@@dbarker7794, It's great to see that my Christian comment brought joy to your life. Hopefully, more atheists like you will allow me to bring more joy with my Christian comment to their lives as well. Joy is so meaningful, isn't it?
Origen's universalism, allegorical approach to the scriptures, and the view of the meta-historical fall (/pre-cosmic fall) were also accepted by some of the main Byzantine saint church fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Evagrius, and Maximus the Confessor. There were many Greek church fathers that were universalists. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basic the Great curated an anthology of Origen's quotes in a book called Philocalia. His contribution to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial. Before Origen no one said the Logos / Son of God was eternal. And with regards to that Origen introduced in Christian theology the idea of eternal generation, which he got from the founder of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas, of whom he was a student, as mentioned. And the condemnation of Origen is itself a problematic affair. In the Fifth ecumenical council Origen is condemned without mentioning any of his doctrines, then the Emperor Justinian forces the fathers of the council to, in addition to the documents of the council, sign a document that he presents to them, which are a series of anathemas against alleged origenist teachings. Of those teaching, as they are formulated there, it is questionable if Origen held to any of them. The whole thing seems to have been an attempt to suppress certain monk communities that had certain neo-origenist ideas widespread among them.
It would be great if we had more writings from Justin Martyr whom I regard as the greatest apologist but Origen’s contribution takes things to a whole other level for sure and his influence can’t be underestimated.
As far as popularity goes when it comes to our earliest church fathers, Origen must have some good numbers. Many who feel some of Origen's perspectives don't fly still honor him as a founder of the church. Great presentation as usual John.
I have never heard a lecture or debate on the Greek and Jewish “alliance” or shared intellectualism facing the Roman Empire as viewed as subjected peoples. We don’t allow The Hebrew kingdoms to belong to a Greater Phoenicia, nor do we center history on the Phoenicians, but if we did, conceptually, it might be interesting. Carthage and Greece itself fall to the Romans in the same year and the arrival of Roman administrators begins trickling in (or pounding in) over the next few hundred years, all recorded and remembered at the social elite, educated level. Makes you wonder what is going on in this context in a cosmopolitan city like Alexandria with regard to perceived needs or desires to codify and create a social system (religion) with a shared and agreed philosophy/morality capable of overcoming the sacrificial rites polytheism that they can see is basically an unsupportable sham and superseding this “End of Times” final empire. I don’t know what that particular lecture would be called, but I would be curious to hear John take a stab at it. One important aspect rarely talked about is the Red Sea and Nile River as two waterways of historically equal importance and the reality of long term Phoenician and Egyptian collaboration.
Thank you John, your lectures are wonderful and very informational. Appreciate your hard work in gathering and presenting the lectures. Kathy, Ft. Collins, Co. Congregation.
This topic helps to contextualize early Christianity. Thank you for an interesting, original and thought-provoking introduction to the theological evolution of Christian thought!
Origin was supposedly castrated by his own hand. His mom talked him out of being a martyr by going to the roman authority and basicly asking to be put to death. Later he hid when the authorities were rounding up christian leaders he hid out to avoid capture. He was a genius but a troubled one.
It's not surprising that uneducated people can be geniuses. I believe that the sophistication of the styles in the gospels is because the authors were inspired. Very informative work - thank you. (Oh what a huge loss that the vast majority of Origen's writing was not preserved!) Btw, always thought the 'g' in Origen was hard, as in 'again' - even though it violates the usual rule of pronunciation.
@@КороткийГеннадий As well as in ancient Latin, as in the days of Cicero and Julius Caesar: Regina means Queen. re-GHee'-na rather than "reh-JEE-nuh" or even worse (as Trudeau would say... :P), "rej-EYE-na", as in, "Show us your Regina"... Interestingly, The Russians say "Kaiser" (KAI-zer) while the Americans say, "Cesar" (SEE-zer)
@@stephenkalatucka6213 Apparently though, the infamous work of antiquity, and revolutionary product of your high intellect, the first edition manuscript of, "Origin of Feces" was recently found and will now be preserved forever...
I always found it strange that Germanic and slav languages say "Kai-zer" whilst romance languages say it See-zer. The correct pronunciation of Caesar is the former.
Imagine Origen and the so-called Church Fathers sitting around the table discussing future church doctrine and he says Satan will be forgiven. If I could have seen the look on their faces. It makes me chuckle EVERY TIME! LMFAO 😂😂😂
Gregory of Nyssa, called "father of fathers" by the seventh ecumenical council, also believed that Satan will be saved, and was very public about his universalism. In fact there were many Byzantine church fathers who accepted universalism, people can check out a book called A Larger Hope, volume one, by Illaria Ramelli, which gives a rundown of universalists among the church fathers and saints. (Volume two is by another author and covers the reformation and after.)
Even before Origen universalism was already an idea contemplated by Church Fathers. You have to remember that early Christians were preaching in the midst of pagans who completely outnumbered them. Universalism grew out of the need to justify saying, "Oh, sure, your who committed will EVENTUALLY be admitted to heaven," multiple times.
@@zelenisok Satan can only be Saved by his sincere repentance asking for forgiveness. Will/has Satan asked for forgiveness, surely it's speculative at the mortal level here on earth 🌎🌍
Origen sounds like an ancient Galileo: a genius persecuted by the Church. Note also that in his later years Galileo was force to recant and sadly declared his own teachings to be wrong. He was force to state publicly that the Earth did not move, based on the ridiculous church 'evidence' from the Sun stopping in the book of Joshua. The writing attributed to Origen that said: "I do not know whether it is wise to go beyond this" sound like an interpolation added to defend Origen in the face of dogmatism.
Eh... there's a lecture on Galileo in the channel. It doesn't address this, but what you're saying is a garbled understanding of Galileo's recantation. He was forced to recant and admit he was wrong, yes, but not in the way you described. The part he's wrong about is not that Earth doesn't move but that in HIS system there is no immoveable mover for the motion of Earth, therefore it is impossible for the Earth to move. Galileo didn't quite understand gravity (the immoveable mover in his system) - that's up for Newton to figure out later - so he couldn't explain why the Earth moves. This was the actual problem the Church scholars had with his proposition. Robert Bellarmine was perfectly willing to accept an Earth moving around the sun as long as the immoveable mover (which to him was God) was there. However, Galileo failed to show how that generative force could exist when he allowed for all his planets, stars, and even the sun to move. Galileo was perfectly correct in unchaining all cosmic objects, of course, but in failing to describe a cemter of the universe from which an immoveable mover could act on and move the cosmos, he accidentally "erased" God in the eyes of Church scholars who otherwise had no problems with his math.
As it was mentioned above, the scene of the ‘Last supper’ acquires sense. Its purpose is to persuade Christ’s disciples that they will have to eat the flesh of their teacher and to drink his blood and to convince the ‘apostles’ that by doing this they will overtake Christ’s divinity. Then, there appears to be much more sense in many other aspects of Christianity, including the myth about the resurrection of Jesus Christ itself. The mysticism of the ‘holy’ Grail Christians attach great importance to the chalice from which Jesus Christ was drinking during the ‘Last supper’ and into which, according to Robert from Boron, Joseph from Arimathea later collected Christ’s blood. Christians think that the Grail has various magic powers, and, in order to make use of them, one has to drink from it - thus, in some way one has to drink the true blood of Jesus Christ. It seems that most probably Joseph had a point in collecting Christ’s blood into a chalice, and that possibly it was used for drinking shortly after Christ’s death, and that the Christian fantasies related to wine-drinking during religious rituals are repetitions of a horrible ceremony that took place almost two thousand years ago. The myth about the Resurrection Resurrection was invented long before Christians. There had been many religions that had a god who died and resurrected periodically. Various rites of sacrifice were related to the resurrection of one or another god and the offerings - usually domestic animals - were frequently eaten by the participants of the mysteries. Did not Jesus Christ imagine his death and resurrection in a similar way - that he would resurrect in his disciples who would have eaten his flesh and would have drunk his blood? According to ‘Saint’ John, Jesus Christ explained: ‘The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him’. (John, 6, 56; italics are mine, G.Š.) The Eucharist Having assumed that the first Eucharist was not symbolic, but real and took place not before Christ’s death, but on the following night, the ritual itself appears in a completely different light - it is clear now how the rite managed to unite Christians. After all, nothing has such power of uniting people as a common secret or crime. When people have performed religious rituals that others consider to be inhuman or even criminal, they feel initiated, special different from others. Even now, the Eucharist remains one of the basic rituals that maintain Christian unity. Eating together the imaginary god’s flesh can be also called ‘communion’ - metaphoric acceptance to the community of the Christians who have already performed the ritual or further acceleration of the sense of being one of the Christians. Inclination towards passive cannibalism is psychologically possible It is no secret that Jesus Christ was not a psychically balanced personality. The absence of information about one’s biological father was considered by the ancient Jews to be an irremovable stain, and there is a lot of information in the Bible about the eccentricity of Christ that manifested itself already in his childhood. Therefore, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ could wish to be eaten. Even nowadays, there are some people who crave to be eaten; even the broad public from time to time is informed of some individual cases of pre-agreed cannibalism - when the ‘victim’ finds their future eater via the Internet or so. It is possible that Jesus Christ also had such a drive. The Christian cannibalistic mysticism is apparently still encouraging psychological deviations Various myths about vampirism are widespread among Christians; films about cannibals, blood-suckers and similar heroes are most popular in the places where the Christian culture is dominating. There are so many maniac killers and violent perverts among Christians as nowhere else in the world; again and again in the Christian world there emerge people who want to be eaten. Are not those cases reverberations of the ‘Last supper’? - Most Christians constantly take part in religious rituals that willy-nilly are associated with cannibalism, so they can traumatise some oversensitive persons for the rest of their lives. So, there are many serious arguments that support the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was eaten after his crucifixion. If it is proved or at least accepted as a very probable one, much can be understood and explained in the Christian faith, psychology and in the whole Christian culture. Perhaps it could also be helpful in understanding the inhuman historical cruelty of Christians - in understanding why the millions of decent people who found the Christian ‘communion’ unacceptable were killed in cold blood, tortured to death or burnt alive during the long history of Christianity?
@edwardlouisbernays2469 buddy I only read through a couple paragraphs. Your ideology needs some bible teaching . Pray for God to give you wisdom ..don't relie on utube to get your theology.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 📜 Origin is recognized as the first Christian genius, with his early Christian writings admired by modern scholars for their significance in taking Christian thought to a new level. 01:23 📚 Many of Jesus' early disciples were from working-class backgrounds, and they left no writings, making it challenging to assess their intellectual contributions. 03:33 🖋️ Paul of Tarsus, who had never met the historical Jesus, played a significant role in the early Christian movement due to his writings and ability to articulate Christian thought. 05:20 🙏 Origin's interpretation of Christ as Lord, identifying Jesus as the Messiah and the glory of God, contributed to the development of Christian theology. 09:51 📖 Apart from Paul, there were other significant early Christian thinkers, including the anonymous author of The Epistle to the Hebrews and the authors of the Gospels. 10:18 📜 Christianity attracted more intellectual elites after being patronized by Roman emperors, leading to thinkers like Ambrose and Augustine, who played a pivotal role in shaping Christian thought. 13:20 📕 Origin's contributions included producing the first critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, inventing scriptural literary criticism. 14:57 📚 Origin created the first systematic Christian theology, making significant contributions to the development of ideas like the Ransom theory of atonement. 19:22 📚 Origin's hexapla was a groundbreaking work that included the Hebrew text, Greek transliteration, and multiple Greek translations to assist in studying and interpreting the scriptures. 27:21 📜 The subagent version of the Old Testament included books not part of the original Hebrew scriptures, with some texts likely composed in Greek. Orthodox and Catholic traditions include these texts as deuterocanonical. 28:29 📚 Eusebius, the main source for Origin's life, was a biased and unreliable historian who portrayed Origin as a perfect Christian scholar. 29:13 🏛️ Alexandria, the birthplace of Origin, was a significant center of intellectual and cultural capital in the Greco-Roman world, with a strong Hellenistic influence. 36:16 🕍 Alexandria had a large Jewish population, making it the biggest Jewish community in the world during that time and a major center of Hellenistic Jewish thought. 38:02 📖 Origin studied at the Catechetical School of Alexandria and may have attended the Platonic Academy under Ammonius Saccas, who influenced Neoplatonism. 43:51 📚 Origin was influenced by Clement of Alexandria and advocated for the compatibility of philosophy and Christianity, emphasizing that Christian ideas predated pagan philosophy. 52:05 🗣️ The story of Origin castrating himself, based on a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12, is questionable and lacks credible evidence. 55:40 📚 Origin's conflict with Demetrius and other bishops led to disputes about his preaching and ordination, including rumors of self-castration, reflecting the early church's complexities. 59:03 📖 Origin authored around 2,000 treatises covering theology, philosophy, and biblical interpretation, contributing significantly to early Christian thought. 01:00:09 📜 Origin's work "Peri Archon" is regarded as Christianity's first systematic theology, though it's controversial due to later condemnations. 01:10:23 🕊️ Origin's theology sees Christ, the Son of God, as eternal and coexistent with the Father, emphasizing the unchanging nature of God. 01:17:12 🙌 Origin's writings provide a more spiritual and comprehensive understanding of Christ, emphasizing the logos and its role as holy wisdom. 01:20:29 🌟 Origin's theological perspective defines the roles of the Father, the Word (Logos), and the Holy Spirit, with the latter enabling beings to attain holiness through participation. 01:21:56 📖 Origin, an early Christian thinker, had concerns about the concept of Free Will, particularly in relation to God hardening Pharaoh's heart in the Exodus story. 01:25:17 📖 Origin wrote a response to the Pagan philosopher Celsus, critiquing Christianity. Celsus questioned Christ's suffering, and Origin argued it was prophesied. 01:29:05 📖 Origin faced persecution under Emperor Deus and refused to renounce his faith, becoming a Christian martyr. 01:36:22 📖 Later, Origin's teachings influenced many Christian thinkers, including John Scotus Eriugena and Erasmus during the Renaissance. Origin was considered a significant Christian genius. 01:47:39 📚 Origin had supporters who found his ideas worthwhile, which contributed to his recognition as one of the Church Fathers. 01:48:06 📜 Origin's rehabilitation in later times was due to improved scholarship recognizing the context in which he lived, prior to the development of the Trinity doctrine. 01:48:45 🙏 Origin is now considered one of the Church Fathers by some Christian traditions, although sainthood varies among denominations. 01:52:05 💡 Origin argued against Gnosticism while incorporating some of its spiritual and Platonic elements into Orthodox Christianity. 01:54:27 ⛪ Origin and early Christian communities were independent of the Roman state, with periodic persecutions being the only direct connection. 01:55:27 👤 Preaching by ordained priests became the norm as hierarchical structures within Christian communities evolved. 01:57:18 🌐 The political agenda drove Justinian's actions during the Second Council of Constantinople, rather than a strong opinion on the creation of human souls. 02:01:08 🧙 Origin's theology was highly influential among his contemporaries, leading to both admiration and opposition. 02:02:05 🌍 Origin's universalist writings have influenced modern thinking on the subject, contributing to the development of the concept of universal salvation.
Origen did not believe that Jesus was in essence God come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He believed that Jesus was a created soul that did not fall away from God as all others did. He was a genius by definition. But it is very obvious that he did not rely upon the Holy Spirit for the right understanding of the Holy Scriptures; but instead he relied upon the powers of his own reasoning. The apostle Paul would have rightly rejected Origen without question. If you don't get Jesus right nothing that follows will be right. Paul and all the other apostles understood that. Origen was a Christian by profession and form, lacking the power that comes from the Spirit of Christ within. Religious minds are so fascinated by his writings, that they overlook the inexcusable errors that saturate alot of what he wrote. When you allow the Holy Spirit to teach and guide you in your biblical study, He makes sure you get Jesus right first.
@@masada2828 Jesus Christ is both God and man. That’s what makes him unique and the only begotten son of God. His being God is what enabled Him to lead captivity captive, and give gifts unto men.
Can you provide the source of this claim? How do you explain this: Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
@SarahHodgins because people who can critically think know that benevolent creator comprised of love wouldn't have qualities like anger and jealousy, wouldn't demand to be worshiped like a narcissist and wouldn't command his own people to "dash babies against the rocks" because he's a genocidal maniac.. Would you like to see a list of all the good things Hitler did?
What a wonderful lecturer. He walks on water and is as cute as the dickens. I wish I would have had a nice teacher in Catholic school. Nothing but abuse. Six nihilistic years for an innocent little boy. Lost my faith when I walked into the public junior high library and started reading Azimov's Astronomy, then realized I had been lied to. Jesus was here five minutes ago on a Cosmic time scale and there were humans on Earth two hundred thousand years ago who had the same number of brain cells as I had and fully developed languages. Jesus never said anything about a Universe of four hundred billion galaxies with two hundred billion stars in each. All he knew was astrology, the age of the fish, Pices, and the age of the water bearer, Aquarius. No wonder why he never came back. He was a flimflammer. They put him to death because they didnt like phony flimflammers. The people from Nazareth hated him the most. They knew him better than anyone: son of Mary.
Please do a lecture on Clement of Alexandria! And the Holy Spirit - originally the feminine aspect of God. Love your informative and thought-provoking lectures, more please!
Could Jesus Christ have been eaten? If we assume that Jesus Christ (his corpse) after the crucifixion was eaten by his followers, we can explain not only the Christian cannibalistic mysticism, but also many other mysteries of Christianity. The rituals of the Eucharist are similar to the ceremonies of the true cannibals Non-Christians have always been confused by the rituals that simulate eating the body of Jesus Christ (Joshua from Nazareth, the Christian prophet, worshiped as a god or god’s son) or drinking his blood. While eating special consecrated wafers or drinking wine, Catholics, the Orthodox and many other Christians imagine that these are the body and blood of their prophet (or god). Most Christians imagine that by doing this they get closer to their god, acquire a kind of divinity themselves, and some of them even fall into ecstasy. These rituals by their form and meaning remind of the rites of many known cannibalistic cultures - the true cannibals ate people (perhaps they are still doing this in some regions of Africa and Asia) not because they were starving, but because they believed that by eating up a man or a certain part of his body they would overtake his power and courage.
According to Roman Piso, 'Origen' and 'Dio Cassius' were two of several aliases of Domitius Ulpian, yet another royal descendant of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Listen to Sleeping Wasbands.
I don't know if this is a fair question. But I shall pose it here as you seem a kind man. What does the word "meta" mean? Many years ago, I was taught that "Metaphysics"''s origin as a phrase was because it was an unnamed booked after Physics and contained grand speculation (analysis) of many "universal" topics. I have looked the terms up and had it confirmed that indeed "meta" signifys "after". Yet the way so many people use the term it seems to have come to mean something else (or more?). This is not to suggest that you alone do it but that many intellectuals do. And so I am left wondering what exactly it is that "meta" means in modern vernacular. Any guidance appreciated.
I enjoy many of his videos- but when he gives his OPINION on who wrote different books in the Bible- he acts as if his OPINION is written in stone and is agreed upon among all Biblical scholars . His opinions are NOT factual or agreed upon among all scholars. Moses absolutely wrote the Penatuc - John ABSOLUTELY wrote John and Revelation- Daniel ABSOLUTELY wrote the book of Daniel etc..
The concept of Christ incarnating as wisdom on earth is very similar to the avatars of Vishnu in Vedic traditions (with the Father being Brahma and the Spirit being Shiva)
I tried to read Origen, and in my opinion he didn't know what he was talking about, he was faking it. But, he had had access to writings of people who *did* know what they were talking about, so there are flashes of borrowed genius, mixed with confusing and confused ideas.
Just like Paul and really any theological fanboy's. Jesus made it clear even children can understand what He was talking about. It's not difficult stuff.
But we also have to remember that all of Origen's writings we have today have been sanitized by his later supporters who tried to portray him as in no way heretical. It may be that those borrowed parts were borrowed not by him but by them. I think if we ever come across Origen's pure unadulterated writings, they may come off as super-original and super-heretical like it might have for those who eventually condemned him. After all, BOTH Alexander and Arius referenced Origen to come up with their opposing views, one of which ended up being deemed heretical.
The statement that "none of [Jesus disciples] left writings ignores the disciples who wrote the New Testament. He should have said that none of the disciples that this pretend "scholar" wants to recognize wrote anything about Jesus. This thing already shows the bigorty of the Atheist religion.
Video says: "Origen was the first to propose the 'Ransom Theory'" Mark 10:45 - For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. What more evidence do we need that the wheels of this guy's religion have come completely off. These lies are SO egregious that it's hard to continue - but continue I will because I love exposing reptiles like this.
I don’t think God originates the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart as much as focusing what was already in Pharaoh’s heart so that he doesn’t endlessly waver but actually does all he, himself, intended in his heart as distinct from his rational mind with all its potential and sometimes contradictory calculations. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” I’m suggesting a better translation than, “harden,” would be, “solidify,” which is a perfectly legitimate alternative translation. The two words seem to have the same meaning but have different connotations in modern English mostly thanks to English being very much a mishmash of several diverse languages (and why it’s considered bad form to use the same word twice in a paragraph.”
What he claims is definitely true is a matter of opinion. About John. a liberal Anglican bishop, John Robinson, au Contraire that John is the most historical of the Gospels, albeit one that was the work of three authors. the apostle John being the first who make an attempt. As for the fisherman thing, archaeologist have concluded that such boats were in fact a considerable investment in capital, and that John and James were about to leave the business because their father was the equivalent of a small businessman.
Heavenly Father, we thank You for the gifts You have bestowed upon this person, for Your grace and provision in their life. We ask, Lord, that You reveal Yourself to them in a profound way, opening their heart to the truth of Your love and the salvation found in Jesus Christ. May Your Holy Spirit lead them to faith, transforming their life with the light of Your presence. Guide them, O Lord, into a deep and lasting relationship with You. In Jesus' name, Amen.
The prism @1:16:20 is from the orthodoxy established by the roman councils? The effect this has is to make heretics out for any opposing views before and after that point in time. which is ridiculous. The Creed, If not repeated word for word as you previously mentioned especially in relation to the trinity has made a heretic or attributed heretical views on the 'first christian genius' What chance did the average man have when compelled under some inquisition to explain his views if required. Forced 'orthodoxy' through pain of death
Origen could be that threshhold, before which meditative openness and spiritual universalism was a possible direction for Christianity's development, but after which dogmatic clericalism and sectarianism have been dominating the Churches to this day.
“Despite important work on the Greco-Roman antecedents of modern racism, very limited attention has been paid to early Christian literature in this connection. This is remarkable not least because modern Western racism took shape initially in a European context heavily influenced by Christianity. The present essay contributes to addressing this lacuna by analysing statements about ‘other’ ethnicities in the work of Origen of Alexandria, one of the most important thinkers of the first three centuries CE. It argues that Origen defends a number of positions that exhibit substantial similarities with later racist modes of thinking. Earlier scholarly accounts that portray Origen as a champion of human equality and as engaged in anti-racist efforts therefore cannot stand up to scrutiny. Origen disparages certain ethnic groups and develops arguments that connect ethnic identity and geographical location with various degrees of sinfulness. His work offers clear evidence that theories of ethnic inferiority have a long history within the Christian matrix that stretches considerably beyond the modern and medieval periods.” The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 71, Issue 1, April 2020, Pages 164-195,
@@masada2828 - Oh brother. What are you, Catholic? The Gospel of John clearly tells us who the Word is. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. You don't have to be a bible genius to connect those dots but you do have to be deceived beyond reason to miss it. Reading comprehension skills are severely lacking in denominationalism.
@@GizmoFromPizmo - if I was Catholic I would be a Trinitarian which I’m not. Catholics are not encouraged to read their Bible let alone, study it. Logos is not Jesus Christ, look up the meaning & do some cross referencing. U do not need to be aggressive in ur critique, certainly not a ‘Christian’ attribute.
It would be amazing if he hadn't given his views about this puzzling topic, but a great deal of his commentary on Scripture has been lost so they may no longer be extant.
It’s worth noting that our earliest gospel doesn’t record the “Sign of Jonah”. Jesus denies the Pharisees any sign from heaven. Mark 8:11 _The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.”_ The author of Matthew sees an opportunity to expand on this and incorporate the apocalyptic nature of Jonah into the narrative. And just as God sent Jonah to warn Nineveh, so does Jesus send the disciples through the towns of Israel to prepare them for the Kingdom of God. Matthew 12:38 _A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here._ Matthew’s unfortunately stuck with Jonah’s timeline of 3 days and 3 nights. Jonah 1:17 _Yahweh sent a big fish to swallow Jonah. Jonah was inside the fish for three days and three nights._ He’s probably aware the math doesn’t work but…what are you gonna do? It’s too good of an analogy to pass up.
How do we know the, “extra literature,” in the Septuagint version of Daniel was not in the original Hebrew text from which it was translated since somehow that original mysteriously vanished? Conversely, how do we know that the, Masoretic, didn’t edit the original, e.g., remove stories that reference events centred in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in order to consolidate Hebrew history into the history of the Southern Kingdom of Judah; and by extension, the later traditions of the Pharisees cum post-Second Temple Rabbinic Jews?
Academic studies. There's a wealth of books, papers, articles, and lectures about it. We also know which letters in the NT are falsely attributed to Paul.
Listen to both scholars who are skeptics and those who believe the bible as Gods word to get a balanced position. To show you that scholars can be dumd they use same sources and methods but draw opinions which can be varying like 1.jesus is a myth never existed 2.he is a legend ..existed but embellished story 3.he was real as depicted in gospels. SO HOW DO YOU RELY ON SCHOLARS?
How could anyone who has read the Book of Romans say that Origen was the first "Christian" genius? I am less than one minute into this video and I can already tell that the UA-camr has not read not comprehended what Paul wrote to the Romans.
What no one had understood up to this day is this: Why the Holy Spirit/Ghost came only after Jesus was dead. What are the "mechanics" by which the Holy S/G was brought to us. Jesus said that when he was gone, he would send a helper. Why not with Jesus?
The presenter gives too much credence to the charge that Origen castrated himself. The origin of that is from a shaky source (Eusebius of Caesarea) and it's clearly counter to how he interpreted scripture.
Eusebius didn't start it. The allegation that Demetrius slandered Origen started with St. Pamphilius' Apology for Origen. There are passages which suggest that one of the slanderous accusations can be understood as possibly self-castration. Eusebius (his student) simply ran with it and made it more vivid (as he's oft to do). However, it may be that this accusation was well-known long before Eusebius' time as other students of Origen were said to have also defended him from it. Basically, there was very likely such an accusation during and after Origen's lifetime which Origen's students tried to defend him from and Eusebius accidentally made it "real" in his weird attempt to defend and lionize Origen as a tragic hero.
I heard John explain the story was from Origens enemy and therfore suspect. And John also pointed out how Origens commentary explicitly states that this practice was not biblical, not supported by the gospel of Matthew.
@@michellehamilton4075 He's one of those scholars of the bible who hasn't studied the bible. You're one of those video watchers who knows oh so much. It's possible -- possible -- you simply are _projecting_ unto him the way you _really feel_ about your own self. I do not know, and don't CLAIM to know. Peace to all seeking hearts.
A lot of people mistake forgiveness for acceptance which is why they denounced him as heretical. You can forgive someone that does something bad because you love all living beings and all living people. A terrorist could have been you in a different life. They could have witnessed war their entire lives and been fed lies and only witnessed the West subjugating them and the soldiers raping their people. Terrorists idea of God then is martyring himself for his people and sacrificing his life for what he feels is a greater purpose. I don’t accept what he has done and what his choice was in life. I don’t accept the mentality he had and the people he took from me. But I can forgive him as a human being who has been misled as we all often are. I love him as a fellow human being because we are all coming from the same beautiful divinity. In another life, we may have been friends. So I forgive that person for the way he has misinterpreted life, I do not accept the choices that were made. I do not know the full decisions of Satan leading to his fall, but his experiences clearly misled him and drew him away from his father. He chose to hate humanity and Gods creations, maybe he misinterpreted rhe love that God has for him versus Humanity. I don’t know. I cannot accept how Satan has fucked with and misled our fellow human beings into destroying ourselves, but I can forgive Satan as he is a creation of God just as we are and thus we are all from the same divinity. Satan was misled whether by himself or something greater rhan him, so why would it be so heretical to pray for his redemption and forgiveness?
Einstein was a genius. His genius is often summed up in: E=MC2 Copernicus was a genius and his genius can be summed up in: Heliocentricism. Geniuses often have shorthand ways to validate their genius. In 2-hours of a video on _Origen - The First Christian Genius,_ I couldn't give you such a summation. The Apostle Paul was the first Christian genius on the level of an Albert Einstein. Of all the people who had read and studied the Torah, the Apostle Paul was the only one to pick out Genesis 15:6 as a pertinent theology: "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness." That single verse is Paul's E=MC2. That verse became the cornerstone of and justification for what Paul called "My Gospel". No one else on earth had ever picked out that truth. Paul was the first. Two men in the whole bible talk about Genesis 15:6 - the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James (Jesus' brother). Paul uses it to support his ministry, mission, and message. James uses the same verse to debunk Paul's message. James uses it as a polemic against Paul and his ministry. The first Christian genius has his detractors to this very day but the truth of his finding cannot be denied.
I'm not sure if you're saying at 3:26 that it was during Paul's time that people in the communities Paul founded kept and read his letters alongside the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. But to clarify, during Paul's time, the Septuagint had yet to be written.
Well, Jesus read out of the Greek version of Isaiah in Luke 4 so, there was a Greek Old Testament around in Jesus' day. We know that Jesus was reading from the Greek because the Hebrew version doesn't contain the phrase "recovery of sight to the blind" but that's the verse that Jesus read to the people in the synagogue. The scroll in the synagogue was written in Greek. Septuagint? I would say, "Yes". The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint almost exclusively.
@GizmoFromPizmo @derekcrockett7538 Yes, Gizmo is spot on. The greek Septuagint read by Jesus was the old testament that also included 49 books including what is now the Apocrypha - but it was never “hidden.” Those 7 books were always there. King Ptolemy hired 70 Jewish scribes and had them all separated and write the OT to ensure they would not hide anything from tue King. When they compared all 70 Versions, they were nearly exactly the same, including 49 books. Catholics maintained these OT books and protestants removed 7 books around the 1800s to save on printing costs. King James Version of 1611 includes those extra books and Martin Luther’s bible included them too. But he wanted them removed, including 4 books of NT - James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, because they didn’t match his new theology. Look it up. Truth
@@o.o.2255 - Also, the Jews didn't consider them (the apocrypha) inspired either. For example, the Wisdom of Solomon, although written in his name, was not authored by Solomon, which is a shame because it is such a great book against idolatry. Catholics would be well advised to hearken to it's sage advice. Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is also a very good book, in the same vein as Proverbs and The Book of Solomon but its authorship is similarly dubious. I would love to see the copy of the Greek version of the Psalms that includes what we read in the Book of Hebrews: "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:" "...but a body thou hast prepared for me", is not in any of the versions of the Psalms that I have. Jerome translated the Torah from the Septuagint but the Psalms aren't as on target. They are definitely better than the Masoretic Text that we (for some reason) use today but they miss every once in awhile. The Masoretic Text is a mess. When the Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Hebrew in the 10th century AD (that's right. I said, they translated Hebrew into Hebrew) they made sure that the prophecies concerning Jesus were not so on-the-nose. How do you translate Hebrew into Hebrew? Ancient Hebrew (just like ancient Aramaic and ancient Arabic) has no vowel markings. Furthermore, there are no spaces between words in these ancient languages (to conserve paper). You almost have to know what the passage says before you translate it. The Masoretic Text "fixes" all those pesky prophecies that are so obviously talking about Jesus. We know that the Septuagint is what Jesus and the apostles used because we call it the Red Sea. There is ZERO chance that Yam Suph was ever thought to mean "the Sea of Reeds" because the Greek Old Testament uses the Greek word for "red". Given the Masoretic Text, however, there is some question. We KNOW what the Jews called it in the third century BC thanks to the Septuagint.
It says in Arabic script on the top right of the orange painting: "Al bab'' (the door) and underneath "Al Akram" (the most honorable). Ramadan Kareem: honorable or sublime Ramadan--Ramadan cream cookies inspired by Ramadan Kareem (maybe)
Origen the heretic was not a Bible believer, he was a Bible corrector and corrupter as was the serpent in the garden of Eden. You are not a Bible believer. You, as Origen, view the Bible as a piece of literature to be analyzed, not as the inspired word of God to be believed and obeyed.
Thank you, but a sad story, not just the loss or bowdlerisation of Origen's work, and his undeserved end, but his life's work - a convoluted attempt to justify the frankly nonsensical.
40:52 😊 41:46 This is why I love your lectures: always telling how these things really work, instead of sugarcoating it. Everybody is claiming to have “the original” thoughts as their own. Which necessarily leads to these stories having it all backwards compared to what really happened. - In hindsight all the Eureka moments merge and fuse ideas, as if they had always been that way / were intended that way by nature / God, and I can’t even blame them: because that’s what it feels like when you find something out! But of course this method of storytelling is necessarily anachronistic: starting one’s writing with one’s very own conclusion feels right, because that’s what it is what one has “found out”, but of course it’s having the process all backwards. There’s probably even a name for this kind of fallacy. It makes for a good narrative to leave out all the exploration and false ends, and only keep what you found / your own conclusion. I do It all the time myself 😂. Just ignoring all the problems and impossibilities and non-sequiturs for the sake of one owns narrative. Of course in the end it’s a disservice, but one always wants to believe that the general idea was right and can be saved, just because it “felt right” at some point. - In principle a lot of ideas are open to scientific investigation, but to be honest: creativity comes first, science comes later to weed out all the falsities. - Ideas may start as Skeletons, then acquire a fat body, and then have to be trimmed down again to whatever holds water, or discarded. But one does not start the process with discarding… - so the question is: when do you write your book? In the skeleton phase? In the full body phase? Or once you weeded everything out, and found out that it all belongs on the compost heap and you just wasted three years of work? - Some things maybe should be left to the contrarians in the first place. Digestion of new ideas always takes time and a lot of back and forth / discussion, not to say a whole generation to discard again and another one to resurrect/ find the true nucleus / rediscover what was attractive about it in the first place. 47:02 Plotinus Neoplatonism and Augustine 49:50 wtf - you can’t just throw in a depiction of a guy cutting his own balls off! Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. 😮 1:01:19 the whole thing about Hagia Sophia and the Logos in modern scientific parlance seems like a discussion on wether the laws of nature are preexistent to matter and energy: Did the Creator create the laws on how the stuff should behave before he created the stuff? It’s the same as asking about the transition function of the state holding bits in information theory. You can’t have one without the other. - I’m beginning to see how Joscha Bach is repeatedly saying “I’m always late to the party”: it’s pretty hard to come up with original ideas, when everything has been thought before. Stephen Wolfram would probably say: “Hagia Sophia is an Automaton.” And his New Kind of Science is just the realization that there’s possibly an infinite amount, and by enumerating and testing them all, he wanted to identify the one, that created this universe of ours… As for the inseparability of the “Trinity”: elementary particles are defined by how they behave: their behavior is “non-optional” in Sheldon Cooper’s parlance. And when there is the Multiverse or even the Ruliad, all “potential” is realized in it. - I think we are coming back to some kind of Holy Trinity in the end: things exist, they behave, there is no unrealized potential - but we only ever can see slices of it. Kind of funny how science becomes theology again in the end. The circle is closed.
I'm not CoC, and I've not read Origen so far, but isn't it possible that Origen of Alexandria, and/or Leontius of Antioch, were somewhere on the trans spectrum?
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV) 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Cor 15:22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive 1 John 2:2 New International Version 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
1:01:40 nice try 🎉Ignatius a.d. 30-107 Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV "Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God.... For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God - both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father." ~Irenaeus who wrote around the year AD 185 Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity. “We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7). ,& The evidence is that he is with God one with God his Word at His Right "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead." ~Polycarp (AD 69-155) & "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit." ~Ignatius (AD 50-117) So it's not new as we see there been a trinity all but name Reminds of Psalms 45:6 Your throne, O God(אֱ֭לֹהִים)Elohim, is for ever and ever: the scepter of your kingdom is a right scepter. Psalms 45:7 You love righteousness, and hate wickedness: therefore God(אֱלֹהִ֣ים)Elohim your God((אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ)Elohim, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows. Isaiah 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. Isaiah 48:16 Come you near to me, hear you this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, has sent me. Isaiah 48:17 Thus said the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD your God which teaches you to profit, which leads you by the way that you should go.
Origen And The Orangutans: I want to write a book. What about the souls of orangutans? They are wiser than we are. They keep their mouths shut. They are not anti-semites, but then they actually know what Semites are. You would think their DNA would be closer to ours, but the more violent chimps are closer to us. Probably ancient three hundred million year old dragonflies with their three foot wing spans had souls. Too bad Origen knew nothing about orangs or ancient dragonflies..
Origen brought the antichrist into the catholic church. He sold the trinity doctrine to the post Apostolic christians . A trinity of gods was a pagan practice. Paul did meet Jesus. He spent 3 years in Arabia learning from Jesus from the risen Jesus.
The son of man is already within our midst. Follow me. I will make you fishers of men AND women. Origen teaches absolute truth, as he taught the EXACT same thing Jesus did. He castrated himself because he recognized that Jesus is primarily speaking to one person.
It always bewilders me how religious thinkers can walk through long, complex chains of reason and logic to arrive at very firm conclusions about God's hypostatic wisdom, but will immediately throw up their hands and chant "mysterious ways" when confronting with even the smallest illogical inconsistencies in the fundamental theology.
@@langreeves6419 It's funny you should say that, because if a god were real, it SHOULD be surprising. When different groups of scientists describe something, for example, they don't have to ever speak together even once and yet they'll always end up with the exact same equations as each other, as that is the nature of truth. When different religious groups come up with beliefs, however, they rarely if ever match one another's ideas. It's very weird how this isn't a much bigger deal to people.
@@while_coyote sounds like you've done very little study of the subjects of science and religion....I find both so envigorating, can't imagine life without them, and I don't have to. Both will continue long after I'm dead.
@@nectanbo Why go through the pantomime of pretending to use logic to arrive at "hypostatic wisdom" etc if there's nothing there which is actually based on any rational reality that bows to logic? It's weird and dishonest. Just say "magic doesn't have to make sense" and be done with it.
I love these lectures but u always being too harsh on Eusebius. Could maybe do a lecture on him to justify your views? I’d be interested at least! Cheers from the uk
52-minutes in, the UA-camr says, "This is just speculation now." NOW? Most of the stuff he's said about the New Testament has been speculation. HA! Lizards. What are we gonna do...?
Brilliant. As always. It's beyond me why Centre Place don't get millions of views.
Don't ever get jaded - keep up the great work!
It doesn’t get millions of views because the sheep of god know when they see a wolf.
It will, this lecture series is turning into a phenomenal body of work which will be available as long as global telecommunications continue!
@@jamesmartel505"a wolf" 😂
A very "Christian " comment.
@@dbarker7794, It's great to see that my Christian comment brought joy to your life. Hopefully, more atheists like you will allow me to bring more joy with my Christian comment to their lives as well. Joy is so meaningful, isn't it?
@@jamesmartel505sarcasm doesn’t suit you. -
Your wolf comment clearly wanted a response. Maybe you’re more of a goat(d) than a sheep. ❤
You are a treasure of knowledge-giving. Thank you very kindly, John!
Origen's universalism, allegorical approach to the scriptures, and the view of the meta-historical fall (/pre-cosmic fall) were also accepted by some of the main Byzantine saint church fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Evagrius, and Maximus the Confessor. There were many Greek church fathers that were universalists. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basic the Great curated an anthology of Origen's quotes in a book called Philocalia.
His contribution to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial. Before Origen no one said the Logos / Son of God was eternal. And with regards to that Origen introduced in Christian theology the idea of eternal generation, which he got from the founder of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas, of whom he was a student, as mentioned.
And the condemnation of Origen is itself a problematic affair. In the Fifth ecumenical council Origen is condemned without mentioning any of his doctrines, then the Emperor Justinian forces the fathers of the council to, in addition to the documents of the council, sign a document that he presents to them, which are a series of anathemas against alleged origenist teachings. Of those teaching, as they are formulated there, it is questionable if Origen held to any of them. The whole thing seems to have been an attempt to suppress certain monk communities that had certain neo-origenist ideas widespread among them.
The unfortunate term "begotten" has begotten a lot of confusion.
It would be great if we had more writings from Justin Martyr whom I regard as the greatest apologist but Origen’s contribution takes things to a whole other level for sure and his influence can’t be underestimated.
As far as popularity goes when it comes to our earliest church fathers, Origen must have some good numbers. Many who feel some of Origen's perspectives don't fly still honor him as a founder of the church. Great presentation as usual John.
I have never heard a lecture or debate on the Greek and Jewish “alliance” or shared intellectualism facing the Roman Empire as viewed as subjected peoples. We don’t allow The Hebrew kingdoms to belong to a Greater Phoenicia, nor do we center history on the Phoenicians, but if we did, conceptually, it might be interesting. Carthage and Greece itself fall to the Romans in the same year and the arrival of Roman administrators begins trickling in (or pounding in) over the next few hundred years, all recorded and remembered at the social elite, educated level. Makes you wonder what is going on in this context in a cosmopolitan city like Alexandria with regard to perceived needs or desires to codify and create a social system (religion) with a shared and agreed philosophy/morality capable of overcoming the sacrificial rites polytheism that they can see is basically an unsupportable sham and superseding this “End of Times” final empire. I don’t know what that particular lecture would be called, but I would be curious to hear John take a stab at it. One important aspect rarely talked about is the Red Sea and Nile River as two waterways of historically equal importance and the reality of long term Phoenician and Egyptian collaboration.
Thank you John, your lectures are wonderful and very informational. Appreciate your hard work in gathering and presenting the lectures. Kathy, Ft. Collins, Co. Congregation.
Well said--I think
You don't know what your talking about.That is just drivel.
This topic helps to contextualize early Christianity. Thank you for an interesting, original and thought-provoking introduction to the theological evolution of Christian thought!
I think you meant “Origenal.” ;-)
Ppp😊
Thank you dear sir thank you for your hard work G- d be praised for your gifts
Origin was supposedly castrated by his own hand. His mom talked him out of being a martyr by going to the roman authority and basicly asking to be put to death. Later he hid when the authorities were rounding up christian leaders he hid out to avoid capture. He was a genius but a troubled one.
This is why i love UA-cam thank you
Excelent presentation. Thank you John.
It's not surprising that uneducated people can be geniuses. I believe that the sophistication of the styles in the gospels is because the authors were inspired. Very informative work - thank you. (Oh what a huge loss that the vast majority of Origen's writing was not preserved!) Btw, always thought the 'g' in Origen was hard, as in 'again' - even though it violates the usual rule of pronunciation.
In Russian language G in his name is hard.
It's especially tragic that we lost his groundbreaking work,"Origen of Species." 🐦 🐦⬛ 🐘 🦎
@@КороткийГеннадий As well as in ancient Latin, as in the days of Cicero and Julius Caesar: Regina means Queen. re-GHee'-na rather than "reh-JEE-nuh" or even worse (as Trudeau would say... :P), "rej-EYE-na", as in, "Show us your Regina"...
Interestingly, The Russians say "Kaiser" (KAI-zer) while the Americans say, "Cesar" (SEE-zer)
@@stephenkalatucka6213 Apparently though, the infamous work of antiquity, and revolutionary product of your high intellect, the first edition manuscript of, "Origin of Feces" was recently found and will now be preserved forever...
I always found it strange that Germanic and slav languages say "Kai-zer" whilst romance languages say it See-zer. The correct pronunciation of Caesar is the former.
I just started reading Origen’s work this week. Thanks for this lecture! It gives a lot of good context to my reading
I tried reading about Origen (Eng;ish translation). I gave it up as too complex. Your presentation is excellent & manageable. T/U.
What works of Origen do you recommend and can they be found online for free?
The accent on the name of the Greek translation of the Old Testament is on the first syllable: *_SÉPTuagint_* (Latin for “70”).
"Having castrated myself, I do not recommend it." -Origen possibly
Maybe it was a spiritual thing and not litterally
@@francesluther9518He vehemently denied castrating himself
I would give my left nut to be famous 2000 years from now! Yikes! - Origen
Imagine Origen and the so-called Church Fathers sitting around the table discussing future church doctrine and he says Satan will be forgiven. If I could have seen the look on their faces. It makes me chuckle EVERY TIME! LMFAO 😂😂😂
Gregory of Nyssa, called "father of fathers" by the seventh ecumenical council, also believed that Satan will be saved, and was very public about his universalism. In fact there were many Byzantine church fathers who accepted universalism, people can check out a book called A Larger Hope, volume one, by Illaria Ramelli, which gives a rundown of universalists among the church fathers and saints. (Volume two is by another author and covers the reformation and after.)
@@zelenisok Thanks for the info 🙏
Even before Origen universalism was already an idea contemplated by Church Fathers. You have to remember that early Christians were preaching in the midst of pagans who completely outnumbered them. Universalism grew out of the need to justify saying, "Oh, sure, your who committed will EVENTUALLY be admitted to heaven," multiple times.
@@zelenisok Satan can only be Saved by his sincere repentance asking for forgiveness.
Will/has Satan asked for forgiveness, surely it's speculative at the mortal level here on earth 🌎🌍
Another christian genius is Michael Servetus.
I love your lectures. What a wonderful place Toronto must be to have cultural enhancements such as Centre Place.
Origen sounds like an ancient Galileo: a genius persecuted by the Church. Note also that in his later years Galileo was force to recant and sadly declared his own teachings to be wrong. He was force to state publicly that the Earth did not move, based on the ridiculous church 'evidence' from the Sun stopping in the book of Joshua.
The writing attributed to Origen that said: "I do not know whether it is wise to go beyond this" sound like an interpolation added to defend Origen in the face of dogmatism.
Eh... there's a lecture on Galileo in the channel. It doesn't address this, but what you're saying is a garbled understanding of Galileo's recantation. He was forced to recant and admit he was wrong, yes, but not in the way you described. The part he's wrong about is not that Earth doesn't move but that in HIS system there is no immoveable mover for the motion of Earth, therefore it is impossible for the Earth to move. Galileo didn't quite understand gravity (the immoveable mover in his system) - that's up for Newton to figure out later - so he couldn't explain why the Earth moves. This was the actual problem the Church scholars had with his proposition.
Robert Bellarmine was perfectly willing to accept an Earth moving around the sun as long as the immoveable mover (which to him was God) was there. However, Galileo failed to show how that generative force could exist when he allowed for all his planets, stars, and even the sun to move. Galileo was perfectly correct in unchaining all cosmic objects, of course, but in failing to describe a cemter of the universe from which an immoveable mover could act on and move the cosmos, he accidentally "erased" God in the eyes of Church scholars who otherwise had no problems with his math.
The sun is going to stop this April.
You do very good lectures. Thank you
So thankful i found this channel ❤❤❤
As it was mentioned above, the scene of the ‘Last supper’ acquires sense. Its purpose is to persuade Christ’s disciples that they will have to eat the flesh of their teacher and to drink his blood and to convince the ‘apostles’ that by doing this they will overtake Christ’s divinity.
Then, there appears to be much more sense in many other aspects of Christianity, including the myth about the resurrection of Jesus Christ itself.
The mysticism of the ‘holy’ Grail
Christians attach great importance to the chalice from which Jesus Christ was drinking during the ‘Last supper’ and into which, according to Robert from Boron, Joseph from Arimathea later collected Christ’s blood.
Christians think that the Grail has various magic powers, and, in order to make use of them, one has to drink from it - thus, in some way one has to drink the true blood of Jesus Christ.
It seems that most probably Joseph had a point in collecting Christ’s blood into a chalice, and that possibly it was used for drinking shortly after Christ’s death, and that the Christian fantasies related to wine-drinking during religious rituals are repetitions of a horrible ceremony that took place almost two thousand years ago.
The myth about the Resurrection
Resurrection was invented long before Christians. There had been many religions that had a god who died and resurrected periodically. Various rites of sacrifice were related to the resurrection of one or another god and the offerings - usually domestic animals - were frequently eaten by the participants of the mysteries.
Did not Jesus Christ imagine his death and resurrection in a similar way - that he would resurrect in his disciples who would have eaten his flesh and would have drunk his blood? According to ‘Saint’ John, Jesus Christ explained: ‘The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him’. (John, 6, 56; italics are mine, G.Š.)
The Eucharist
Having assumed that the first Eucharist was not symbolic, but real and took place not before Christ’s death, but on the following night, the ritual itself appears in a completely different light - it is clear now how the rite managed to unite Christians.
After all, nothing has such power of uniting people as a common secret or crime. When people have performed religious rituals that others consider to be inhuman or even criminal, they feel initiated, special different from others.
Even now, the Eucharist remains one of the basic rituals that maintain Christian unity. Eating together the imaginary god’s flesh can be also called ‘communion’ - metaphoric acceptance to the community of the Christians who have already performed the ritual or further acceleration of the sense of being one of the Christians.
Inclination towards passive cannibalism is psychologically possible
It is no secret that Jesus Christ was not a psychically balanced personality. The absence of information about one’s biological father was considered by the ancient Jews to be an irremovable stain, and there is a lot of information in the Bible about the eccentricity of Christ that manifested itself already in his childhood.
Therefore, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ could wish to be eaten. Even nowadays, there are some people who crave to be eaten; even the broad public from time to time is informed of some individual cases of pre-agreed cannibalism - when the ‘victim’ finds their future eater via the Internet or so. It is possible that Jesus Christ also had such a drive.
The Christian cannibalistic mysticism is apparently still encouraging psychological deviations
Various myths about vampirism are widespread among Christians; films about cannibals, blood-suckers and similar heroes are most popular in the places where the Christian culture is dominating. There are so many maniac killers and violent perverts among Christians as nowhere else in the world; again and again in the Christian world there emerge people who want to be eaten.
Are not those cases reverberations of the ‘Last supper’? - Most Christians constantly take part in religious rituals that willy-nilly are associated with cannibalism, so they can traumatise some oversensitive persons for the rest of their lives.
So, there are many serious arguments that support the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was eaten after his crucifixion. If it is proved or at least accepted as a very probable one, much can be understood and explained in the Christian faith, psychology and in the whole Christian culture.
Perhaps it could also be helpful in understanding the inhuman historical cruelty of Christians - in understanding why the millions of decent people who found the Christian ‘communion’ unacceptable were killed in cold blood, tortured to death or burnt alive during the long history of Christianity?
@edwardlouisbernays2469 buddy I only read through a couple paragraphs.
Your ideology needs some bible teaching .
Pray for God to give you wisdom ..don't relie on utube to get your theology.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 📜 Origin is recognized as the first Christian genius, with his early Christian writings admired by modern scholars for their significance in taking Christian thought to a new level.
01:23 📚 Many of Jesus' early disciples were from working-class backgrounds, and they left no writings, making it challenging to assess their intellectual contributions.
03:33 🖋️ Paul of Tarsus, who had never met the historical Jesus, played a significant role in the early Christian movement due to his writings and ability to articulate Christian thought.
05:20 🙏 Origin's interpretation of Christ as Lord, identifying Jesus as the Messiah and the glory of God, contributed to the development of Christian theology.
09:51 📖 Apart from Paul, there were other significant early Christian thinkers, including the anonymous author of The Epistle to the Hebrews and the authors of the Gospels.
10:18 📜 Christianity attracted more intellectual elites after being patronized by Roman emperors, leading to thinkers like Ambrose and Augustine, who played a pivotal role in shaping Christian thought.
13:20 📕 Origin's contributions included producing the first critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, inventing scriptural literary criticism.
14:57 📚 Origin created the first systematic Christian theology, making significant contributions to the development of ideas like the Ransom theory of atonement.
19:22 📚 Origin's hexapla was a groundbreaking work that included the Hebrew text, Greek transliteration, and multiple Greek translations to assist in studying and interpreting the scriptures.
27:21 📜 The subagent version of the Old Testament included books not part of the original Hebrew scriptures, with some texts likely composed in Greek. Orthodox and Catholic traditions include these texts as deuterocanonical.
28:29 📚 Eusebius, the main source for Origin's life, was a biased and unreliable historian who portrayed Origin as a perfect Christian scholar.
29:13 🏛️ Alexandria, the birthplace of Origin, was a significant center of intellectual and cultural capital in the Greco-Roman world, with a strong Hellenistic influence.
36:16 🕍 Alexandria had a large Jewish population, making it the biggest Jewish community in the world during that time and a major center of Hellenistic Jewish thought.
38:02 📖 Origin studied at the Catechetical School of Alexandria and may have attended the Platonic Academy under Ammonius Saccas, who influenced Neoplatonism.
43:51 📚 Origin was influenced by Clement of Alexandria and advocated for the compatibility of philosophy and Christianity, emphasizing that Christian ideas predated pagan philosophy.
52:05 🗣️ The story of Origin castrating himself, based on a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12, is questionable and lacks credible evidence.
55:40 📚 Origin's conflict with Demetrius and other bishops led to disputes about his preaching and ordination, including rumors of self-castration, reflecting the early church's complexities.
59:03 📖 Origin authored around 2,000 treatises covering theology, philosophy, and biblical interpretation, contributing significantly to early Christian thought.
01:00:09 📜 Origin's work "Peri Archon" is regarded as Christianity's first systematic theology, though it's controversial due to later condemnations.
01:10:23 🕊️ Origin's theology sees Christ, the Son of God, as eternal and coexistent with the Father, emphasizing the unchanging nature of God.
01:17:12 🙌 Origin's writings provide a more spiritual and comprehensive understanding of Christ, emphasizing the logos and its role as holy wisdom.
01:20:29 🌟 Origin's theological perspective defines the roles of the Father, the Word (Logos), and the Holy Spirit, with the latter enabling beings to attain holiness through participation.
01:21:56 📖 Origin, an early Christian thinker, had concerns about the concept of Free Will, particularly in relation to God hardening Pharaoh's heart in the Exodus story.
01:25:17 📖 Origin wrote a response to the Pagan philosopher Celsus, critiquing Christianity. Celsus questioned Christ's suffering, and Origin argued it was prophesied.
01:29:05 📖 Origin faced persecution under Emperor Deus and refused to renounce his faith, becoming a Christian martyr.
01:36:22 📖 Later, Origin's teachings influenced many Christian thinkers, including John Scotus Eriugena and Erasmus during the Renaissance. Origin was considered a significant Christian genius.
01:47:39 📚 Origin had supporters who found his ideas worthwhile, which contributed to his recognition as one of the Church Fathers.
01:48:06 📜 Origin's rehabilitation in later times was due to improved scholarship recognizing the context in which he lived, prior to the development of the Trinity doctrine.
01:48:45 🙏 Origin is now considered one of the Church Fathers by some Christian traditions, although sainthood varies among denominations.
01:52:05 💡 Origin argued against Gnosticism while incorporating some of its spiritual and Platonic elements into Orthodox Christianity.
01:54:27 ⛪ Origin and early Christian communities were independent of the Roman state, with periodic persecutions being the only direct connection.
01:55:27 👤 Preaching by ordained priests became the norm as hierarchical structures within Christian communities evolved.
01:57:18 🌐 The political agenda drove Justinian's actions during the Second Council of Constantinople, rather than a strong opinion on the creation of human souls.
02:01:08 🧙 Origin's theology was highly influential among his contemporaries, leading to both admiration and opposition.
02:02:05 🌍 Origin's universalist writings have influenced modern thinking on the subject, contributing to the development of the concept of universal salvation.
Thx
Origen did not believe that Jesus was in essence God come in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He believed that Jesus was a created soul that did not fall away from God as all others did. He was a genius by definition. But it is very obvious that he did not rely upon the Holy Spirit for the right understanding of the Holy Scriptures; but instead he relied upon the powers of his own reasoning. The apostle Paul would have rightly rejected Origen without question. If you don't get Jesus right nothing that follows will be right. Paul and all the other apostles understood that. Origen was a Christian by profession and form, lacking the power that comes from the Spirit of Christ within. Religious minds are so fascinated by his writings, that they overlook the inexcusable errors that saturate alot of what he wrote. When you allow the Holy Spirit to teach and guide you in your biblical study, He makes sure you get Jesus right first.
I agree. Perhaps Origen introduced errors in the Alexandrian textform. The Byzantine New Testament textform is more consistent.
Half right, Jesus Christ is not God but a man & was filled with the Holy Spirit.
@@masada2828 Jesus Christ is both God and man. That’s what makes him unique and the only begotten son of God. His being God is what enabled Him to lead captivity captive, and give gifts unto men.
Can you provide the source of this claim?
How do you explain this:
Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
Can you do one on marcions gospel of the lord and the apostolikon and the biggest differences from the canonical texts?
Love marcion he nailed the evil "creator" god yaweh to a T...
@@4everseekingwisdom690 i don't know why everyone thinks the OT is so bad...God says many merciful and gracious things in the OT
@SarahHodgins because people who can critically think know that benevolent creator comprised of love wouldn't have qualities like anger and jealousy, wouldn't demand to be worshiped like a narcissist and wouldn't command his own people to "dash babies against the rocks" because he's a genocidal maniac..
Would you like to see a list of all the good things Hitler did?
What a wonderful lecturer. He walks on water and is as cute as the dickens. I wish I would have had a nice teacher in Catholic school. Nothing but abuse. Six nihilistic years for an innocent little boy. Lost my faith when I walked into the public junior high library and started reading Azimov's Astronomy, then realized I had been lied to. Jesus was here five minutes ago on a Cosmic time scale and there were humans on Earth two hundred thousand years ago who had the same number of brain cells as I had and fully developed languages. Jesus never said anything about a Universe of four hundred billion galaxies with two hundred billion stars in each. All he knew was astrology, the age of the fish, Pices, and the age of the water bearer, Aquarius. No wonder why he never came back. He was a flimflammer. They put him to death because they didnt like phony flimflammers. The people from Nazareth hated him the most. They knew him better than anyone: son of Mary.
Please do a lecture on Clement of Alexandria! And the Holy Spirit - originally the feminine aspect of God. Love your informative and thought-provoking lectures, more please!
Feminine? What he created us!
Could Jesus Christ have been eaten?
If we assume that Jesus Christ (his corpse) after the crucifixion was eaten by his followers, we can explain not only the Christian cannibalistic mysticism, but also many other mysteries of Christianity.
The rituals of the Eucharist are similar to the ceremonies of the true cannibals
Non-Christians have always been confused by the rituals that simulate eating the body of Jesus Christ (Joshua from Nazareth, the Christian prophet, worshiped as a god or god’s son) or drinking his blood.
While eating special consecrated wafers or drinking wine, Catholics, the Orthodox and many other Christians imagine that these are the body and blood of their prophet (or god). Most Christians imagine that by doing this they get closer to their god, acquire a kind of divinity themselves, and some of them even fall into ecstasy.
These rituals by their form and meaning remind of the rites of many known cannibalistic cultures - the true cannibals ate people (perhaps they are still doing this in some regions of Africa and Asia) not because they were starving, but because they believed that by eating up a man or a certain part of his body they would overtake his power and courage.
yes please!
According to Roman Piso, 'Origen' and 'Dio Cassius' were two of several aliases of Domitius Ulpian, yet another royal descendant of Arrius Calpurnius Piso.
Listen to Sleeping Wasbands.
I absolutely agree with Simcha Jacobovici and Dr. Tabor. I would lo know more and will follow up on their findings 🤗🤓
I don't know if this is a fair question. But I shall pose it here as you seem a kind man.
What does the word "meta" mean? Many years ago, I was taught that "Metaphysics"''s origin as a phrase was because it was an unnamed booked after Physics and contained grand speculation (analysis) of many "universal" topics. I have looked the terms up and had it confirmed that indeed "meta" signifys "after". Yet the way so many people use the term it seems to have come to mean something else (or more?). This is not to suggest that you alone do it but that many intellectuals do.
And so I am left wondering what exactly it is that "meta" means in modern vernacular.
Any guidance appreciated.
It sucks being a genius in a social world. No matter how many you are with, you are always alone 😔
Hahaha. You know of any lonely geniuses?
@@Benjamin-jo4rf absolutely 💯
Shalom Aleichem. May the Lord be magnified.@@UrbanPovertist
A'salam aulaekum@@Benjamin-jo4rf
Nothing like a total lack of presumption. Show me your calculations on the Hubble Constant.
I enjoy many of his videos- but when he gives his OPINION on who wrote different books in the Bible- he acts as if his OPINION is written in stone and is agreed upon among all Biblical scholars . His opinions are NOT factual or agreed upon among all scholars. Moses absolutely wrote the Penatuc - John ABSOLUTELY wrote John and Revelation- Daniel ABSOLUTELY wrote the book of Daniel etc..
The concept of Christ incarnating as wisdom on earth is very similar to the avatars of Vishnu in Vedic traditions (with the Father being Brahma and the Spirit being Shiva)
I tried to read Origen, and in my opinion he didn't know what he was talking about, he was faking it. But, he had had access to writings of people who *did* know what they were talking about, so there are flashes of borrowed genius, mixed with confusing and confused ideas.
Just like Paul and really any theological fanboy's. Jesus made it clear even children can understand what He was talking about. It's not difficult stuff.
But we also have to remember that all of Origen's writings we have today have been sanitized by his later supporters who tried to portray him as in no way heretical. It may be that those borrowed parts were borrowed not by him but by them.
I think if we ever come across Origen's pure unadulterated writings, they may come off as super-original and super-heretical like it might have for those who eventually condemned him. After all, BOTH Alexander and Arius referenced Origen to come up with their opposing views, one of which ended up being deemed heretical.
When Paul was at Ephesus he developed a more boyish bathhouse kind of humour around the Roman soldier boys. I loved Ephesus..
brilliant, thank you!
The statement that "none of [Jesus disciples] left writings ignores the disciples who wrote the New Testament. He should have said that none of the disciples that this pretend "scholar" wants to recognize wrote anything about Jesus. This thing already shows the bigorty of the Atheist religion.
Excellent presentation. I love your channel.
Video says: "Origen was the first to propose the 'Ransom Theory'"
Mark 10:45 - For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
What more evidence do we need that the wheels of this guy's religion have come completely off. These lies are SO egregious that it's hard to continue - but continue I will because I love exposing reptiles like this.
So thoughtful, and thought provoking, thanks.
I don’t think God originates the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart as much as focusing what was already in Pharaoh’s heart so that he doesn’t endlessly waver but actually does all he, himself, intended in his heart as distinct from his rational mind with all its potential and sometimes contradictory calculations.
“As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” I’m suggesting a better translation than, “harden,” would be, “solidify,” which is a perfectly legitimate alternative translation. The two words seem to have the same meaning but have different connotations in modern English mostly thanks to English being very much a mishmash of several diverse languages (and why it’s considered bad form to use the same word twice in a paragraph.”
Jesus read from the scroll in the synagogue as I have no doubt many Jews did because of the work of the Pharisees many Jews were actually literate
What he claims is definitely true is a matter of opinion. About John. a liberal Anglican bishop, John Robinson, au Contraire that John is the most historical of the Gospels, albeit one that was the work of three authors. the apostle John being the first who make an attempt. As for the fisherman thing, archaeologist have concluded that such boats were in fact a considerable investment in capital, and that John and James were about to leave the business because their father was the equivalent of a small businessman.
Common Era,.Ano Domini is all that's needed. The year of our lord 🫡
Heavenly Father, we thank You for the gifts You have bestowed upon this person, for Your grace and provision in their life. We ask, Lord, that You reveal Yourself to them in a profound way, opening their heart to the truth of Your love and the salvation found in Jesus Christ. May Your Holy Spirit lead them to faith, transforming their life with the light of Your presence. Guide them, O Lord, into a deep and lasting relationship with You. In Jesus' name, Amen.
The prism @1:16:20 is from the orthodoxy established by the roman councils? The effect this has is to make heretics out for any opposing views before and after that point in time. which is ridiculous. The Creed, If not repeated word for word as you previously mentioned especially in relation to the trinity has made a heretic or attributed heretical views on the 'first christian genius' What chance did the average man have when compelled under some inquisition to explain his views if required.
Forced 'orthodoxy' through pain of death
Thank you…
How did Paul claim about his conversion when it is recorded in Acts by Luke?
Thank you again
Origen could be that threshhold, before which meditative openness and spiritual universalism was a possible direction for Christianity's development, but after which dogmatic clericalism and sectarianism have been dominating the Churches to this day.
“Despite important work on the Greco-Roman antecedents of modern racism, very limited attention has been paid to early Christian literature in this connection. This is remarkable not least because modern Western racism took shape initially in a European context heavily influenced by Christianity. The present essay contributes to addressing this lacuna by analysing statements about ‘other’ ethnicities in the work of Origen of Alexandria, one of the most important thinkers of the first three centuries CE. It argues that Origen defends a number of positions that exhibit substantial similarities with later racist modes of thinking. Earlier scholarly accounts that portray Origen as a champion of human equality and as engaged in anti-racist efforts therefore cannot stand up to scrutiny. Origen disparages certain ethnic groups and develops arguments that connect ethnic identity and geographical location with various degrees of sinfulness. His work offers clear evidence that theories of ethnic inferiority have a long history within the Christian matrix that stretches considerably beyond the modern and medieval periods.”
The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 71, Issue 1, April 2020, Pages 164-195,
This is total garbage and by the way a bit racist. Clown.
Yeah, love these vids and love your digging into early christian thinkers!
"You can't get the idea that Jesus is the Logos from the gospels."
Okay, got it.
What the entire hell...?
He’s not. Logos is not Jesus Christ but ‘the outward expression of inward thought’.
@@masada2828 - Oh brother. What are you, Catholic? The Gospel of John clearly tells us who the Word is. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. You don't have to be a bible genius to connect those dots but you do have to be deceived beyond reason to miss it.
Reading comprehension skills are severely lacking in denominationalism.
Philo came first. Watch the Philo video.
@@GizmoFromPizmo - if I was Catholic I would be a Trinitarian which I’m not. Catholics are not encouraged to read their Bible let alone, study it. Logos is not Jesus Christ, look up the meaning & do some cross referencing. U do not need to be aggressive in ur critique, certainly not a ‘Christian’ attribute.
Did Origen write or say anything about the Sign of Jonah?
It would be amazing if he hadn't given his views about this puzzling topic, but a great deal of his commentary on Scripture has been lost so they may no longer be extant.
It’s worth noting that our earliest gospel doesn’t record the “Sign of Jonah”. Jesus denies the Pharisees any sign from heaven.
Mark 8:11
_The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.”_
The author of Matthew sees an opportunity to expand on this and incorporate the apocalyptic nature of Jonah into the narrative. And just as God sent Jonah to warn Nineveh, so does Jesus send the disciples through the towns of Israel to prepare them for the Kingdom of God.
Matthew 12:38
_A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here._
Matthew’s unfortunately stuck with Jonah’s timeline of 3 days and 3 nights.
Jonah 1:17
_Yahweh sent a big fish to swallow Jonah. Jonah was inside the fish for three days and three nights._
He’s probably aware the math doesn’t work but…what are you gonna do? It’s too good of an analogy to pass up.
How do we know the, “extra literature,” in the Septuagint version of Daniel was not in the original Hebrew text from which it was translated since somehow that original mysteriously vanished?
Conversely, how do we know that the, Masoretic, didn’t edit the original, e.g., remove stories that reference events centred in the Northern Kingdom of Israel in order to consolidate Hebrew history into the history of the Southern Kingdom of Judah; and by extension, the later traditions of the Pharisees cum post-Second Temple Rabbinic Jews?
Academic studies. There's a wealth of books, papers, articles, and lectures about it. We also know which letters in the NT are falsely attributed to Paul.
Listen to both scholars who are skeptics and those who believe the bible as Gods word to get a balanced position.
To show you that scholars can be dumd they use same sources and methods but draw opinions which can be varying like
1.jesus is a myth never existed
2.he is a legend ..existed but embellished story
3.he was real as depicted in gospels.
SO HOW DO YOU RELY ON SCHOLARS?
How could anyone who has read the Book of Romans say that Origen was the first "Christian" genius? I am less than one minute into this video and I can already tell that the UA-camr has not read not comprehended what Paul wrote to the Romans.
Thanks!
What no one had understood up to this day is this:
Why the Holy Spirit/Ghost came only after Jesus was dead.
What are the "mechanics" by which the Holy S/G was brought to us.
Jesus said that when he was gone, he would send a helper.
Why not with Jesus?
He was already in all things because all things are only truly born of the Spirit. There is no life outside of Holy Spirit.
The presenter gives too much credence to the charge that Origen castrated himself. The origin of that is from a shaky source (Eusebius of Caesarea) and it's clearly counter to how he interpreted scripture.
Eusebius didn't start it. The allegation that Demetrius slandered Origen started with St. Pamphilius' Apology for Origen. There are passages which suggest that one of the slanderous accusations can be understood as possibly self-castration. Eusebius (his student) simply ran with it and made it more vivid (as he's oft to do). However, it may be that this accusation was well-known long before Eusebius' time as other students of Origen were said to have also defended him from it.
Basically, there was very likely such an accusation during and after Origen's lifetime which Origen's students tried to defend him from and Eusebius accidentally made it "real" in his weird attempt to defend and lionize Origen as a tragic hero.
I heard John explain the story was from Origens enemy and therfore suspect.
And John also pointed out how Origens commentary explicitly states that this practice was not biblical, not supported by the gospel of Matthew.
I certainly can tell this man has not read and understood the Bible. He should however continue to learn and leave his preconceptions behind.
@@michellehamilton4075
He's one of those scholars of the bible who hasn't studied the bible.
You're one of those video watchers who knows oh so much.
It's possible -- possible -- you simply are _projecting_ unto him the way you _really feel_ about your own self.
I do not know, and don't CLAIM to know.
Peace to all seeking hearts.
@@michellehamilton4075”I certainly can tell”…. Really? That’s a *JUDGEMENT* call. I’m not supposed to judge, are you?
The Greeks were imaginative story-tellers - white lies like the mythologies were common much like the writings of John the genius.
Read Origen when I took Church History when I was studying theology for my M.Div. degree.
A lot of people mistake forgiveness for acceptance which is why they denounced him as heretical.
You can forgive someone that does something bad because you love all living beings and all living people. A terrorist could have been you in a different life. They could have witnessed war their entire lives and been fed lies and only witnessed the West subjugating them and the soldiers raping their people. Terrorists idea of God then is martyring himself for his people and sacrificing his life for what he feels is a greater purpose. I don’t accept what he has done and what his choice was in life. I don’t accept the mentality he had and the people he took from
me. But I can forgive him as a human being who has been misled as we all often are. I love him as a fellow human being because we are all coming from the same beautiful divinity. In another life, we may have been friends. So I forgive that person for the way he has misinterpreted life, I do not accept the choices that were made.
I do not know the full decisions of Satan leading to his fall, but his experiences clearly misled him and drew him away from his father. He chose to hate humanity and Gods creations, maybe he misinterpreted rhe love that God has for him versus Humanity. I don’t know. I cannot accept how Satan has fucked with and misled our fellow human beings into destroying ourselves, but I can forgive Satan as he is a creation of God just as we are and thus we are all from the same divinity. Satan was misled whether by himself or something greater rhan him, so why would it be so heretical to pray for his redemption and forgiveness?
Do you discount the Epistles of Peter and John as not being by the disciples?
I'm sure he does. He thinks the synoptic gospels are not true eyewitness accounts.
Einstein was a genius. His genius is often summed up in: E=MC2
Copernicus was a genius and his genius can be summed up in: Heliocentricism.
Geniuses often have shorthand ways to validate their genius. In 2-hours of a video on _Origen - The First Christian Genius,_ I couldn't give you such a summation.
The Apostle Paul was the first Christian genius on the level of an Albert Einstein. Of all the people who had read and studied the Torah, the Apostle Paul was the only one to pick out Genesis 15:6 as a pertinent theology:
"Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness."
That single verse is Paul's E=MC2. That verse became the cornerstone of and justification for what Paul called "My Gospel". No one else on earth had ever picked out that truth. Paul was the first.
Two men in the whole bible talk about Genesis 15:6 - the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James (Jesus' brother). Paul uses it to support his ministry, mission, and message. James uses the same verse to debunk Paul's message. James uses it as a polemic against Paul and his ministry. The first Christian genius has his detractors to this very day but the truth of his finding cannot be denied.
I'm not sure if you're saying at 3:26 that it was during Paul's time that people in the communities Paul founded kept and read his letters alongside the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. But to clarify, during Paul's time, the Septuagint had yet to be written.
Well, Jesus read out of the Greek version of Isaiah in Luke 4 so, there was a Greek Old Testament around in Jesus' day. We know that Jesus was reading from the Greek because the Hebrew version doesn't contain the phrase "recovery of sight to the blind" but that's the verse that Jesus read to the people in the synagogue. The scroll in the synagogue was written in Greek. Septuagint? I would say, "Yes".
The New Testament quotes from the Septuagint almost exclusively.
@@GizmoFromPizmo Thank you.
@GizmoFromPizmo @derekcrockett7538 Yes, Gizmo is spot on. The greek Septuagint read by Jesus was the old testament that also included 49 books including what is now the Apocrypha - but it was never “hidden.”
Those 7 books were always there. King Ptolemy hired 70 Jewish scribes and had them all separated and write the OT to ensure they would not hide anything from tue King. When they compared all 70 Versions, they were nearly exactly the same, including 49 books. Catholics maintained these OT books and protestants removed 7 books around the 1800s to save on printing costs. King James Version of 1611 includes those extra books and Martin Luther’s bible included them too. But he wanted them removed, including 4 books of NT - James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation, because they didn’t match his new theology. Look it up. Truth
@@o.o.2255 - Also, the Jews didn't consider them (the apocrypha) inspired either. For example, the Wisdom of Solomon, although written in his name, was not authored by Solomon, which is a shame because it is such a great book against idolatry. Catholics would be well advised to hearken to it's sage advice.
Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) is also a very good book, in the same vein as Proverbs and The Book of Solomon but its authorship is similarly dubious.
I would love to see the copy of the Greek version of the Psalms that includes what we read in the Book of Hebrews:
"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:"
"...but a body thou hast prepared for me", is not in any of the versions of the Psalms that I have. Jerome translated the Torah from the Septuagint but the Psalms aren't as on target. They are definitely better than the Masoretic Text that we (for some reason) use today but they miss every once in awhile.
The Masoretic Text is a mess. When the Jews translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Hebrew in the 10th century AD (that's right. I said, they translated Hebrew into Hebrew) they made sure that the prophecies concerning Jesus were not so on-the-nose. How do you translate Hebrew into Hebrew? Ancient Hebrew (just like ancient Aramaic and ancient Arabic) has no vowel markings. Furthermore, there are no spaces between words in these ancient languages (to conserve paper). You almost have to know what the passage says before you translate it. The Masoretic Text "fixes" all those pesky prophecies that are so obviously talking about Jesus.
We know that the Septuagint is what Jesus and the apostles used because we call it the Red Sea. There is ZERO chance that Yam Suph was ever thought to mean "the Sea of Reeds" because the Greek Old Testament uses the Greek word for "red". Given the Masoretic Text, however, there is some question. We KNOW what the Jews called it in the third century BC thanks to the Septuagint.
It says in Arabic script on the top right of the orange painting: "Al bab'' (the door) and underneath "Al Akram" (the most honorable). Ramadan Kareem: honorable or sublime Ramadan--Ramadan cream cookies inspired by Ramadan Kareem (maybe)
'Tekton' means builder - probably in stone at Sepphoris, four-ish miles from Nazareth!
Exactly 🏴🇬🇧
Also means a construction worker
if the holy spirit could make the apostles multi-linguistic on penticost, why wouldn't it make them literate as well?
Yes Why?
Paul wasn't a genius?
Did you watch the uh... the lecture?
I forgive you all. You are all forgiven; for you know not what you do.
Origen the heretic was not a Bible believer, he was a Bible corrector and corrupter as was the serpent in the garden of Eden. You are not a Bible believer. You, as Origen, view the Bible as a piece of literature to be analyzed, not as the inspired word of God to be believed and obeyed.
All of our Apostolic Catholic fathers were geniuses.
Thank you, but a sad story, not just the loss or bowdlerisation of Origen's work, and his undeserved end, but his life's work - a convoluted attempt to justify the frankly nonsensical.
Some languages
J and g are silent
Orion
🤺💐
May I ask who the presenter is? (Thank you.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Hamer
40:52 😊 41:46 This is why I love your lectures: always telling how these things really work, instead of sugarcoating it.
Everybody is claiming to have “the original” thoughts as their own. Which necessarily leads to these stories having it all backwards compared to what really happened. - In hindsight all the Eureka moments merge and fuse ideas, as if they had always been that way / were intended that way by nature / God, and I can’t even blame them: because that’s what it feels like when you find something out!
But of course this method of storytelling is necessarily anachronistic: starting one’s writing with one’s very own conclusion feels right, because that’s what it is what one has “found out”, but of course it’s having the process all backwards. There’s probably even a name for this kind of fallacy. It makes for a good narrative to leave out all the exploration and false ends, and only keep what you found / your own conclusion.
I do It all the time myself 😂. Just ignoring all the problems and impossibilities and non-sequiturs for the sake of one owns narrative. Of course in the end it’s a disservice, but one always wants to believe that the general idea was right and can be saved, just because it “felt right” at some point. - In principle a lot of ideas are open to scientific investigation, but to be honest: creativity comes first, science comes later to weed out all the falsities. - Ideas may start as Skeletons, then acquire a fat body, and then have to be trimmed down again to whatever holds water, or discarded. But one does not start the process with discarding… - so the question is: when do you write your book? In the skeleton phase? In the full body phase? Or once you weeded everything out, and found out that it all belongs on the compost heap and you just wasted three years of work? - Some things maybe should be left to the contrarians in the first place. Digestion of new ideas always takes time and a lot of back and forth / discussion, not to say a whole generation to discard again and another one to resurrect/ find the true nucleus / rediscover what was attractive about it in the first place.
47:02 Plotinus Neoplatonism and Augustine
49:50 wtf - you can’t just throw in a depiction of a guy cutting his own balls off! Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. 😮
1:01:19 the whole thing about Hagia Sophia and the Logos in modern scientific parlance seems like a discussion on wether the laws of nature are preexistent to matter and energy: Did the Creator create the laws on how the stuff should behave before he created the stuff?
It’s the same as asking about the transition function of the state holding bits in information theory. You can’t have one without the other. - I’m beginning to see how Joscha Bach is repeatedly saying “I’m always late to the party”: it’s pretty hard to come up with original ideas, when everything has been thought before. Stephen Wolfram would probably say: “Hagia Sophia is an Automaton.” And his New Kind of Science is just the realization that there’s possibly an infinite amount, and by enumerating and testing them all, he wanted to identify the one, that created this universe of ours…
As for the inseparability of the “Trinity”: elementary particles are defined by how they behave: their behavior is “non-optional” in Sheldon Cooper’s parlance. And when there is the Multiverse or even the Ruliad, all “potential” is realized in it. - I think we are coming back to some kind of Holy Trinity in the end: things exist, they behave, there is no unrealized potential - but we only ever can see slices of it.
Kind of funny how science becomes theology again in the end. The circle is closed.
Excellent
I'm not CoC, and I've not read Origen so far, but isn't it possible that Origen of Alexandria, and/or Leontius of Antioch, were somewhere on the trans spectrum?
1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV)
10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
1 Cor 15:22
for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive
1 John 2:2
New International Version
2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Origenes was a professional liar!
Faith and critical thinking are mutually exclusive!
.
1:01:40 nice try
🎉Ignatius a.d. 30-107
Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism;
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians Chapter IV
"Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God.... For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name, of God - both Him who is anointed as Son, and Him who does anoint, that is, the Father."
~Irenaeus who wrote around the year AD 185
Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.
“We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
,&
The evidence is that he is with God one with God his Word at His Right
"Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead."
~Polycarp (AD 69-155)
&
"For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit."
~Ignatius (AD 50-117)
So it's not new as we see there been a trinity all but name
Reminds of
Psalms 45:6 Your throne, O God(אֱ֭לֹהִים)Elohim, is for ever and ever: the scepter of your kingdom is a right scepter.
Psalms 45:7 You love righteousness, and hate wickedness: therefore God(אֱלֹהִ֣ים)Elohim your God((אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ)Elohim, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.
Isaiah 48:15 I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
Isaiah 48:16 Come you near to me, hear you this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, has sent me.
Isaiah 48:17 Thus said the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD your God which teaches you to profit, which leads you by the way that you should go.
Nice collection of tautologies. Back to Asimov
Every break thru for Christianity was due to Roman military action, whether at the Milvian Birdie or the Jewish Wars.
Origen's origin is obscure.
Origen And The Orangutans: I want to write a book. What about the souls of orangutans? They are wiser than we are. They keep their mouths shut. They are not anti-semites, but then they actually know what Semites are. You would think their DNA would be closer to ours, but the more violent chimps are closer to us. Probably ancient three hundred million year old dragonflies with their three foot wing spans had souls. Too bad Origen knew nothing about orangs or ancient dragonflies..
Elohim gave Instructions that even a child could understand. The intellectuals obscured the real truth.
Yahveh gave the instructions. Elohim is the plural of El, the mighty God of people of Cannan.
Origen brought the antichrist into the catholic church. He sold the trinity doctrine to the post Apostolic christians . A trinity of gods was a pagan practice. Paul did meet Jesus. He spent 3 years in Arabia learning from Jesus from the risen Jesus.
Presumably Jesus and Elvis were sharing an apartment together where Paul could stay.
@@martindavis2295he-he... )
Yeah that's true, I saw Paul McCartney say that in a recent interview
Humbly I ask you , Plz read the Book of Mormon, it straightens out the confusion as the lord said it would in Isaiah 29. Best wishes
Why seminary education gets ruined
I could listen to him and also Robert Sepehr
The son of man is already within our midst. Follow me. I will make you fishers of men AND women. Origen teaches absolute truth, as he taught the EXACT same thing Jesus did. He castrated himself because he recognized that Jesus is primarily speaking to one person.
It always bewilders me how religious thinkers can walk through long, complex chains of reason and logic to arrive at very firm conclusions about God's hypostatic wisdom, but will immediately throw up their hands and chant "mysterious ways" when confronting with even the smallest illogical inconsistencies in the fundamental theology.
You're referring to different groups of people.
It's not surprising that people of different religious beliefs explain things differently.
@@langreeves6419 It's funny you should say that, because if a god were real, it SHOULD be surprising. When different groups of scientists describe something, for example, they don't have to ever speak together even once and yet they'll always end up with the exact same equations as each other, as that is the nature of truth. When different religious groups come up with beliefs, however, they rarely if ever match one another's ideas. It's very weird how this isn't a much bigger deal to people.
@@while_coyote sounds like you've done very little study of the subjects of science and religion....I find both so envigorating, can't imagine life without them, and I don't have to. Both will continue long after I'm dead.
It's almost as if there's an element of religous faith involved in religion and that it isn't a purely rational science.. Mm
@@nectanbo Why go through the pantomime of pretending to use logic to arrive at "hypostatic wisdom" etc if there's nothing there which is actually based on any rational reality that bows to logic? It's weird and dishonest. Just say "magic doesn't have to make sense" and be done with it.
Real good tough stufff
Can’t wait for Baal!
open your newspaper
Was this not a lecture on Origen?
Fishermen fluent in Greek? Hahaha.
I love these lectures but u always being too harsh on Eusebius. Could maybe do a lecture on him to justify your views? I’d be interested at least! Cheers from the uk
Team Celsus 🧠⚕️🔬🔭🧬⚖️📐🧮
52-minutes in, the UA-camr says, "This is just speculation now."
NOW? Most of the stuff he's said about the New Testament has been speculation. HA! Lizards. What are we gonna do...?
Yes , inventors are useful
This guy would get a shock if he ever read the Bible. 😮
I agree. All those seeds falling on rocks and going to hell as a result.
Shalom
Only Christ is infallible. Does anyone have anything verifiable and endorsed by Jesus Christ?
Christianity is what it was when jesus lived
Do you mean “ Christianity “ only existed when Jesus lived; died when he died?
That's just wrong. Christianity is precisely the religion that came into being after and because of the death of Joshua of Nazareth.