“The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. “-Luke 17:21
The real question about the garden of Gesthemane is if Jesus went off on his own to pray and all the disciples fell asleep ... how did the writers that documented the event know what his prayer contained at all?
Thank you for putting so much work into these lectures . I downloaded all that I could to listen too at work and while driving and have learned a lot in doing so. Thank you.
thank you for your work! I am in theological studies in France, first year, and since I am a full time father and no time your work helps me a lot focusing things out.
Accusations of heresy depend on where you are coming from. If a Christian, of the period, could describe Gnosticism as a heresy which made use of pagan philosophies, a Gnostic, of the period, could say the same about Christianity. Christianity gained its victory as the standard against which all others are judged when it became the official religion of Rome. When that happened suppression took over debate.
If you decide to revisit this subject could you go over the different schools of Gnosticism? Also it would be really interesting if you included a look at the Pistis Sophia vs the Nag Hamadi? thanks for the videos
21:15 - I wonder though, whether Michelangelo had something like this in mind: the woman under God's left arm is believed to be Eve, not yet created but existing already in God's mind.
Would Calvinists qualify as gnostic? They tend to believe in this notion of saving faith (or belief in God) as a gift by God. Meaning, those who don't believe, simply haven't been given the knowledge to belief.
No, as that would be committing a category fallacy. Calvinists believe that a person may know the gospel but will not believe it UNLESS the Holy Spirit gives light and understanding to that person. Saving faith is a gift because it origins from God, hence 'sola fide.' Knowing is not the same thing as believing. You may know that Muhammad claimed to be a prophet yet not believe it. You may know that the earth is round but not believe it.
Professor Reeves, i am very grateful for your videos, and to be granted a view of history that is very accurate and well spoken. My Professor of Medieval History would love your channel, please keep making more videos.
What is certain is that Gnosticism was not produced solely from Christianity. As you said, a common misconception about Gnosticism is that it was a defined religion. But then you go on saying that Gnosticism did not predate Christianity; nor that the latter was influenced by Gnosticism. OK, consider this: Look at the Nag Hammadi texts: The gnostic elements are from other traditions; ranging from neo-platonic, hermetic and various native "pagan" religions. How can it be clearly defined that gnosticism did not influence Christianity? Or take the example canonical Gospel of John: would you consider the it as not having Gnostic Elements? How can then Gnosticism not predate Christianity? Can you say Christianity was already formed before the Gospel of John? I know that academia refers to the term "Gnosticism" as a particular set of early (and recurring) christian heresies characterised by X and/or Y elements". And I know where the German school went with their desperation for uncovering a "hidden" esoteric universal theology. But aren't we getting too afraid of the subject? I think we may get caught in a net of references and blunt terms. Gnostics did not call themselves nor recognise each other as "Gnostics" as they are indicated by authors like Irenaeus. And what stops me in matching similarities between gnostic concepts from Eastern Mediterranean and - let's say - early Buddhist thought? Would calling out buddhism as a crypto-gnostic sect be wrong? Probably yes - but not becuase we don't have statues of Buddha with a toga from ancient roman sites - but mostly because gnosticism is so closely tied out of caution with christian sources, when in today's minds it clearly relates to a wider archetypal thought-current characterised by anti-somatism and/or anti-cosmism.
Nyarlantothep. Most of the gnostics were considered heretics (mostly the syncretisms with other traditions), but some were orthodox. All the early monasteries were gnostics and invented the hesychasm which is an orthodox gnosis (not gnosticism which is considered heretic). There is an esoteric mouvement in both orthodox and catholic churches, but they are very discrete.
I've recently been reading the translated texts from nag hammadi , and while I don't care about heresy or sacrilege per se as I don't practice, i think you have a good grasp here of what the gnostics believed as I understand it. I see that you are a scholar. Are you familiar with 'hermeticism'? Its texts have very similar dualist themes throughout and there were (just two or three) Hermetic texts in the nag hammadi codices. Did hermeticism help inform the doctrines of gnosticism, or is hermeticism a later invention ?
Thank you for this fine lecture. As always. I particularly like the way you point out the modern derivatives, appearances, or „incarnations“, of these diverse ideas cropping up in the early christian church. It helps understanding your topics a lot.And I could actually hear your students, when you declined an enactment of Yoda’s voice, going „Awh!“
It sounds as if it was a marketing choice. Secret knowledge & self-denial will only draw a particular crowd, whereas the flavor of Christianity embraced by the powers in places like Rome & Constantinople would be more useful to attract a larger crowd. Larger crowds mean more revenue, which leads to political & military advantage. So the message conveyed by particular passages such as Matthew 6:19-21 wouldn't speak to material-minded individuals. We see the same thing today in America, particularly with the faith-based prosperity cults which assure listeners that by demonstrating their faith with an offering (most usually of money) a person will cause the gates of the heavens to be thrown open & their god will make them bountiful. I'd call it a Ponzi scheme if people in lower tiers were actually paid. It's little more than swindling the easily duped into paying for a televangelist's ranch or private jet.
see I think the thing about the secret knowledge is that it's uncomfortable knowing it and it makes a person uncomfortable to know it. therefore you don't just want to go blowing down everyone's door waking them up. we've tried it and people resist. the analogy is waking a person up from sleeping with a bright light and they cover their eyes and yell at you. anyone who asks the right questions can come to the secret knowledge but it's not always so effective to teach it. I mean, if they taught it from birth I'm sure people wouldn't have any problems with it. but it kind of destroys the mystery of life just having all the answers right away. I would suggest that the purpose of life itself is for God to forget he is god to entertain himself in eternity. the process of returning to Brahman is the rediscovery of our godly selves. the process of creation is god making himself ignorant of his godliness. turning himself into us. it's easily provable logically. if all there was in the beginning was god, then how did he create everything? what did he create it from? himself. so what are we? divine.. I read in Hinduism that all of what we experience is samsara or the delusion of reality and that a yogi understands that experience itself is the shadow of purity. meaning this false reality being cave shadows plato was talking about. it means that underneath all of this is the true divine nature of God. but all of what we experience in this life is samsaric confusion. meaning God has purposely confused himself to create beings who do not know they are god. so god can be a fish or a blade of grass or the sun or a potato... what would you do if you were an eternal being? well you are and this is what you're doing...
to really know and understand the truth and to destroy all earthly desires in yourself and achieve eternal Bliss and happiness is indeed "life" destroying as you say. because God is content with being god. earthly pleasures are delusions that you need what is on earth it be happy. but then if true happiness is in god then why would God feel the need to delude himself to be us? well now that's why we exist.. god becomes unhappy with being perfectly blissful. he starts thinking. the Hindus again, call it god waking up. like god is asleep and then after a time wakes up and creates the universe again. so it's like god goes through stages or periods of eternal existential being that we happen to be a part of. we're talking about the fundamental aspects of existence here. if you say none of this is true then what do you replace it with? everything just is eternal.. that kind of thinking is how I personally came to these beliefs. through athiesm and philosophy brought me back to all this stuff. so you live then you die and that's it you're just dead.. and it's all just pitch black forever.. and you no longer have consciousness and life goes on elsewhere in the universe but your body died so now you are dead and your soul is dead and that's it it's just dark... well to believe that, you have to believe you are an individual soul for your soul to just go dark like that.. or if you say there is no soul and the universe is eternal ok well your body rots and becomes one with the universe again and your atoms go somewhere else.. matter is never created or destroyed in any process. unless you believe string theory that everything is a wave, all matter is waves bubbling up from potential energy. it's like life is just a game being g played between two sides. one side is coming up with as many theories as possible to forget our divinity and one side is coming up with theories to remember.. it's all divine tho.. the someone can come along and say it's not.. and that's why we're still here and still alive because we aren't willing to admit the truth to ourselves yet. we aren't ready to go back to sleep yet. or wake up from our confusion. we're too busy being blissful in this world to go back to our true self. or maybe eternity just is our true self and the sleeping eternal darkness eternal Bliss is the false reality. I mean there's always that question why is there pain and suffering? that's really a question you need to ask yourself. Buddhism helps deal with that issue. the four noble truths. there is suffering, there is a cause of suffering, there is an end to suffering, there are steps that lead to the end of suffering. sometimes suffering is just in your head. take your job for example. do you hate your job? do you love your job? why or why not? is your job really so terrible or do you actually enjoy it? are you making yourself suffer or are you allowing yourself to be blissful? when it's raining do you cry and say it's raining or do you smile and sing in the rain?
also, all knowledge is of this earth so all mysticism is of this earth. it's all illusion. all your thoughts, feelings and actions. of the earth. even all my explanations of what may or may not be the truth.. of the earth.. I mean, I got it from the earth.. my brain is of the earth.. my experience is of the earth.. everything I think is from my brain and experience of the earth.
The odd thing I keep running into is atheist claiming to be gnostic/atheist. This would seem to be a recent thing, as it sounds nothing like this. Probably the wrong topic. Anyone have a clue?
Actually, no. That was just a statement Lucas made as a broad-brushed generalization to help public perception. He has stated elsewhere that he implemented religious concepts from a *large variety* of influences while writing Star Wars, which is true. There have been many studies on it, as these are some of the most heavily analyzed films in history. Lucas is actually a classic display of Gnostic trait #3 in this presentation, thinking himself an elitist of sorts, adhering to what Manly P Hall called "the secret teachings of all ages." Lucas employs a heavy amount of New Age concepts in much of his work, and is actually a known acquaintance of Jordan Maxwell, a popular New Age / Theosophy teacher and activist. This can be seen very plainly in other work like Indiana Jones: KOTCS, where the plot heavily emphasizes crystal skulls, extra terrestrials, and Mayan prophesies. Total pre-2012 new age propaganda. If you know what to look for, the heretical and blasphemous Gnostic concepts in Star Wars are actually very obvious. Darth Vader is a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ, and the Emperor a representation of God. Vader is born of a virgin (the actress who plays his mother actually portrayed Mary in another film). The emperor even suggests in Episode 3 that he used the force to create Vader in his mother's womb. Vader is destroyed and the emperor resurrects him with a new body. After this, he joins the emperor in the creation of a massive empire which oppresses the galaxy and kills off the spiritual elite (Jedi), forcing the survivors into hiding. This clearly represents Christianity's overthrowing of paganism. The marching orders to kill the Jedi are even coded "Execute Order 66" referring to the 66 books of the Bible. In his first confrontation with Obi Wan and Padime after his transition to the dark side, Vader says "If you are not with me, then you are my enemy!" clearly quoting Jesus in Matthew 12;30 and Luke 11;23. These are some of the obvious ones, but the symbolism actually goes much, much, much deeper than this. It can be a hard pill to swallow for many people because of the extreme fandom and pop culture relevance, but Star Wars is unquestionably heavily rooted in wicked spiritual philosophies and myths.
The author of the video did not say Lucas pulled from Gnosticism. He made a comparison to Gnosticism and then said that Lucas pulled from ancient spirituality when he was putting together ideas for the Force.
Mr. Reeves. These teachings are great! I was wondering if there was a way to get them on DVD or some sort of download? I'm a Liberty University masters student studying church history and would love to have copies! Thanks
Gnosticism Greek for knowledge. Christian for some reason we should follow Christ. Christ taught the select few that He want them to be like Him not follow. Are we not created in God image. Which mean look in the mirror you might see God.
I found the first Matrix movie to be quite profound. The idea that we are trapped inside a false reality really rang true to me. Personally, I believe that in some way that's true. Satan has us trapped inside a delusion. Maybe not the physical world, but certainly our society is an illusion that's controlled by satan and his followers. By the way, I'm a convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. While I enjoy your teaching, I find that it is incomplete, taught entirely from a western perspective. You might want to study the Eastern Orthodox Church and learn about her teachings on theology and church history, in order to have a more well-rounded perspective. The eastern church fathers have a lot to say.
Thank you for the lecture Dr. Reeves. I've read a couple comment threads surrounding gnosticism, and what stands out to me is the theme of trying to explain away the origins of Christianity and religion in general. It also seems like Gnostics on these threads are often unsatisfied with any description about Gnosticism. This lecture didn't come across bias to me, so I think that's an indicator that it's more of a description of tendencies as opposed to an orthodox view. All the supposed knowing of religious origins reminds me of many points G.K. Chesterton made in The Everlasting Man. What I'd give to read an essay by Chesterton about something going on today.
One cannot understand the Christian faith from the outside. It cannot be understood through an intellectual pursuit. It must first be experienced. Therefore, fundamental key to understanding the Christian faith is a spiritual transformation of the heart through Jesus Christ that renews the mind. Otherwise, one cannot begin to comprehend the faith. I am so glad that I know God through Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Gordon-Conwell Alumnus)
Evelyn Gardiner so with ur logic in order to completely understand heroin, I'd have to become a full blown addict in order to realize truly that heroin is bad and destroys lives? I can't just make an objective based logical decision based upon evidence? Ur a fucking idiot. just listen urself sometimes.
I don't think you are 'hearing' her. By the way, I don't agree with her on balance, but I do agree that the way to 'salvation'is NOT through the mind. Logic? Logic is a 'mind program' extremely useful when used correctly. But logic is not all encompassing. Conker, if you are 'living' through your mind,you are just ruminating.
He was using an analogy. You said you can't truly know the Christian faith unless you experience it and he said under that logic, one can't truly know the adverse effects of heroine unless they experience it. I kind of agree. You don't truly know something until you experience it.
Superb explanation of the dualism of physical and spiritual existence. I wish the Church would devote more time to historical contemplation. It provokes a certain introspection that informs our Faith and shapes our understanding of Creation and order.. Thank you for sharing this.
The question I often ask?, every time a new discovery is deemed Gnostic Is, is Gnosticism a catchall for every Text with questionable author or dating by Historians ? Because it seems the Gnostic's were responsible for a Huge block of work in a short time?
I've a question since you brought up genesis. In genesis 1 God created everything including man...... In genesis 2 This The LORD God guy turns up. Where did he come from? and the genesis 2 account of creation is at odds with genesis 1.
What do you mean it's at odds? Will you please be more specific? It's common in the Torah to find the same story twice from two different perspectives.
The earliest Hebrew writings (which were rehashed many centuries later) were themselves only written between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, so they were not likely to be that authentic in their telling of history from thousands of years before. Indeed, it was plain that this would be the case, because when these books were first written their express purpose was to convey a history which upheld the principles of the Jewish faith - a faith that did not emerge until well into the ancestral story. Given that the first group of these books was written while the Jews were held captive in Mesopotamian Babylon in the 6th century BC, it is apparent that Babylon was where the original records were then held. In fact, from the time of Adam, through some 19 said generations down to Abraham, the whole of Old Testament patriarchal history was Mesopotamian. More specifically, the history was from Sumer in southern Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), where the ancient Sumerians did indeed refer to the grasslands of the Euphrates delta as the *Eden*. CHRIST WAS NOT A JEW, the Galileans were descended from the sumerians and were different from the Judeans to the south. The people of Galilee were not Hebrew but in the course of time had adapted the Hebrew religion. We might even speculate that they had retained some remnants of the long-forgotten religion of sumeria, the real origin of the Hebrew religion. The Hebrew religion became known as Judaism, and later, actually only in the 18th century were the Judeans called "Jews". However, since that time translators of the Bible have used the word "Jew" back to the beginning of the Bible using it in place of Judean. The early leaders of the Hebrew tribe close to the time of their embracing the sumerian religion knew what they were about. *_They wrote their history and Biblical stories to conform to their new-found religion, effectively blotting out the history of sumeria_* It can be concluded that the "Jews" knew in Christ's own time that he was not a "Jew" and have known since then, but it has been a great advantage to the Jewish cause for them to further this belief since it implies a prominent superiority of the Jew over the Christian subconsciously in the minds of Christians, while the Jew himself has continued as a group to despise Christianity. The Hebrew people were a tribe whose history is known only back a few centuries BC. They were not capable of the high civilization attained by the sumerians. In studying the substance of the Old Testament prior to its corruption, one fact which becomes increasingly clear is that in English-language Bibles the definition ‘Lord’ is used in a general context, but in earlier texts a positive distinction is drawn between ‘Jehovah’ and ‘the Lord’. It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews led them through trials and tribulations, floods and disasters, when (from time to time) he appears to have performed with a quite contrary and merciful personality. The answer is that, although now seemingly embraced as ‘the One God’ by the Jewish and Christian churches, there was originally a distinct difference between the figures of Jehovah and the Lord. They were, in fact, quite separate deities. The god referred to as ‘Jehovah’ was traditionally a storm god, a god of wrath and vengeance, whereas the god referred to as ‘the Lord’ was a god of fertility and wisdom. *The God of Abraham was called ‘El Shaddai’, which means ‘Lofty Mountain’. The apparent name ‘Jehovah’ came from the original Hebrew stem YHWH, which meant ‘I am that I am’ - said to be a statement made by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, hundreds of years after the time of Abraham*. ‘Jehovah’ was therefore not a name at all, and early texts refer simply to ‘El Shaddai’ and to his opposing counterpart, ‘Adon’. To the Canaanites, these gods were respectively called ‘El Elyon’ and ‘Baal’ - which meant precisely the same things (‘Lofty Mountain’ and ‘Lord’)* *_ In our modern Bibles, the definitions ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ are used and intermixed throughout, as if they were one and the same character, but originally they were not_*. One was a vengeful god (a people-hater), and the other was a social god (a people-supporter), and they each had wives, sons and daughters. There were two predominant and opposing gods, known as ‘El Elyon’ and ‘Baal’; ‘El Shaddai’ and ‘Adon’; ‘Arhiman’ and ‘Mazda’; ‘Jehovah’ and ‘Lord’; ‘God’ and ‘Father’. But these styles are all titular; they are not personal names. So who precisely were they? To find the answer we have to look no further than where these gods were actually operative, and the old Canaanite texts (discovered in Syria in the 1920s) tell us that their courts were in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian Eden delta of the Persian Gulf. But what did the ancient Sumerians call these two gods? What were their personal names? We can trace the Sumerian written records back to about 3700 BC, and they tell us that the gods in question were brothers. In Sumer, the storm god who eventually became known as Jehovah was called ‘Enlil’ or ‘Ilu-kur-gal’ (meaning ‘Ruler of the Mountain’), and his brother, who became Adon, the Lord, was called ‘Enki’. This name is really important to our story because ‘*Enki’ means ‘Archetype’* The Book of Genesis (in its English-translated form) tells us that Cain was ‘a tiller of the ground’. But this is not what the original texts say at all. What they say is that Cain had ‘dominion over the Earth’ - which is a rather different matter when considering his kingly status. In fact, the Bible translators appear to have had a constant problem with the word ‘Earth’, often translating it to ‘ground’, ‘clay’ or ‘dust’. But the early texts actually referred to ‘The Earth’. Even in the case of Adam and Eve, the translators got it wrong. The Bible says: ‘Male and female he created them, and he called their name Adam.’ The older writings use the more complete word ‘Adama’, which means ‘of the Earth’. But this did not mean they were made of dirt; it means that they were ‘of The Earth’ - or, as the Anchor Hebrew Bible explains in absolutely precise terms, they were ‘*Earthlings*’. *The Sumerian records state that Adam and Eve (known then as ‘Atabba’ and ‘Ava’, and jointly as the ‘Adama’) were purpose-bred for kingship at the House of Shimti by Enki and his sister-wife Nin-khursag*. In Sumerian, the word Shi-im-ti meant ‘breath-wind-life’. Nin-khursag was called ‘Lady of the Embryo’ or ‘Lady of Life’, and she was the surrogate mother for Atabba and Ava who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki. It was because of Nin-khursag’s title, Lady of Life, that Ava was later given the same title by the Hebrews. Indeed, the name Ava (or Eve) was subsequently said to mean ‘Life’. And there is an interesting parallel here, because in Sumerian the distinction ‘Lady of Life’ was Nin-tî (Nin meaning ‘Lady’, and tî meaning ‘Life’). However, another Sumerian word, ti (with the longer pronunciation, ‘tee’), meant ‘rib’; and it was by virtue of the Hebrews’ misunderstanding of the two words, tî and ti, that Eve also became incorrectly associated with Adam’s rib.
Each stone within the Great Pyramid is harmonically tuned to a specific frequency or musical tone. The sarcophagus in the centre of the Great Pyramid is tuned to the frequency of the human heart beat. www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/18/how-the-human-heart-functions-as-second-brain/ Astonishing experiments, conducted by Dr. Hurtak and colleagues at the Great Pyramid and other sites in the South Americas, demonstrate the pyramids to be voice-activated "geophysical computers." Intoning specific ancient sounds, the scientific team produced visible standing waves of light, above and within the pyramids and were even able to penetrate, hitherto, inaccessible chambers. Subsequent discoveries indicate the ancient priest-scientists employed some sort of harmonic sound technology within the temple structures. The lost Enochian knowledge reveals the mother tongue as a *"language of Light"*. Known to the ancients as *HIBIRU*. It is the primal seed language, introduced at the beginning of this time cycle. Modern research confirms, the most ancient form Hebrew to be a natural language, the alphabetic forms emerging from the phosphene flare patterns of the brain. The same shapes, in fact, born of a spinning vortex. It is a true language of light, coursing through our very nervous system. Encoding the natural waveform geometries of the physical world, HIBIRU is a harmonic language, mimicking the waveform properties of light. The "keys" Enoch speaks of, turn out to be sound keys, keys to be vibratory matrix of reality itself, the mythic "Power of the World". The Enochian knowledge describes sonic equations, encoded within the ancient mantras and god names, capable of directly affect the nervous system and producing profound effect of healing and higher consciousness states. As the ancient texts declare, "If you would speak with the gods you must first learn the language of the gods." DNA, the ancient cabalistic *"Tree Of Life"* portrayed in the Biblical Torah, is now coming to be viewed as a live vibrating structure, rather than a fixed tape recording. Many modern scientists, regard DNA as a shimmering, waveform configuration, able to be modified by light, radiation, magnetic fields or sonic pulses. _The legacy of Thoth/Enoch suggests this "language of Light", the harmonic science of the ancients, could actually affect DNA_. *The knowledge of Thoth/Enoch implies humans are meant to evolve beyond our present terrestrial form*, as the Bible tells us, "we may become greater than angels". The Egyptians record stories of the "Star Walkers", occasional individuals who, like Enoch, traveled "beyond the Great Eye of Orion" and returned, to walk like gods amongst men. Robert Bauval’s theory is that the three main pyramids of Giza conclusively represent Orion Despite the bleaching of semi-divine beings from modern consciousness, could it be possible, as the ancient texts insist, we are destined to "become as gods"?, are the Mayan *"Lords of Light"* and the Egyptian/Tibetan *"Shining Ones"* really a higher form of human or a hybrid (alien god/man)? www.theeventchronicle.com/metaphysics/spiritual/cosmic-rays-evolve-consciousness-transform-dna/ According to the "calendar in stone" of the Great Pyramid, which describes the so-called "Phoenix Cycle" of our galactic orbit, the present time period ends (converted to our present calendar) in the year 2012 AD. The Greek word PHOENIX, derived from the Egyptian word, PA-HANOK, actually means, "The House of Enoch". *This does NOT mean the world will end... but the Age*. We should then be entering the Age of Aquarius... an Age which promises to be filled with Hope and Love (not a new age belief, just pure SCIENCE) The discoveries emerging from Egypt, describe the existence of a world wide pyramid temple system in prehistory, mounted like antennae on the key energy meridians, which were employed by ancient priest-scientists as a musical system to stabilize the tectonic plates of the planet... cataclysmic geology at it's finest. From the mother tongue word JEDAIAH, meaning "the way of the Word" or "the power of the Word", the ancient JEDAI priests used the language of Light to tune the planet like a giant harmonic bell. *Enoch is Enki's grandson & some believe Thoth is a previous incarnation of Jesus* There has never been a time in mans history up to today when the oral and written records. the world over, speaks of is a Golden Age in which man and the gods (angels) freely and openly interacted - and all such records have prophesied that a time would come when a new Golden Age would occur and at that time all hidden truths will again be revealed. *Enoch, 39:1 - "In those days shall the elect and holy race descend from the upper heavens, and their seed shall then be with the sons of men."* *KNOWLEDGE IS THEIR POWER TO MIND SLAVE US IN A FICTIONAL WORLD, BUT AS PROPHECY SAID IN ENOCH 3.8 THE ELECT WILL COME TO FREE HUMANITY* The Mayan calendar is based on different time periods characterized by different spiritual qualities and when we go from one of these periods to another, a shift in consciousness takes place. Up until the year 2011 the Long Count wave consisted of thirteen so-called baktuns (time periods of *144,000* days or 394.3 common years), which shifted between seven peaks (or days) and six valleys (or nights). humansarefree.com/2011/05/bosnian-pyramids-great-cover-up-taking.html www.theeventchronicle.com/study/secrets-great-pyramids-revealed/ www.theeventchronicle.com/study/ancient-pyramids-high-frequency-power-stations/
"What do you mean it's at odds? Will you please be more specific? It's common in the Torah to find the same story twice from two different perspectives." The two chapters have a different order of creation that can't both be mutually true. In one you have the traditional story of Adam being created, then Eve being created from him later, in the other they're both identically created at the same time from mud, etc. They're at odds with each other. Stacy.... I don't... what? Christ was definitely a Jew, if not by race (debatable), he was at least wholly a Jewish worshiper. There's at least 3 Passovers he observed. He participated in the synagogue.
I usually like to read through a few of the comments after watching one of your lectures and this one stands out, considerably. It seems you have pushed more than a few buttons, and that quite a few are seemingly "protesting a bit too much". That's a good thing, I think. Great show! Thanks!
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7 All this authors/users posts and comments are All rights reserved.
It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that perfect propaganda must contain some truth. To believe there is no propaganda of an account created by the rulers of Rome smacks of illogical believers, that they would do no such thing. This is not to say that the Gnostics had it right either. If one cannot see it is all based on Greek style astrological concepts then your eyes are closed indeed.
I'm enjoying your lectures but this one is extremely biased, especially for an academic. Hopefully your students take you to task if you trot this out in the classroom.
I enjoy your lectures; but I think that this one on Gnosticism just added to the already existing confusion about what it is and isn't. The Nag Hamadi finds especially the gospel of Thomas and Mary, need serious study, as well as the gospel of Phillip. Specifically the relationship of Mary Magdalen and Jesus. It seems to me that although you warned yourself not to be too influenced by Iraneous, you in fact were. Gnosticism can't be compared in any way to Scientology. It is a much more profound belief system.
I was thinking the same thing about Scientology recently. Another way that it overlaps is that in Scientology is that human beings are, i think, these kinds of spirits or Thetans, or we need to rid ourselves of Thetans. Either way, there is a dualism that favors the spiritual over the physical and all its dysfunctions. Scientology's creation myth never made all that much sense to me, or even why Scientology has one at all, until I started thinking about it that way, in relation to Gnosticism.
Everyone has a bias doesn't mean that this author of these videos doesn't present much factual information. He does a great service with these videos but knowledge is something we should constantly seek and question. Clearly this gentlemen has an evangelical background and that's fine. I'm a Christian aswell I don't agree with all his views on history and philosophy. All information you consume has to be taken on faith. But I like to question all of it as much as I can as everyone should especially my atheist friends
I only today found your channel and I find your work to be well done. Will definitely be checking out more of them. Gnosticism is alive and well today and deeply infects modern "Christianity," including that going to heaven thing especially. That idea has no basis in Scripture. (Minor proofreading catch: Double quotation mark needed at the end of the Yoda quote around 17:47-ish. And the ellipsis you used there is not needed as nothing has been omitted. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.")
I love your educated view on Christianity even though I am soft deist. Most of the time it feels like Christians have not developed their beliefs beyond their first reading of a children's book on Noah. That does bring up a question. It seems like this hate of the "icky" material world keeps cropping up again and again. It seems like a common thread through humanity. Why do you think this keeps happening? What urge in humans makes us keep coming up with the concept or accepting it when we hear it?
God first man of the dust of the earth and breathed into him and he became a living soul. The last man Jesus Christ was not earthly but came directly from God as His son and by faith in Jesus Christ we become born again. The key to understanding all this is by the Holy Spirit when you become born again by faith or accepting Christ into your heart. You become equipped with the Holy Spirit to understand a lot more than you do now.
Assuming that Jesus really existed, how can you say that Jesus was resurrected? Lazarus was resurrected. He was dead and buried and then Jesus called him out of the tomb. Lazarus came out, and was received by his family and went on to live in the physical world. Jesus supposedly came out of the tomb but could not be touched by his wife, Mary Magdalene. After several people saw Jesus, Jesus went up to heaven mounted on a cloud. That is not what resurrection.
+rico1357 // Great questions. A lot of the issue will not turn on the facts, per se, as they will how we approach the facts. So it's an issue of interpretation. I'm afraid on this, those who want to discredit the NT witness will always doubt the resurrection, while those who trust the faithfulness of the story will find it credible. For me the issue is in part how the story is told in the Gospels. They of course describe it as a miracle, but the evidence they repeatedly say is based on eyewitnesses that have given their testimony. They say they not only saw Jesus, but ate with him, spoke with him, touched his side. The part about Mary Magdalene not touching Jesus is not that she cannot touch him (as if he is a ghost), but Jesus commanding her not to grab him as if he is going to go back to his normal life and ministry around Judea. Most Christians read the context of that story and note that Mary is psyched about Jesus being back but he is telling her to stop and realize that things are different now that he is resurrected. Does this solve all the interpretive issues? No. Again the issue is one of worldview: how do you approach a text like the Bible? Cynically, trusting, hostile, positive? We don't determine the meaning--plenty of people can admit the Bible says Jesus was resurrected but that won't convince them. Of course, for Christians they find the stories and texts compelling, but they also approach the subject with an eye of faith, having experienced a personal confrontation with Christ in conversion.
+rico1357 Can you give me the Text that states Mary M was the wife of Jesus? Also Lazarus was Not Sacrificed? But rather died as we do , Christ being a Sacrifice meant, not only did he die in the Flesh but that his Body was given as atonement for Sin To God.. Therefore It is in keeping with Scripture that Christ would receive a new body still bearing his Wounds as a testament to his followers..
+Ryan Reeves You accept the words in the Bible as facts, actual history. Just think about how it came to be. If science worked that way, let's not be confused by anything that disagrees, we would still be in the middle ages. You have a lot of knowledge about what agrees with your beliefs. I would like to hear a lecture on the other gospels available today. Those gospels need to be addressed on the same level as Mathew, Mark , Luke and John. We now know that the four accepted gospels are no more historical than any other exiting gospels.
+Tomasz Polska The four accepted gospels were not written by witnesses. Just like the gnostic gospels were written by unknown authors. Ask Mr Reeves he will tell you. Also Jesus was not resurrected. He merely appeared to the apostles to deliver his message and then he disappeared never to return. Lazarus was resurrected and lived among his relatives and friends. Jesus thought he was returning in the near future. He did not. You want to believe the lies of the christian churches, go ahead if it makes you happy.
actually the jews believe tht the created world as you call it teach the same thing. and considering these are jewish texts in particular iwould say they know wht they are talking abt. this is not a "gnostic" teaching unless you consider the essenes were the gnostics which is possible. considering Jesus was an essene and rejected the jewish leaders of his day. so the essenes would be the early gnostics? the jews believe the creator God is not the knowable God but his creations is wht we know of as angels and demons relate directly with us.
Very informative lecture, as are your other talks that I've watched and heard. I have reason to believe that Kabbalah (an offshoot of Judaism), is the religion of Freemasonry, although, Freemasonry is referred to in the traditional Catholic movement as a religion unto itself, mostly. We have proof that John XXIII was a Freemason and Communist, and thus: Paul VI created the Counterfeit Catholic Church after the council of apostasy which was Vatican II. If they can take over the Catholic Church after 200 years of dedicated infiltration, they will kick over the Protestant Church as easily as last night's wine bottle, if the Freemasons chose to do so.
God said in the Scriptures that He is not a man and He never changes. The Gnostics preached that God changed into a man named Jesus - in total opposition to the Word of God.
Hep Hopa - They all deny that Jesus came in the flesh - they believe that a triune being came, who was both God and man, which is very consistent with the gnostic God-man deity they've worshipped since the triune gods of Babylon, Egypt and Samaria.
ElCineHefe. Check the Valentinian cosmognoy. There were dozens of aeons, not only 3 ... For them Jesus came on earth but he has an illusion body (as body is bad..). Most of them were docets.
A major problem with these early lectures is the implicit suggestion that Christianity is an unproblematic strand, and that other views span off from it as errors. I think that the reality is more that a mass of ideas, thrown up by the Alexandrine exposure, mixed together in the Levant, at the time of the anxiety caused by the Roman Occupation and the destruction of Jerusalem. led to one position, orthodoxy being adopted by Constantine as a means of uniting his Empire. Orthodoxy has suppressed, murdered and burnt people of other opinions. You say Gnosticism is a trend or tendancy, but then you emphatically state that this "tendancy" does not exist prior to Christianity (by which you mean Orthodox Christianity) even though you say it involves a mish-mash of Platonic ideas etc (So obviously the tendancy does precede Christianity). The Gospel of John ridicules "Thomas" - He who does NOT "believe" but has to "Know". Then they reduce him to putting his fingers into the physical wounds. This is not only a deliberate misrepresentation of the Thomasine position, but shows the Thomas Opinions was extant at the time "JOHN" was written. So Thomas preceded the Gospel of John. 1) The World is a virtual reality. (Study Modern Quantam Mechanics) 2) The Light - Christ if you like - is within, and the task is to locate it within 3) The hierarchy of the Church is worthless, and should be shunned as being merely of material concern. The Orthodox Church Murders people, and burns people. Gnostics do not Murder people. Your bias here is disgusting
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock In reference to number 1, I think you might enjoy listening to Chuck Missler talk about the nature of our multi-dimensional existence. Some of his lectures have been posted here to youtube.
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock with up so floating many bells down: What criteria do you use for the gospel of Thomas' legitimacy, how do you reconcile the findings of secular antiquarians who judged it to be too modern a text to have been written by the alleged author?
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock This is to Anna Nimus (haha). I write the reply here because I received an email notification of your comment, but cannot find it online. Your comment, as I received it was:- +PrettyHowTown Prufrock with up so floating many bells down: What criteria do you use for the gospel of Thomas legitimacy, how do you reconcile the findings of secular antiquarians who judged it to be too modern a text to have been written by the alleged author? Personally I doubt that there was ever a person called, Thomas in first or second century Palestine. I also doubt that the Gospel of John was written by John the Divine (John Mark)... whatever name you like. I put the word Thomas in inverted commas to flag it as a name given to a tradition, rather than that of an actual person. I am unsure of the reasoning that suggests the Gospel of Thomas is too modern a work. Antiquarians (if that is the right word) would date the parchment and ink etc, and that could tell you the date of a particular document. The style of the text, aphorisms, definitely places the document in a tradition separate from that of the synoptic and John traditions. However, Thomas is specifically mentioned, and the gnostic position is ridiculed within the text of John. Whenever the actual text was written down, it is clear that the gnostic point of view was extant at the time John was written in order for John to ridicule it. It is John that associates this tradition with Thomas. Consequently it is clear that the gnostic view was well known enough to be criticised BEFORE John was written, all of which I stated in my original post. Having said all that, I am very pleased other people still read poetry :)
PrettyHowTown Prufrock I must have hit reply to the wrong post? I agree that Gnosticism existed prior to Christianity...at the least within the same time. The Essenes were believed to have been gnostic Jews.
I think by the time of the Buddha, most new religions are just a mishmash of elements of other more established religions with a dash of novelty sprinkled into it, usually for the purpose of changing a status quo in social status. I use the Buddha as a time reference, because by then the trans-Asian trade was being established and religious inventions travels quickly along the trade routes. Buddhism itself puts a spin on Vedism and early Hinduism, in an attempt to break the caste system. Christianity obviously is a spin off of Judaism with elements borrowed from other popular religions at the time of Jesus. So it's really no surprise mishmash religions, such as Gnosticism, keep popping up through out human history. Outside of Europe, such religions are less ridiculed, mainly because there's no government sponsored church organizations passing judgments on whether or not some claims are heresies. So the evolution of religions are more organic, with less heads rolling on the floor.
Ryan seems to be threatened by the truth and beauty of Gnosticism. He prefers to bury his head in the sand and promote the corrupt dogmas of orthodox Christianity. We shouldn't rock the boat when there's still plenty money to be made out of the Good Book, eh Ryan?
I wonder if the Gnostic's snobbery had anything to do with their downfall? I do not consider myself religious but I have read many of C.S. Lewis's books on Christianity, and he was a great man.
Stating our own opinions as fact, and baldly asserting fantastical things that have not been demonstrated seems to be a theme in these videos and of religion in general.
I too thought that such a supernatural concept as "god" was completely nonsensical and that metaphysics was based entirely in the material (or at least so far as we could examine), but after understanding more philosophical concepts, my understanding of the metaphysical took a step closer to that which can be called the supernatural. I suggest starting with Platonism; Plato posits that certain concepts exist outside of this reality on a separate plane entirely; think numbers, logic, shapes, etc. That's why I like Gnosticism, many tenants of Gnosticism are influenced by logical philosophical reasoning, which to me, gave credibility to certain aspects of monotheism. The Spinozan god is equally as interesting; Spinoza (in a very brief layman's summary) believed that the entirety of nature and reality is God, and that we are thus an extension of God. God in these senses isn't personified and is instead the great force that binds all reality and that which lies beyond it. Think of God in terms of the "Prime Mover", God is totality and all of the interactions that happen within it. I think many smart people like to go through a very positivist and empirical phase at least once in their life, but being stuck in it forever only narrows your perception and truly robs you of the vast amount of possibilities to consider when discussing metaphysics.
Au contrair. The council of Nicea was inspired. Inspired by lions. They had the emperor Constantine looking over their shoulders. He decided what went into the bible. And He wanted his empire to be run by the Christians. Christ chose 12 disciples, Constantine whittled it down to four. Christ said " Seek and do not stop looking until you find. When you find you will be perplexed, ebb perplexed, astounded, and rule over all". Constantine said " There is only one ruler here, and it is Me." So the gospel of Thomas was removed. And thus the bible was edited. It is a work of propaganda.
For Michael Horton to claim that issues from' New Age or liberal, to evangelical or Pentecostal...are Gnostic'...is beyond ridiculous and shows how deeply short sighted and uninformed this person is, and Mr. Reeves is embarrassing himself by referring to such comments.
See Genesis 2:7 >> 7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. " >> ** The spirit (soul) was created FIRST, then said spirit was 'breathed' in the physical body. Read the Bible before you preach !! You must be called of God to teach others.
Joojoooo; The main question that arises during many discussion “Did Jesus exists”. The answer among the majority of scholars (me included) is “YES” as a man, not what is painted so many years after his death. Modern Christianity has more to do with the Christian religion and less to do with the historical Jesus.
The way he explains the basic principles of Gnostics it could almost come off as anti-Jewish. My theory is if Jewish people follow the old testament God and that god is the lesser god because he created the physical world according to this video and they're that God's chosen people and anybody else who isn't a jew well I guess we're out of luck if you aren't Jewish because he won't love you. And if the old testament god is a material god it could explain why Jews usually have money can anybody say House of Rothschild . Even as a kid I always wondered why the old testament God is so cruel and the new testament God is the total opposite. It was like it was two different gods so watching this video kind of made sense of it. Im not saying its true just interesting. So if the material god is somewhat evil does that make Jews somewhat evil for following that god according to Gnosticism. This could be one of the root causes for anti -Judaism in the past and possibly in future. I'm not anti- Jewish just a thought I had on how someone can interpret it that way. What do you guys think?
Christianity strikes me as an overly complicated series of mental gymnastics. That's why I converted to Islam -- proper monotheism, unified scripture, and no mental gymnastics.
Seems to me the Early Church Fathers to a man were Roman Catholics. Funny how those who learned Christianity from the Apostles themselves were all Roman Catholics. "The gates of hell shall not prevail." Hmmm.............
Actually most of them lived in the East and spoke not at all to the bishop of Rome. But it sounds as if this is a fundamental conviction and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Roman Catholic, so I'm not sure how to comment fully. But the term Roman Catholic is medieval and arises out of development during those centuries, not here.
Ryan Reeves Roman Catholic = Person who recognizes and is subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. In the early Councils the bishops would say to the papal legates: "Peter himself has spoken to us through [name of reigning Roman bishop here]!"
Bear Man Roman Catholic is a moniker the Anglicans gave us referring to those who remained subject to the Bishop of Rome. The Rite used in the Western Church is properly called the Latin Rite (though it is rarely in Latin anymore). Beware of revisionist history.
Let me explain the person above is using Roman Catholic....of course that was adopted fairly recently. Were speaking of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (or the Roman Catholic church). When you say the Fathers did not speak with Rome you are flat out misleading people. Frequent correspondence was had with the Chair of Peter. In fact the earliest of Fathers were always pointing to Rome to remain orthodox and united. Even Clement was corresponding to the communities and making binding decisions even before the last apostle died. Its interesting to see the Church Fathers from a protestant point of view. Its almost as if you all try to eliminate the Catholicism for them. Yet all of them believed in the Eucharist (real presence) NOT a SYMBOL! Most were bishops in the RC.
This apologist view of Gnostics, atypical exoteric perspective from a fundamentalist christian, all head with little or no heart. This Christian dogma ,now approaching oblivion, the epoch of Peter as we now are entering the mystical epoch of John.
we don't even know any of this existed we are all going on what others said about jesus but you have never heard from jesus yourself so all of you are under an illusion
+Stone Actually Bart Ehrman's new book " Historical Jesus " offers conclusive evidence that Jesus was an historical figure .. Also Mr Ehrman is an Atheist..
He makes the claims to be both?.. his interview is on U tube .actually he was known by the Atheist community as an atheist then he shocked them by claiming personally to be an Atheist but as a scientist he was agnostic? Richard Dawkins makes the same split personality claim? personally I say pick a side!
No such thing as sin -the way people behave is determined by their genes and the environment over which we have very limited control.John Stuart Mill declared tell me absolutely everything there is to know about a person and i can predict exactly what he's going to do next -the whole Christian narrative is every bit as fanciful and mythological as all the other myths and legends of all the other religions.
“The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. “-Luke 17:21
i think i might have been gnostic without even knowing it
The real question about the garden of Gesthemane is if Jesus went off on his own to pray and all the disciples fell asleep ... how did the writers that documented the event know what his prayer contained at all?
I never considered myself Gnostic, just called that by Catholics too polite to call me a heretic.
Thank you for putting so much work into these lectures . I downloaded all that I could to listen too at work and while driving and have learned a lot in doing so. Thank you.
The real secret of true gnosis is that only an actual soul bears witness to eternal truth. 🍃
thank you for your work! I am in theological studies in France, first year, and since I am a full time father and no time your work helps me a lot focusing things out.
+vincenzo pereira // Hey, always glad to hear I'm helping a fellow theological student, especially one from far away. I hope things are well there! :)
Accusations of heresy depend on where you are coming from. If a Christian, of the period, could describe Gnosticism as a heresy which made use of pagan philosophies, a Gnostic, of the period, could say the same about Christianity. Christianity gained its victory as the standard against which all others are judged when it became the official religion of Rome. When that happened suppression took over debate.
talks like these make me feel alot better about wasting a good portion of my life playing video games.
If you decide to revisit this subject could you go over the different schools of Gnosticism? Also it would be really interesting if you included a look at the Pistis Sophia vs the Nag Hamadi? thanks for the videos
21:15 - I wonder though, whether Michelangelo had something like this in mind: the woman under God's left arm is believed to be Eve, not yet created but existing already in God's mind.
Would Calvinists qualify as gnostic? They tend to believe in this notion of saving faith (or belief in God) as a gift by God. Meaning, those who don't believe, simply haven't been given the knowledge to belief.
Phileos.
No, gnostics are saved by knowledge (gnosis in greek).
No, as that would be committing a category fallacy. Calvinists believe that a person may know the gospel but will not believe it UNLESS the Holy Spirit gives light and understanding to that person. Saving faith is a gift because it origins from God, hence 'sola fide.'
Knowing is not the same thing as believing. You may know that Muhammad claimed to be a prophet yet not believe it. You may know that the earth is round but not believe it.
Professor Reeves, i am very grateful for your videos, and to be granted a view of history that is very accurate and well spoken. My Professor of Medieval History would love your channel, please keep making more videos.
What is certain is that Gnosticism was not produced solely from Christianity. As you said, a common misconception about Gnosticism is that it was a defined religion. But then you go on saying that Gnosticism did not predate Christianity; nor that the latter was influenced by Gnosticism. OK, consider this:
Look at the Nag Hammadi texts: The gnostic elements are from other traditions; ranging from neo-platonic, hermetic and various native "pagan" religions. How can it be clearly defined that gnosticism did not influence Christianity?
Or take the example canonical Gospel of John: would you consider the it as not having Gnostic Elements? How can then Gnosticism not predate Christianity? Can you say Christianity was already formed before the Gospel of John?
I know that academia refers to the term "Gnosticism" as a particular set of early (and recurring) christian heresies characterised by X and/or Y elements". And I know where the German school went with their desperation for uncovering a "hidden" esoteric universal theology.
But aren't we getting too afraid of the subject? I think we may get caught in a net of references and blunt terms. Gnostics did not call themselves nor recognise each other as "Gnostics" as they are indicated by authors like Irenaeus. And what stops me in matching similarities between gnostic concepts from Eastern Mediterranean and - let's say - early Buddhist thought? Would calling out buddhism as a crypto-gnostic sect be wrong? Probably yes - but not becuase we don't have statues of Buddha with a toga from ancient roman sites - but mostly because gnosticism is so closely tied out of caution with christian sources, when in today's minds it clearly relates to a wider archetypal thought-current characterised by anti-somatism and/or anti-cosmism.
Nyarlantothep.
Most of the gnostics were considered heretics (mostly the syncretisms with other traditions), but some were orthodox. All the early monasteries were gnostics and invented the hesychasm which is an orthodox gnosis (not gnosticism which is considered heretic). There is an esoteric mouvement in both orthodox and catholic churches, but they are very discrete.
I've recently been reading the translated texts from nag hammadi , and while I don't care about heresy or sacrilege per se as I don't practice, i think you have a good grasp here of what the gnostics believed as I understand it. I see that you are a scholar.
Are you familiar with 'hermeticism'? Its texts have very similar dualist themes throughout and there were (just two or three) Hermetic texts in the nag hammadi codices.
Did hermeticism help inform the doctrines of gnosticism, or is hermeticism a later invention ?
Blaine M
Christian gnostics are later than Hermes trimegist. But esoteric ideas are as old as humanity.
Brother Reeves I LOVE these lectures...thank you so much man!
and they said believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house.
Thank you for this fine lecture. As always. I particularly like the way you point out the modern derivatives, appearances, or „incarnations“, of these diverse ideas cropping up in the early christian church. It helps understanding your topics a lot.And I could actually hear your students, when you declined an enactment of Yoda’s voice, going „Awh!“
It sounds as if it was a marketing choice. Secret knowledge & self-denial will only draw a particular crowd, whereas the flavor of Christianity embraced by the powers in places like Rome & Constantinople would be more useful to attract a larger crowd. Larger crowds mean more revenue, which leads to political & military advantage. So the message conveyed by particular passages such as Matthew 6:19-21 wouldn't speak to material-minded individuals.
We see the same thing today in America, particularly with the faith-based prosperity cults which assure listeners that by demonstrating their faith with an offering (most usually of money) a person will cause the gates of the heavens to be thrown open & their god will make them bountiful. I'd call it a Ponzi scheme if people in lower tiers were actually paid. It's little more than swindling the easily duped into paying for a televangelist's ranch or private jet.
see I think the thing about the secret knowledge is that it's uncomfortable knowing it and it makes a person uncomfortable to know it. therefore you don't just want to go blowing down everyone's door waking them up. we've tried it and people resist. the analogy is waking a person up from sleeping with a bright light and they cover their eyes and yell at you. anyone who asks the right questions can come to the secret knowledge but it's not always so effective to teach it. I mean, if they taught it from birth I'm sure people wouldn't have any problems with it. but it kind of destroys the mystery of life just having all the answers right away. I would suggest that the purpose of life itself is for God to forget he is god to entertain himself in eternity. the process of returning to Brahman is the rediscovery of our godly selves. the process of creation is god making himself ignorant of his godliness. turning himself into us. it's easily provable logically. if all there was in the beginning was god, then how did he create everything? what did he create it from? himself. so what are we? divine.. I read in Hinduism that all of what we experience is samsara or the delusion of reality and that a yogi understands that experience itself is the shadow of purity. meaning this false reality being cave shadows plato was talking about. it means that underneath all of this is the true divine nature of God. but all of what we experience in this life is samsaric confusion. meaning God has purposely confused himself to create beings who do not know they are god. so god can be a fish or a blade of grass or the sun or a potato... what would you do if you were an eternal being? well you are and this is what you're doing...
to really know and understand the truth and to destroy all earthly desires in yourself and achieve eternal Bliss and happiness is indeed "life" destroying as you say. because God is content with being god. earthly pleasures are delusions that you need what is on earth it be happy. but then if true happiness is in god then why would God feel the need to delude himself to be us? well now that's why we exist.. god becomes unhappy with being perfectly blissful. he starts thinking. the Hindus again, call it god waking up. like god is asleep and then after a time wakes up and creates the universe again. so it's like god goes through stages or periods of eternal existential being that we happen to be a part of. we're talking about the fundamental aspects of existence here. if you say none of this is true then what do you replace it with? everything just is eternal.. that kind of thinking is how I personally came to these beliefs. through athiesm and philosophy brought me back to all this stuff. so you live then you die and that's it you're just dead.. and it's all just pitch black forever.. and you no longer have consciousness and life goes on elsewhere in the universe but your body died so now you are dead and your soul is dead and that's it it's just dark... well to believe that, you have to believe you are an individual soul for your soul to just go dark like that.. or if you say there is no soul and the universe is eternal ok well your body rots and becomes one with the universe again and your atoms go somewhere else.. matter is never created or destroyed in any process. unless you believe string theory that everything is a wave, all matter is waves bubbling up from potential energy. it's like life is just a game being g played between two sides. one side is coming up with as many theories as possible to forget our divinity and one side is coming up with theories to remember.. it's all divine tho.. the someone can come along and say it's not.. and that's why we're still here and still alive because we aren't willing to admit the truth to ourselves yet. we aren't ready to go back to sleep yet. or wake up from our confusion. we're too busy being blissful in this world to go back to our true self. or maybe eternity just is our true self and the sleeping eternal darkness eternal Bliss is the false reality. I mean there's always that question why is there pain and suffering? that's really a question you need to ask yourself. Buddhism helps deal with that issue. the four noble truths. there is suffering, there is a cause of suffering, there is an end to suffering, there are steps that lead to the end of suffering. sometimes suffering is just in your head. take your job for example. do you hate your job? do you love your job? why or why not? is your job really so terrible or do you actually enjoy it? are you making yourself suffer or are you allowing yourself to be blissful? when it's raining do you cry and say it's raining or do you smile and sing in the rain?
also, all knowledge is of this earth so all mysticism is of this earth. it's all illusion. all your thoughts, feelings and actions. of the earth. even all my explanations of what may or may not be the truth.. of the earth.. I mean, I got it from the earth.. my brain is of the earth.. my experience is of the earth.. everything I think is from my brain and experience of the earth.
Here come the UA-cam scholars in the comment section trying to prove the world how smart they are...
The odd thing I keep running into is atheist claiming to be gnostic/atheist. This would seem to be a recent thing, as it sounds nothing like this. Probably the wrong topic. Anyone have a clue?
Random question, what's the story behind the intro and outro music to your vids? The outro sounds very peculiar to me.
So how can Calvinism ever be accused of being part of Gnosticism?
God is not a religion
God is not religious
God is knowable in this life
To know him is to love him
Religion is an attempt, a noble attempt, to explain in human terms more than human realities.
Ryan. Is there are order I should watch your videos ? Thx
George Lucas was pulling from Buddhism (by his own admission), not Gnosticism. - Star Wars geek off.
Actually, no. That was just a statement Lucas made as a broad-brushed generalization to help public perception. He has stated elsewhere that he implemented religious concepts from a *large variety* of influences while writing Star Wars, which is true. There have been many studies on it, as these are some of the most heavily analyzed films in history.
Lucas is actually a classic display of Gnostic trait #3 in this presentation, thinking himself an elitist of sorts, adhering to what Manly P Hall called "the secret teachings of all ages." Lucas employs a heavy amount of New Age concepts in much of his work, and is actually a known acquaintance of Jordan Maxwell, a popular New Age / Theosophy teacher and activist. This can be seen very plainly in other work like Indiana Jones: KOTCS, where the plot heavily emphasizes crystal skulls, extra terrestrials, and Mayan prophesies. Total pre-2012 new age propaganda.
If you know what to look for, the heretical and blasphemous Gnostic concepts in Star Wars are actually very obvious. Darth Vader is a symbolic representation of Jesus Christ, and the Emperor a representation of God.
Vader is born of a virgin (the actress who plays his mother actually portrayed Mary in another film). The emperor even suggests in Episode 3 that he used the force to create Vader in his mother's womb.
Vader is destroyed and the emperor resurrects him with a new body. After this, he joins the emperor in the creation of a massive empire which oppresses the galaxy and kills off the spiritual elite (Jedi), forcing the survivors into hiding. This clearly represents Christianity's overthrowing of paganism. The marching orders to kill the Jedi are even coded "Execute Order 66" referring to the 66 books of the Bible.
In his first confrontation with Obi Wan and Padime after his transition to the dark side, Vader says "If you are not with me, then you are my enemy!" clearly quoting Jesus in Matthew 12;30 and Luke 11;23.
These are some of the obvious ones, but the symbolism actually goes much, much, much deeper than this. It can be a hard pill to swallow for many people because of the extreme fandom and pop culture relevance, but Star Wars is unquestionably heavily rooted in wicked spiritual philosophies and myths.
Very interesting info dude. Thanks
The author of the video did not say Lucas pulled from Gnosticism. He made a comparison to Gnosticism and then said that Lucas pulled from ancient spirituality when he was putting together ideas for the Force.
Search the link between George Lucas and Joseph Campbell.
Lazlo Arcadia Lucas cites "The Hero With a Thousand Faces", by Joseph Campbell, as a major source of inspiration.
thank you Ryan Reeves
Mr. Reeves. These teachings are great! I was wondering if there was a way to get them on DVD or some sort of download? I'm a Liberty University masters student studying church history and would love to have copies! Thanks
Gosh! Thanks!! I always thought I was Agnostic, but now I can drop the "a"!!!
Emmanuel means God with us! God came to earth in the flesh.
Another great teaching! Thank you. I often wonder if the Pistis Sophia has been edited or modified over the centuries.
I'm an agnostic, but I enjoy your presentations.
seems your anti gnostic.
Gnosticism Greek for knowledge. Christian for some reason we should follow Christ. Christ taught the select few that He want them to be like Him not follow. Are we not created in God image. Which mean look in the mirror you might see God.
I found the first Matrix movie to be quite profound. The idea that we are trapped inside a false reality really rang true to me. Personally, I believe that in some way that's true. Satan has us trapped inside a delusion. Maybe not the physical world, but certainly our society is an illusion that's controlled by satan and his followers.
By the way, I'm a convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church. While I enjoy your teaching, I find that it is incomplete, taught entirely from a western perspective. You might want to study the Eastern Orthodox Church and learn about her teachings on theology and church history, in order to have a more well-rounded perspective. The eastern church fathers have a lot to say.
Thank you for the lecture Dr. Reeves. I've read a couple comment threads surrounding gnosticism, and what stands out to me is the theme of trying to explain away the origins of Christianity and religion in general. It also seems like Gnostics on these threads are often unsatisfied with any description about Gnosticism. This lecture didn't come across bias to me, so I think that's an indicator that it's more of a description of tendencies as opposed to an orthodox view. All the supposed knowing of religious origins reminds me of many points G.K. Chesterton made in The Everlasting Man. What I'd give to read an essay by Chesterton about something going on today.
One cannot understand the Christian faith from the outside. It cannot be understood through an intellectual pursuit. It must first be experienced. Therefore, fundamental key to understanding the Christian faith is a spiritual transformation of the heart through Jesus Christ that renews the mind. Otherwise, one cannot begin to comprehend the faith. I am so glad that I know God through Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Gordon-Conwell Alumnus)
Evelyn Gardiner so with ur logic in order to completely understand heroin, I'd have to become a full blown addict in order to realize truly that heroin is bad and destroys lives? I can't just make an objective based logical decision based upon evidence? Ur a fucking idiot. just listen urself sometimes.
I don't think you are 'hearing' her. By the way, I don't agree with her on balance, but I do agree that the way to 'salvation'is NOT through the mind. Logic? Logic is a 'mind program' extremely useful when used correctly. But logic is not all encompassing. Conker, if you are 'living' through your mind,you are just ruminating.
+Conker Riot I believe I am referring to Christianity, not heroine. The truth of my premise is found in your response.
He was using an analogy. You said you can't truly know the Christian faith unless you experience it and he said under that logic, one can't truly know the adverse effects of heroine unless they experience it. I kind of agree. You don't truly know something until you experience it.
Evelyn Gardiner that's very convenient.
One may not drive the car before he buys it.....yea, that is how you sound. But enjoy your imaginary friend.
We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience-Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Ebo Lantigua It's all in our mind, there is no spirit or soul in our natural world.
Ebo Lantigua Excuse me, but I think it is C. S. Lewis said it. I could be wrong.
Your natural world is all in your own mind.
The "mind" is not an individual entity it is a process of the brain an organ that is in fact part of the natural world.
Brother Ryan Reeves thank you for all of these videos. Grace and peace.
really enjoy your videos very easy to follow great explanations full of info thanks sooooo much for posting.... Cheers from UK
Superb explanation of the dualism of physical and spiritual existence. I wish the Church would devote more time to historical contemplation. It provokes a certain introspection that informs our Faith and shapes our understanding of Creation and order.. Thank you for sharing this.
Maybe recommend this to your friends then? Some of them may start to take an interest.
The question I often ask?, every time a new discovery is deemed Gnostic Is, is Gnosticism a catchall for every Text with questionable author or dating by Historians ? Because it seems the Gnostic's were responsible for a Huge block of work in a short time?
For whatever reason..i have a hard to trusting the “early church “
I've a question since you brought up genesis. In genesis 1 God created everything including man......
In genesis 2 This The LORD God guy turns up. Where did he come from? and the genesis 2 account of creation is at odds with genesis 1.
What do you mean it's at odds? Will you please be more specific? It's common in the Torah to find the same story twice from two different perspectives.
The earliest Hebrew writings (which were rehashed many centuries later) were themselves only written between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, so they were not likely to be that authentic in their telling of history from thousands of years before. Indeed, it was plain that this would be the case, because when these books were first written their express purpose was to convey a history which upheld the principles of the Jewish faith - a faith that did not emerge until well into the ancestral story.
Given that the first group of these books was written while the Jews were held captive in Mesopotamian Babylon in the 6th century BC, it is apparent that Babylon was where the original records were then held. In fact, from the time of Adam, through some 19 said generations down to Abraham, the whole of Old Testament patriarchal history was Mesopotamian. More specifically, the history was from Sumer in southern Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq), where the ancient Sumerians did indeed refer to the grasslands of the Euphrates delta as the *Eden*.
CHRIST WAS NOT A JEW, the Galileans were descended from the sumerians and were different from the Judeans to the south. The people of Galilee were not Hebrew but in the course of time had adapted the Hebrew religion. We might even speculate that they had retained some remnants of the long-forgotten religion of sumeria, the real origin of the Hebrew religion. The Hebrew religion became known as Judaism, and later, actually only in the 18th century were the Judeans called "Jews". However, since that time translators of the Bible have used the word "Jew" back to the beginning of the Bible using it in place of Judean.
The early leaders of the Hebrew tribe close to the time of their embracing the sumerian religion knew what they were about. *_They wrote their history and Biblical stories to conform to their new-found religion, effectively blotting out the history of sumeria_*
It can be concluded that the "Jews" knew in Christ's own time that he was not a "Jew" and have known since then, but it has been a great advantage to the Jewish cause for them to further this belief since it implies a prominent superiority of the Jew over the Christian subconsciously in the minds of Christians, while the Jew himself has continued as a group to despise Christianity.
The Hebrew people were a tribe whose history is known only back a few centuries BC. They were not capable of the high civilization attained by the sumerians.
In studying the substance of the Old Testament prior to its corruption, one fact which becomes increasingly clear is that in English-language Bibles the definition ‘Lord’ is used in a general context, but in earlier texts a positive distinction is drawn between ‘Jehovah’ and ‘the Lord’.
It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews led them through trials and tribulations, floods and disasters, when (from time to time) he appears to have performed with a quite contrary and merciful personality. The answer is that, although now seemingly embraced as ‘the One God’ by the Jewish and Christian churches, there was originally a distinct difference between the figures of Jehovah and the Lord. They were, in fact, quite separate deities. The god referred to as ‘Jehovah’ was traditionally a storm god, a god of wrath and vengeance, whereas the god referred to as ‘the Lord’ was a god of fertility and wisdom.
*The God of Abraham was called ‘El Shaddai’, which means ‘Lofty Mountain’. The apparent name ‘Jehovah’ came from the original Hebrew stem YHWH, which meant ‘I am that I am’ - said to be a statement made by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, hundreds of years after the time of Abraham*. ‘Jehovah’ was therefore not a name at all, and early texts refer simply to ‘El Shaddai’ and to his opposing counterpart, ‘Adon’. To the Canaanites, these gods were respectively called ‘El Elyon’ and ‘Baal’ - which meant precisely the same things (‘Lofty Mountain’ and ‘Lord’)* *_ In our modern Bibles, the definitions ‘God’ and ‘Lord’ are used and intermixed throughout, as if they were one and the same character, but originally they were not_*. One was a vengeful god (a people-hater), and the other was a social god (a people-supporter), and they each had wives, sons and daughters.
There were two predominant and opposing gods, known as ‘El Elyon’ and ‘Baal’; ‘El Shaddai’ and ‘Adon’; ‘Arhiman’ and ‘Mazda’; ‘Jehovah’ and ‘Lord’; ‘God’ and ‘Father’. But these styles are all titular; they are not personal names. So who precisely were they? To find the answer we have to look no further than where these gods were actually operative, and the old Canaanite texts (discovered in Syria in the 1920s) tell us that their courts were in the Tigris-Euphrates valley in Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian Eden delta of the Persian Gulf.
But what did the ancient Sumerians call these two gods? What were their personal names? We can trace the Sumerian written records back to about 3700 BC, and they tell us that the gods in question were brothers. In Sumer, the storm god who eventually became known as Jehovah was called ‘Enlil’ or ‘Ilu-kur-gal’ (meaning ‘Ruler of the Mountain’), and his brother, who became Adon, the Lord, was called ‘Enki’. This name is really important to our story because ‘*Enki’ means ‘Archetype’*
The Book of Genesis (in its English-translated form) tells us that Cain was ‘a tiller of the ground’. But this is not what the original texts say at all. What they say is that Cain had ‘dominion over the Earth’ - which is a rather different matter when considering his kingly status.
In fact, the Bible translators appear to have had a constant problem with the word ‘Earth’, often translating it to ‘ground’, ‘clay’ or ‘dust’. But the early texts actually referred to ‘The Earth’. Even in the case of Adam and Eve, the translators got it wrong. The Bible says: ‘Male and female he created them, and he called their name Adam.’ The older writings use the more complete word ‘Adama’, which means ‘of the Earth’. But this did not mean they were made of dirt; it means that they were ‘of The Earth’ - or, as the Anchor Hebrew Bible explains in absolutely precise terms, they were ‘*Earthlings*’.
*The Sumerian records state that Adam and Eve (known then as ‘Atabba’ and ‘Ava’, and jointly as the ‘Adama’) were purpose-bred for kingship at the House of Shimti by Enki and his sister-wife Nin-khursag*. In Sumerian, the word Shi-im-ti meant ‘breath-wind-life’. Nin-khursag was called ‘Lady of the Embryo’ or ‘Lady of Life’, and she was the surrogate mother for Atabba and Ava who were created from human ova fertilized by the Lord Enki. It was because of Nin-khursag’s title, Lady of Life, that Ava was later given the same title by the Hebrews. Indeed, the name Ava (or Eve) was subsequently said to mean ‘Life’. And there is an interesting parallel here, because in Sumerian the distinction ‘Lady of Life’ was Nin-tî (Nin meaning ‘Lady’, and tî meaning ‘Life’). However, another Sumerian word, ti (with the longer pronunciation, ‘tee’), meant ‘rib’; and it was by virtue of the Hebrews’ misunderstanding of the two words, tî and ti, that Eve also became incorrectly associated with Adam’s rib.
Each stone within the Great Pyramid is harmonically tuned to a specific frequency or musical tone. The sarcophagus in the centre of the Great Pyramid is tuned to the frequency of the human heart beat.
www.wakingtimes.com/2016/02/18/how-the-human-heart-functions-as-second-brain/
Astonishing experiments, conducted by Dr. Hurtak and colleagues at the Great Pyramid and other sites in the South Americas, demonstrate the pyramids to be voice-activated "geophysical computers." Intoning specific ancient sounds, the scientific team produced visible standing waves of light, above and within the pyramids and were even able to penetrate, hitherto, inaccessible chambers. Subsequent discoveries indicate the ancient priest-scientists employed some sort of harmonic sound technology within the temple structures.
The lost Enochian knowledge reveals the mother tongue as a *"language of Light"*. Known to the ancients as *HIBIRU*. It is the primal seed language, introduced at the beginning of this time cycle. Modern research confirms, the most ancient form Hebrew to be a natural language, the alphabetic forms emerging from the phosphene flare patterns of the brain. The same shapes, in fact, born of a spinning vortex. It is a true language of light, coursing through our very nervous system.
Encoding the natural waveform geometries of the physical world, HIBIRU is a harmonic language, mimicking the waveform properties of light.
The "keys" Enoch speaks of, turn out to be sound keys, keys to be vibratory matrix of reality itself, the mythic "Power of the World". The Enochian knowledge describes sonic equations, encoded within the ancient mantras and god names, capable of directly affect the nervous system and producing profound effect of healing and higher consciousness states.
As the ancient texts declare,
"If you would speak with the gods you must first learn the language of the gods."
DNA, the ancient cabalistic *"Tree Of Life"* portrayed in the Biblical Torah, is now coming to be viewed as a live vibrating structure, rather than a fixed tape recording.
Many modern scientists, regard DNA as a shimmering, waveform configuration, able to be modified by light, radiation, magnetic fields or sonic pulses. _The legacy of Thoth/Enoch suggests this "language of Light", the harmonic science of the ancients, could actually affect DNA_.
*The knowledge of Thoth/Enoch implies humans are meant to evolve beyond our present terrestrial form*, as the Bible tells us, "we may become greater than angels". The Egyptians record stories of the "Star Walkers", occasional individuals who, like Enoch, traveled "beyond the Great Eye of Orion" and returned, to walk like gods amongst men.
Robert Bauval’s theory is that the three main pyramids of Giza conclusively represent Orion
Despite the bleaching of semi-divine beings from modern consciousness, could it be possible, as the ancient texts insist, we are destined to "become as gods"?, are the Mayan *"Lords of Light"* and the Egyptian/Tibetan *"Shining Ones"* really a higher form of human or a hybrid (alien god/man)?
www.theeventchronicle.com/metaphysics/spiritual/cosmic-rays-evolve-consciousness-transform-dna/
According to the "calendar in stone" of the Great Pyramid, which describes the so-called "Phoenix Cycle" of our galactic orbit, the present time period ends (converted to our present calendar) in the year 2012 AD. The Greek word PHOENIX, derived from the Egyptian word, PA-HANOK, actually means, "The House of Enoch". *This does NOT mean the world will end... but the Age*. We should then be entering the Age of Aquarius... an Age which promises to be filled with Hope and Love (not a new age belief, just pure SCIENCE)
The discoveries emerging from Egypt, describe the existence of a world wide pyramid temple system in prehistory, mounted like antennae on the key energy meridians, which were employed by ancient priest-scientists as a musical system to stabilize the tectonic plates of the planet... cataclysmic geology at it's finest.
From the mother tongue word JEDAIAH, meaning "the way of the Word" or "the power of the Word", the ancient JEDAI priests used the language of Light to tune the planet like a giant harmonic bell.
*Enoch is Enki's grandson & some believe Thoth is a previous incarnation of Jesus*
There has never been a time in mans history up to today when the oral and written records. the world over, speaks of is a Golden Age in which man and the gods (angels) freely and openly interacted - and all such records have prophesied that a time would come when a new Golden Age would occur and at that time all hidden truths will again be revealed.
*Enoch, 39:1 - "In those days shall the elect and holy race descend from the upper heavens, and their seed shall then be with the sons of men."*
*KNOWLEDGE IS THEIR POWER TO MIND SLAVE US IN A FICTIONAL WORLD, BUT AS PROPHECY SAID IN ENOCH 3.8 THE ELECT WILL COME TO FREE HUMANITY*
The Mayan calendar is based on different time periods characterized by different spiritual qualities and when we go from one of these periods to another, a shift in consciousness takes place. Up until the year 2011 the Long Count wave consisted of thirteen so-called baktuns (time periods of *144,000* days or 394.3 common years), which shifted between seven peaks (or days) and six valleys (or nights).
humansarefree.com/2011/05/bosnian-pyramids-great-cover-up-taking.html
www.theeventchronicle.com/study/secrets-great-pyramids-revealed/
www.theeventchronicle.com/study/ancient-pyramids-high-frequency-power-stations/
"What do you mean it's at odds? Will you please be more specific? It's common in the Torah to find the same story twice from two different perspectives."
The two chapters have a different order of creation that can't both be mutually true. In one you have the traditional story of Adam being created, then Eve being created from him later, in the other they're both identically created at the same time from mud, etc. They're at odds with each other.
Stacy.... I don't... what? Christ was definitely a Jew, if not by race (debatable), he was at least wholly a Jewish worshiper. There's at least 3 Passovers he observed. He participated in the synagogue.
I usually like to read through a few of the comments after watching one of your lectures and this one stands out, considerably.
It seems you have pushed more than a few buttons, and that quite a few are seemingly "protesting a bit too much".
That's a good thing, I think.
Great show! Thanks!
I enjoyed this lecture, but couldnt help but notice a glaring omission: The Immortal Realm of Barbelo. 😝
Thanks for the video.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7
All this authors/users posts and comments are All rights reserved.
I'm not Christian but I agree with these gnostics idea of God being too pure to incarnate itself in a flesh body.
It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that perfect propaganda must contain some truth.
To believe there is no propaganda of an account created by the rulers of Rome smacks of illogical believers, that they would do no such thing.
This is not to say that the Gnostics had it right either.
If one cannot see it is all based on Greek style astrological concepts then your eyes are closed indeed.
Thank you for the teaching May God continue to bless you
I'm enjoying your lectures but this one is extremely biased, especially for an academic. Hopefully your students take you to task if you trot this out in the classroom.
They wait with sticks after class, mostly.
Lol, sticks with pointed ends! Seriously though great videos I've been binge watching them and learning a lot.
Docetism did not have "a short shelf life" insofar as it was (together with Nestorianism) heavily heavily influential on Islam.
In gnostics have more of an understanding of god than most modern Christians today
I enjoy your lectures; but I think that this one on Gnosticism just added to the already existing confusion about what it is and isn't. The Nag Hamadi finds especially the gospel of Thomas and Mary, need serious study, as well as the gospel of Phillip. Specifically the relationship of Mary Magdalen and Jesus. It seems to me that although you warned yourself not to be too influenced by Iraneous, you in fact were. Gnosticism can't be compared in any way to Scientology. It is a much more profound belief system.
Is KNOWLEDGE really POWER ? Is'nt this the TRUTH :) WISDOM IS POWER :)
I was thinking the same thing about Scientology recently. Another way that it overlaps is that in Scientology is that human beings are, i think, these kinds of spirits or Thetans, or we need to rid ourselves of Thetans. Either way, there is a dualism that favors the spiritual over the physical and all its dysfunctions. Scientology's creation myth never made all that much sense to me, or even why Scientology has one at all, until I started thinking about it that way, in relation to Gnosticism.
Enjoyed yor lectures very much [ watched 4 in a row ]. I think that makes you a
gnostic. :}
Everyone has a bias doesn't mean that this author of these videos doesn't present much factual information. He does a great service with these videos but knowledge is something we should constantly seek and question. Clearly this gentlemen has an evangelical background and that's fine. I'm a Christian aswell I don't agree with all his views on history and philosophy. All information you consume has to be taken on faith. But I like to question all of it as much as I can as everyone should especially my atheist friends
Nice Video. Interesting story about Gnosticism but really what is it?.
Great presentation thank you!
I only today found your channel and I find your work to be well done. Will definitely be checking out more of them. Gnosticism is alive and well today and deeply infects modern "Christianity," including that going to heaven thing especially. That idea has no basis in Scripture. (Minor proofreading catch: Double quotation mark needed at the end of the Yoda quote around 17:47-ish. And the ellipsis you used there is not needed as nothing has been omitted. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.")
I love your educated view on Christianity even though I am soft deist. Most of the time it feels like Christians have not developed their beliefs beyond their first reading of a children's book on Noah.
That does bring up a question. It seems like this hate of the "icky" material world keeps cropping up again and again. It seems like a common thread through humanity. Why do you think this keeps happening? What urge in humans makes us keep coming up with the concept or accepting it when we hear it?
God first man of the dust of the earth and breathed into him and he became a living soul. The last man Jesus Christ was not earthly but came directly from God as His son and by faith in Jesus Christ we become born again.
The key to understanding all this is by the Holy Spirit when you become born again by faith or accepting Christ into your heart. You become equipped with the Holy Spirit to understand a lot more than you do now.
The heart is wicked above all things, who can know it?
- Holy Bible
and the Father said--it was very good--good video
Assuming that Jesus really existed, how can you say that Jesus was resurrected? Lazarus was resurrected. He was dead and buried and then Jesus called him out of the tomb. Lazarus came out, and was received by his family and went on to live in the physical world. Jesus supposedly came out of the tomb but could not be touched by his wife, Mary Magdalene. After several people saw Jesus, Jesus went up to heaven mounted on a cloud. That is not what resurrection.
+rico1357 // Great questions. A lot of the issue will not turn on the facts, per se, as they will how we approach the facts. So it's an issue of interpretation. I'm afraid on this, those who want to discredit the NT witness will always doubt the resurrection, while those who trust the faithfulness of the story will find it credible. For me the issue is in part how the story is told in the Gospels. They of course describe it as a miracle, but the evidence they repeatedly say is based on eyewitnesses that have given their testimony. They say they not only saw Jesus, but ate with him, spoke with him, touched his side. The part about Mary Magdalene not touching Jesus is not that she cannot touch him (as if he is a ghost), but Jesus commanding her not to grab him as if he is going to go back to his normal life and ministry around Judea. Most Christians read the context of that story and note that Mary is psyched about Jesus being back but he is telling her to stop and realize that things are different now that he is resurrected.
Does this solve all the interpretive issues? No. Again the issue is one of worldview: how do you approach a text like the Bible? Cynically, trusting, hostile, positive? We don't determine the meaning--plenty of people can admit the Bible says Jesus was resurrected but that won't convince them. Of course, for Christians they find the stories and texts compelling, but they also approach the subject with an eye of faith, having experienced a personal confrontation with Christ in conversion.
+rico1357 Can you give me the Text that states Mary M was the wife of Jesus? Also Lazarus was Not Sacrificed? But rather died as we do , Christ being a Sacrifice meant, not only did he die in the Flesh but that his Body was given as atonement for Sin To God.. Therefore It is in keeping with Scripture that Christ would receive a new body still bearing his Wounds as a testament to his followers..
+Ryan Reeves You accept the words in the Bible as facts, actual history. Just think about how it came to be. If science worked that way, let's not be confused by anything that disagrees, we would still be in the middle ages. You have a lot of knowledge about what agrees with your beliefs. I would like to hear a lecture on the other gospels available today. Those gospels need to be addressed on the same level as Mathew, Mark , Luke and John. We now know that the four accepted gospels are no more historical than any other exiting gospels.
+rico1357 You must have read the non-historical, fanciful fiction of Dan Brown. Jesus was never married to anyone.
+Tomasz Polska The four accepted gospels were not written by witnesses. Just like the gnostic gospels were written by unknown authors. Ask Mr Reeves he will tell you. Also Jesus was not resurrected. He merely appeared to the apostles to deliver his message and then he disappeared never to return. Lazarus was resurrected and lived among his relatives and friends. Jesus thought he was returning in the near future. He did not. You want to believe the lies of the christian churches, go ahead if it makes you happy.
actually the jews believe tht the created world as you call it teach the same thing. and considering these are jewish texts in particular iwould say they know wht they are talking abt. this is not a "gnostic" teaching unless you consider the essenes were the gnostics which is possible. considering Jesus was an essene and rejected the jewish leaders of his day. so the essenes would be the early gnostics? the jews believe the creator God is not the knowable God but his creations is wht we know of as angels and demons relate directly with us.
Very informative lecture, as are your other talks that I've watched and heard. I have reason to believe that Kabbalah (an offshoot of Judaism), is the religion of Freemasonry, although, Freemasonry is referred to in the traditional Catholic movement as a religion unto itself, mostly. We have proof that John XXIII was a Freemason and Communist, and thus: Paul VI created the Counterfeit Catholic Church after the council of apostasy which was Vatican II. If they can take over the Catholic Church after 200 years of dedicated infiltration, they will kick over the Protestant Church as easily as last night's wine bottle, if the Freemasons chose to do so.
whoa
God said in the Scriptures that He is not a man and He never changes. The Gnostics preached that God changed into a man named Jesus - in total opposition to the Word of God.
no tht is wht the church reaches. gnostics teach tht Jesus was a man who became enlightened not God incarnate which is wht the church teaches.
sharon anderson - I think your church might be gnostic. Compare their teachings to the gnostic gospel of Thomas.
ElCineHefe
It depends of the gnostics, but most of them deny that he came in a flesh body, so it seems contradictory.
Hep Hopa - They all deny that Jesus came in the flesh - they believe that a triune being came, who was both God and man, which is very consistent with the gnostic God-man deity they've worshipped since the triune gods of Babylon, Egypt and Samaria.
ElCineHefe.
Check the Valentinian cosmognoy. There were dozens of aeons, not only 3 ... For them Jesus came on earth but he has an illusion body (as body is bad..). Most of them were docets.
A major problem with these early lectures is the implicit suggestion that Christianity is an unproblematic strand, and that other views span off from it as errors. I think that the reality is more that a mass of ideas, thrown up by the Alexandrine exposure, mixed together in the Levant, at the time of the anxiety caused by the Roman Occupation and the destruction of Jerusalem. led to one position, orthodoxy being adopted by Constantine as a means of uniting his Empire. Orthodoxy has suppressed, murdered and burnt people of other opinions.
You say Gnosticism is a trend or tendancy, but then you emphatically state that this "tendancy" does not exist prior to Christianity (by which you mean Orthodox Christianity) even though you say it involves a mish-mash of Platonic ideas etc (So obviously the tendancy does precede Christianity).
The Gospel of John ridicules "Thomas" - He who does NOT "believe" but has to "Know". Then they reduce him to putting his fingers into the physical wounds. This is not only a deliberate misrepresentation of the Thomasine position, but shows the Thomas Opinions was extant at the time "JOHN" was written. So Thomas preceded the Gospel of John.
1) The World is a virtual reality. (Study Modern Quantam Mechanics)
2) The Light - Christ if you like - is within, and the task is to locate it within
3) The hierarchy of the Church is worthless, and should be shunned as being merely of material concern. The Orthodox Church Murders people, and burns people. Gnostics do not Murder people.
Your bias here is disgusting
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock You're so on point! Thank you. Your comment kept me from poking at this keyboard for 30 minutes..
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock In reference to number 1, I think you might enjoy listening to Chuck Missler talk about the nature of our multi-dimensional existence.
Some of his lectures have been posted here to youtube.
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock with up so floating many bells down: What criteria do you use for the gospel of Thomas' legitimacy, how do you reconcile the findings of secular antiquarians who judged it to be too modern a text to have been written by the alleged author?
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock This is to Anna Nimus (haha). I write the reply here because I received an email notification of your comment, but cannot find it online. Your comment, as I received it was:-
+PrettyHowTown Prufrock with up so floating
many bells down: What criteria do you use for the gospel of Thomas
legitimacy, how do you reconcile the findings of secular antiquarians who
judged it to be too modern a text to have been written by the alleged author?
Personally I doubt that there was ever a person called, Thomas in first or second century Palestine. I also doubt that the Gospel of John was written by John the Divine (John Mark)... whatever name you like. I put the word Thomas in inverted commas to flag it as a name given to a tradition, rather than that of an actual person. I am unsure of the reasoning that suggests the Gospel of Thomas is too modern a work. Antiquarians (if that is the right word) would date the parchment and ink etc, and that could tell you the date of a particular document. The style of the text, aphorisms, definitely places the document in a tradition separate from that of the synoptic and John traditions. However, Thomas is specifically mentioned, and the gnostic position is ridiculed within the text of John. Whenever the actual text was written down, it is clear that the gnostic point of view was extant at the time John was written in order for John to ridicule it. It is John that associates this tradition with Thomas. Consequently it is clear that the gnostic view was well known enough to be criticised BEFORE John was written, all of which I stated in my original post.
Having said all that, I am very pleased other people still read poetry :)
PrettyHowTown Prufrock I must have hit reply to the wrong post? I agree that Gnosticism existed prior to Christianity...at the least within the same time. The Essenes were believed to have been gnostic Jews.
I think by the time of the Buddha, most new religions are just a mishmash of elements of other more established religions with a dash of novelty sprinkled into it, usually for the purpose of changing a status quo in social status. I use the Buddha as a time reference, because by then the trans-Asian trade was being established and religious inventions travels quickly along the trade routes. Buddhism itself puts a spin on Vedism and early Hinduism, in an attempt to break the caste system. Christianity obviously is a spin off of Judaism with elements borrowed from other popular religions at the time of Jesus. So it's really no surprise mishmash religions, such as Gnosticism, keep popping up through out human history. Outside of Europe, such religions are less ridiculed, mainly because there's no government sponsored church organizations passing judgments on whether or not some claims are heresies. So the evolution of religions are more organic, with less heads rolling on the floor.
Rex Su so...you are aware Buddha came along about 5 or so centuries before Christ?..
Ari Magoo I know, that's why I said Christianity is just another mishmash religion of its time, not unlike Gnosticism.
Ryan seems to be threatened by the truth and beauty of Gnosticism. He prefers to bury his head in the sand and promote the corrupt dogmas of orthodox Christianity. We shouldn't rock the boat when there's still plenty money to be made out of the Good Book, eh Ryan?
I wonder if the Gnostic's snobbery had anything to do with their downfall? I do not consider myself religious but I have read many of C.S. Lewis's books on Christianity, and he was a great man.
Stating our own opinions as fact, and baldly asserting fantastical things that have not been demonstrated seems to be a theme in these videos and of religion in general.
See the videos more as a guide to the history of the religion rather then truth statements. It makes it an easier watch.
I too thought that such a supernatural concept as "god" was completely nonsensical and that metaphysics was based entirely in the material (or at least so far as we could examine), but after understanding more philosophical concepts, my understanding of the metaphysical took a step closer to that which can be called the supernatural.
I suggest starting with Platonism; Plato posits that certain concepts exist outside of this reality on a separate plane entirely; think numbers, logic, shapes, etc. That's why I like Gnosticism, many tenants of Gnosticism are influenced by logical philosophical reasoning, which to me, gave credibility to certain aspects of monotheism.
The Spinozan god is equally as interesting; Spinoza (in a very brief layman's summary) believed that the entirety of nature and reality is God, and that we are thus an extension of God. God in these senses isn't personified and is instead the great force that binds all reality and that which lies beyond it. Think of God in terms of the "Prime Mover", God is totality and all of the interactions that happen within it.
I think many smart people like to go through a very positivist and empirical phase at least once in their life, but being stuck in it forever only narrows your perception and truly robs you of the vast amount of possibilities to consider when discussing metaphysics.
nobody knows what he is talking about.
Carthago Delenda Est Are you talking to me, Harris?
***tips***
At least these days gnosticism isn't a purely Christian tendency.
Au contrair.
The council of Nicea was inspired. Inspired by lions.
They had the emperor Constantine looking over their shoulders. He decided what went into the bible.
And He wanted his empire to be run by the Christians.
Christ chose 12 disciples, Constantine whittled it down to four.
Christ said " Seek and do not stop looking until you find. When you find you will be perplexed, ebb perplexed, astounded, and rule over all".
Constantine said " There is only one ruler here, and it is Me." So the gospel of Thomas was removed.
And thus the bible was edited.
It is a work of propaganda.
For Michael Horton to claim that issues from' New Age or liberal, to evangelical or Pentecostal...are Gnostic'...is beyond ridiculous and shows how deeply short sighted and uninformed this person is, and Mr. Reeves is embarrassing himself by referring to such comments.
So many genius. I feel safer and secure in my salvation.
The way he presents this material is very biased. Don't watch it unless you wanna be brainwashed.
Probably overestimating my ability to brainwash...
Nastyc!
See Genesis 2:7 >> 7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. " >> ** The spirit (soul) was created FIRST, then said spirit was 'breathed' in the physical body. Read the Bible before you preach !! You must be called of God to teach others.
Dream on till
Joojoooo;
The main question that arises during many discussion “Did Jesus exists”. The answer among the majority of scholars (me included) is “YES” as a man, not what is painted so many years after his death. Modern Christianity has more to do with the Christian religion and less to do with the historical Jesus.
Well done!
The way he explains the basic principles of Gnostics it could almost come off as anti-Jewish. My theory is if Jewish people follow the old testament God and that god is the lesser god because he created the physical world according to this video and they're that God's chosen people and anybody else who isn't a jew well I guess we're out of luck if you aren't Jewish because he won't love you. And if the old testament god is a material god it could explain why Jews usually have money can anybody say House of Rothschild . Even as a kid I always wondered why the old testament God is so cruel and the new testament God is the total opposite. It was like it was two different gods so watching this video kind of made sense of it. Im not saying its true just interesting. So if the material god is somewhat evil does that make Jews somewhat evil for following that god according to Gnosticism. This could be one of the root causes for anti -Judaism in the past and possibly in future. I'm not anti- Jewish just a thought I had on how someone can interpret it that way. What do you guys think?
Jesus created the UNIVERSE ! So why would I settle for Muhamad? lol
hes 100% wrong about the date of Gnosticism. IT DID COME BEFORE CHRISTIANITY. Jesus was not a historical figure.
"Jesus was not a historical figure.
-No historian, ever.
I don't think it has anything to do with if Jesus was or not historical.
He's 100% wrong about most of what he claims in this 'documentary'.
I bet you have some valid proof like him wanting to share, other than this random comment.
religion is bullshit anyways
Your stupidly articulate. Really easy to listen to.
Christianity strikes me as an overly complicated series of mental gymnastics. That's why I converted to Islam -- proper monotheism, unified scripture, and no mental gymnastics.
Jesus is like Santa clause, a great story to get kids to behave the way you need them too.
typical Atheist trite
its ok you have to forgive me
Seems to me the Early Church Fathers to a man were Roman Catholics. Funny how those who learned Christianity from the Apostles themselves were all Roman Catholics. "The gates of hell shall not prevail." Hmmm.............
Actually most of them lived in the East and spoke not at all to the bishop of Rome. But it sounds as if this is a fundamental conviction and I'm not entirely sure what you mean by Roman Catholic, so I'm not sure how to comment fully. But the term Roman Catholic is medieval and arises out of development during those centuries, not here.
Ryan Reeves Roman Catholic = Person who recognizes and is subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. In the early Councils the bishops would say to the papal legates: "Peter himself has spoken to us through [name of reigning Roman bishop here]!"
No they were all Catholic, Roman is just a rite.
Bear Man Roman Catholic is a moniker the Anglicans gave us referring to those who remained subject to the Bishop of Rome. The Rite used in the Western Church is properly called the Latin Rite (though it is rarely in Latin anymore).
Beware of revisionist history.
Let me explain the person above is using Roman Catholic....of course that was adopted fairly recently. Were speaking of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (or the Roman Catholic church). When you say the Fathers did not speak with Rome you are flat out misleading people. Frequent correspondence was had with the Chair of Peter. In fact the earliest of Fathers were always pointing to Rome to remain orthodox and united. Even Clement was corresponding to the communities and making binding decisions even before the last apostle died. Its interesting to see the Church Fathers from a protestant point of view. Its almost as if you all try to eliminate the Catholicism for them. Yet all of them believed in the Eucharist (real presence) NOT a SYMBOL! Most were bishops in the RC.
I try to spread Gnosticism I dont think I am privileged
This apologist view of Gnostics, atypical exoteric perspective from a fundamentalist christian, all head with little or no heart. This Christian dogma ,now approaching oblivion, the epoch of Peter as we now are entering the mystical epoch of John.
p.s. if Jesus were here he would hang out with me, not you
we don't even know any of this existed we are all going on what others said about jesus but you have never heard from jesus yourself so all of you are under an illusion
+Stone Actually Bart Ehrman's new book " Historical Jesus " offers conclusive evidence that Jesus was an historical figure .. Also Mr Ehrman is an Atheist..
+TheEspJames I thought he was agnostic
He makes the claims to be both?.. his interview is on U tube .actually he was known by the Atheist community as an atheist then he shocked them by claiming personally to be an Atheist but as a scientist he was agnostic? Richard Dawkins makes the same split personality claim? personally I say pick a side!
No such thing as sin -the way people behave is determined by their genes and the environment over which we have very limited control.John Stuart Mill declared tell me absolutely everything there is to know about a person and i can predict exactly what he's going to do next -the whole Christian narrative is every bit as fanciful and mythological as all the other myths and legends of all the other religions.
This is the best lecture on BS Gnosticism I ever heard. 👍👍👍👍