning how to be the best YOU. It doesn't mean you know better than everyone else how the world should be.
Actual Gnosticism threatens Marxism because it offers people personal empowerment & accountability.
The Truth, the way and the light are in Jesus Catholic Church!🙏🏻
☦️
Child molesters are also in the catholic church 🙏
catholic church was a pagan church during jesus lifetime. why would you trust the roman pagan church who killed jesus as an authority on the bible
The Church father Alex alluded to in the beginning was Saint Ignatius of Antioch, a student of Saint John the Apostle, and Bishop of one of the 4 main Cathedras. He is way more reliable than any random gnostic text written by randoms.
Titles dont make someone an authority on anything
@@Typexviiib How exactly? He was a student of one of the apostles, and he was Bishop of one of the 4 Cathedras. Bishops also need to be validly ordained as priests in order to be bishops… so yet titles matter.
@@legendman97 if the question is whether enron or exon mobile (or both) are involved in accounting fraud, being a high placed executive in enron does not make your claims more valid than a random exon mobile employee. In fact many high placed enron executives with very fancy degrees from prestigious accounting schools are known to have lied. Lots of people have also lied about being best friends with someone to try to look more important.
Theres no real evidence to support any of these claims, theyre just claims made by people with a very vested interest in people believing they are true.
If a general in the us military says the burn pits are safe, does that keep the nameless private manning them get less cancer? Like, i could go on for days with examples of people having positions of power that are known liars.
@@legendman97 further, to get on topic. We have no actual evidence that ignatius ever met john. He doesnt ever mention john in any of his letters, which is pretty odd considering. He was largely concerned with convincing people to listen to bishops and not jewish teachings, which is one reason i particularly dont care about his status in the church. It’s very self aggrandizing
@@Typexviiib there is evidence Eusebius made it clear, plus he was Bishop of one of the 4 cathedras at the tome John was still alive.
I was Adam, I'll be sharing a lot with you Jordan in the future. :)
So serious! These guys! So SERIOUS!
Fascinating conversation
I’ve been really interested in Genesis for the past few months and I’m in agreement with Alex. It’s so fascinating that most people don’t read the text like that.
My friends, the rambling shows signs of question. Both are as important as the other. He has risen, your turn. ❤️✝️
It doesn’t say “you will die”.
It says you will rot if you eat of it.
I have to admit this was quite fascinating, locking in to my own field of interest. Jeez, me saying JP has got interesting stuff to tell!
I like the jacket Jordan. Interesting talk.
I wonder if the gnostics would think that discussions like this reflect thinking too much about things, over thinking rather than trying to experience 🤔
But that’s the question isn’t it. Experience What? God, Jesus, Mother Earth. Fundamental Truth is unknowable by the individual. An individual may very well have his or her, “own truth” determined by their feelings and experiences but can that with any certainty represent fundamental truth? I’d argue your experiences can open doors but you should always maintain fidelity to some rational epidemiological and hermeneutical basis, especially in theology but also in empirical science. Consider Newton’s “Laws” lasted less than 400 years and Darwin considerably less than that.
@@SaltShack yes you can experience gnosis. Many many things, even god.
@@Sourcemind333 Respectfully, not an answer. The question is how can you know? What epistemology can gnostics apply to suggest that their experience of God is true and correct?
@@SaltShack respectfully, experience is what it is, it’s contact with the noumena. If you have never experienced anything though it is very hard to understand Gnosticism. When you experience such phenomena you are left in no doubt about what happened.
@@Sourcemind333 I think you might be misreading Immanuel Kant, one and two you have offered no epistemological framework to suggest that what you are hoping to or have experienced is not imaginary, neurotic or the influence of, shall we say the enemy.
The ultimate rightness of righteousness as found in Christ as the embodiment of heaven on earth is really the primary crux of any winning argument for Christianity. Unmerited favor that shows us our own flaws to better ourselves and others.
May suggest reading or listening James B. Jordan on this question of the garden and the fruit.
When people in these comments mention the earliest manuscripts do not mention the ressurection. They do not mean the earliest chapter in the present bible. They mean literal historical manuscripts wrote almost 2000 years ago. These in fact show the resurrection was added later on. At least to Mark if I'm not mistaken, and maybe even Matthew and Luke.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are two of the earliest complete New Testaments. Both reference the resurrection extensively. There is no hope for Gnosticism, it’s too thoroughly debunked. It was just a group of people so far removed good instruction that deceived many others. Christ warned us of that.
@@brd6184 Im sorry but you have cognitive dissonance here. I mentioned earliest because I mean EARLIEST. You have just cherry picked 4th century sources. Pre 4th century as far as I’m aware it’s not there. And these sources exist so just go check them out and be open minded instead of clinging onto a narrative that confirms your belief.
Oh ye I’m not a gnostic.
@@dombing9101 this is true. i dont get why people trust the romans as an authority on the bible when it was the romans who killed jesus and funnily enough killed the gnostics. seems like the are hiding something. Christians today (and most other religious groups ) are for the most part following a government issued religion. and government want control.
Because if they ate from the Tree of Life they would have been lived forever after in sin, sanctified in that state. It was a gracious act, merciful.
If the Garden is presence and grace, the tree of knowledge and evil is ego and belief in separation.
Another important hypothetical question to consider is since the story has no time frame and except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil every tree is free for them to eat, and since the tale didnt mention how long after their creation the pair decided to nourish themselves and therefore can be easily assumed that since there was no prohibtion on the other trees it is very plausible that they would have also eaten from the tree of life. It is therefore a forgone conclusion what God would have done to the forbidden tree for obvious reasons, and as a consequence Christ would no longer be in the picture for mankind would be forever in paradise freely doing the will of God.