4:06 "...the highest point of a hierarchy is actually not that which transcends the hierarchy but that which contains the hierarchy." Seeing this idea represented in pre-Christian cultures (namely the ancient Egyptians and later the Pythagoreans of Greece) and then also seeing it revered and practiced in Christianity is what ultimately lead me to Christianity. To me there just seems to be something incorrect about getting to the top meaning you leave everything below you behind. It seems more accurate that getting to the top means that every step you took to get there is now a part of you. The person who manages a store probably started off stocking shelves, cleaning, working the checkout and then somewhere along the way became assistant manager before eventually becoming manager. But in becoming manager, it's not like his experience doing all the other "lower" work has disappeared. It's still part of him as much as managing the whole store now is.
I didn’t hear Antonella’s say that Jesus leaves himself, behind. If it did, is referring to transcendence. Because ultimately lJesus IS GOD, he was always going to “fill the highest place”, in His fulfillment of Divinity as Son of God, who IS GOD. So, I don’t see a contradiction. Jesus IS THE CRIMINAL ON THE CROSS, once he is Ascended into Heaven ... just like you and I, when we die and go to him, we will no longer require the things we carried or worked with, on earth. In that respect, Jesus is the same after he transcends this world, and he himself, transforms from being man. Once he is returned to heaven, he is no longer earthly man, like us. Jesus IS GOD.His purpose here was to be the sacrificial lamb, and die and overcome life, that all humankind who believe in this sacrifice, and HIS resurrection, and ultimately his ascendence up to Heaven, ..we also have our Original Sin washed away. Concerning your remark about Jesus not “bringing all his things on “HIS ASCENT”, I’m sorry if I couldn’t tell you more. Have faith. ❤U,Brother. You are Valued & Loved
And a boss/leader like that is always more effective, and usually a better person. Our upside down society also thinks all leaders made it to the top through corruption, which isn’t always true. This mindset obviously leads to the disintegration of society, whether the mindset is warranted or not
In my own reading I've come to similar conclusions and it's how you can distinguish a legitimate enlightened/saved person from one who's kinda faking it. Those who fake it reject everything that came before. But as you say, the truly enlightened person both transcends and includes what has gone before. Everything is properly contextualized and filled in its place within that hierarchy you mention. You're a blessing Jonathan.
I studied gnostic scriptures, One day while I was reading out loud and recording The gospel of Thomas, A door opened behind me and a presence rushed in upon me. I turned around thinking it was my roomate, and was shocked to not see a person behind me but also the door completely closed. Those gnostic scriptures opened a door to the spiritual realm, I don't know what came in through that door but I was caught off guard, When I played back the recordings the recording played back a sound of a door opening something coming in and the door closing behind it. Never touched that book again .
Strange how the word of God has creative power (it brings things into being or presence) and we, made in the image of God, also have death and power in our tongue. Though not at the same level, what we say can open gateways, so we speak blessings and good things to receive the desired will of God. You have an eye to see. keep the faith!
Greetings from Australia. Thank you Jonathan for your contributions. I am earnestly seeking clarity about religious issues atm and as well as listening to you, Jordan Peterson and John Lennox, I am reading Elaine Pagels book about Gnosticism. I have been surprised at the naïveté of some gnostic expectation that we believe their visions. Not all the gnostic books make me respond this way. Her translation of gnostos is insight, understanding, knowledge of the heart. It’s different to yours and that’s confusing to me. Also her portrayal of Irenaeus is quite different to yours. You call him a saint. In her book he seems very keen on establishing power in the church for himself (to put it crudely). I love your talks on patterns and symbolism and your love of the Orthodox Church often makes me feel it might at last be a church I could resonate with. However, calling Irenaeus a saint makes me wonder if you’re exhibiting blind faith in orthodoxy. I can’t reconcile this thought with your otherwise wonderful insights. Could you be mistaken about these 2 points?
If the notion that creation is where people go when they're fallen is wrong, if descending down to Egypt is exploring the Glory of creation - what's up with having a Garden to get kicked out of? There's plenty of meaning on skid row, even some redemption. It's still skid row. Can you really have free will without one?
Just because the servant gets kicked out of the castle doesn’t mean he leaves the kingdom. The authority of the King doesn’t stop at the gate of the castle it encompasses His entire kingdom.
the part that gets missed about transcendence with the human spirit is that it can and should also include what is being transcended. This is the difference between transcending and integrating, and transcending and discarding. This form of transcendence fits onto what you just described as the transcended of the structure not being what's at the top but what is transcending and including the structure itself.
I am a huge fan of Jonathan and watch most of his content as it’s released, however, I find myself confused with these types of critiques on Gnosticism. When Jonathan refers to Gnostics being polarized to transcendentalism, their doctrine of abstracting Christ from his material incarnation, their idea that the material world is evil... these are all great critiques of particularly sethian and ophite Gnostics. But the majority of Gnostics did not share the views of their Seethian and ophite counterparts. In fact, I find it interesting that the gospel of Pistis Sophia was mentioned in this video because it is a gospel which was used by many sects that these critiques do not apply to, and it’s contents seem to point to the exact opposite of these aforementioned doctrines in some cases. For example, the Pistis Sophia emphasizes a balance between the transcendental (God the father/the kingdom of light) with the immanent (Sophia) through Christ (the interaction between the two.) it explicitly mentions the descent of Christ into an earthly incarnation. And Sophia Achamoth’s redemption occurs solely in the 13 material aeons - implying that the material world is not evil, but also divine in the sense that it participates in the story of redemption. That being said, Im very confused as to why Jonathan seems to conflate sethian and ophite doctrines with the entire Gnostic tradition as well as gospels like the Pistis Sophia. Maybe we can get a deeper elaboration sometime in the future?
Gnosticism in any case lacks universality, and it's focused either on intellectual knowledge separated from the lived aspect, or if it is joined at a certain level it is not fully joined, see how the structure of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church functions, there is a whole body of knowledge and understanding that must be incarnated/lived at a universal level, things like God as a Holy Trinity, and how that plays out at all levels of reality, and how all the stories in the Bible and the revelation of Christ converge and informs absolutely every single aspect of reality and how those informed aspect are to be lived liturgically, personally, etc. All strains of Gnosticism fail to fulfill that universality (because they lack Grace), they always end up having some kind of separation, in many if not all cases they lack a theology that includes Grace, Faith, Hope, Charity, and it tends to be focused on "learning the mysteries" intellectually and maybe adding some rituals. But it is never complete, it always lacks points of connections at different levels. And if you lack the proper "lived" balance, then in a sense it doesn't matter if you don't say intellectually that the material world is evil, because you end up being an ambassador of the idea that the material world is evil by not engaging in it in a universal manner through Christ, and this balance is only achieved by grace, faith, hope and charity given by God and not some intellectual knowledge or some rituals of the so called mysteries.
@@irodjetson this is wrong on so many levels though. First off, Gnostics valued two types of knowledge. 1. Gnosis, literally the “lived” engagement of reality in a universal manner through Christ and 2. Episteme, literally intellectual knowledge. Also, they valued one over the other. There is a reason they are called Gnostics and not epistemists. I’m starting to think that this tendency of Christians to dismiss Gnosticism in one broad stroke of an over-generalized critique is based on a desire for the Gnostics to be inferior rather than a genuine consideration of Gnosticism and its contents - because I have yet to see a broad stroke against Gnosticism like this have any sort of substantiation or even a reference to the overwhelming majority of Gnostics. Like I hear what you’re saying, I see where you’re coming from, and if that’s how Gnosticism actually functioned I’d totally agree. But that’s just not how Gnosticism has ever functioned and we have the actual evidence to prove that, in most cases, Gnosticism actually functions in the exact opposite way - that is, with a strong emphasis on lived experience and redemption through Christ in the Above and the Below.
@@CyberwaveStudios what is the liturgical year of Gnostics? do they have each day to remember a saint or a specific event? are the liturgies different when it gets closer to the remembrance of the Passion of our LORD? do they have the liturgy of the Hours? are the buildings structured in a manner that evokes Christ and the Christian Story? do the sacraments and sacramentals do the same? do they have any? I could go on to point you to how the "lived" knowledge in Gnosticism is not a Christian one and it does not follow a Christian Pattern. We don't dismiss Gnosticism vaguely, this has been analyzed for so many centuries now and so many experts have learned about these things, so many gnostics have converted to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, to assume that we dismiss it out of ignorance is simply wrong. how is it that the whole cosmos universally turns around Christ and his Church in Gnosticism? Are you truly waiting for one one video or one little comment to encompass all the errors of gnosticism? the basic error is very simple and you can't see it apparently.
@@irodjetson I think there may be a misunderstanding. I am not here to answer your barrage of rhetorical questions designed to convey your ahistorical opinion that there was no Gnostic Christian liturgy. I am simply addressing the claims in this video and presenting my points against the inconsistencies in these types of critiques. And I stand by those points. If you want to find out about Gnostic Christian liturgical traditions, you can do research just as well as i can. The history of Gnostic Christian liturgy has been deeply explicated within the academic community and its not like it’s classified or anything. Gnostic Christian liturgy is literally explicit in many gospels like the baptism rite mentioned in the gospel of Philip so maybe start there and just slowly broaden your research until all your questions are answered. If you want to critique something, I suggest actually familiarizing yourself with the subject matter
Off topic but Jonathon could you do a symbolism of collapse, or let’s say choking in sports. After a recent hockey game I find myself wondering about this
Jonathan, i am disturbed by you not knowing Carl Jung's work. How can a scholar like you who talks about symbolism day in and day out, not know about maybe the most important symbolic thinker of the last 100 years or more?
He grew up in a symbolic worldview Im sure he would find Carl Jung interesting but he is already living the symbolic he never needed Jung to introduce to him these concepts
@4:05 I think you just described the holographic universe in quantum physics. The point (Christ) does not transcend the hierarchy, but contains the whole hierarchy. Wow.
Yes, the use of the enlightened Rational Mind, is entirely different: Knowledge of God is understanding the Revelation of the Godhead in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ! Gnosticism is not "tending" anything, it was and is in the Charismatic Christians today above all, the SPEAKING OF THE WORDS (of Scripture usually) ACTUATES THE (platonic) IDEA that is proposed. Please read the Descriptions in the first three books of St Irenaeus... ONLY AFTER we enter in the Holy Orthodox Faith can we make proper distinctions that you. make here between the Palamite vision of the Light.. You have the "cart before the Horse.." no pagan Gnostic can begin to understand the Person of the Revealed God in Christ Jesus Whom we worship. DIFFERENCE: between Pagan Gnostics and the Christian Experience of KNOWING the Lord Jesus Christ as our Personal Bridegroom.
We live in a Mythos. Myth is not analogous with false. It refers to, "as a time". A series of stories from before memory formed. Tales which run congruent with humanity from a place outside the collective acceptance. Sorry, I know we've destroyed our own language but you could Google words occasionally. You seem very angry, considering anyone already a Christian knows and anyone not a Christian doesn't Care. It's a fairy tale to people who don't know. So, calling it a myth is a point for us. Frankly. It makes us seem edgy.
To be honest, I am gradually drifting closer and closer to gnosticism in my faith, despite all these "classical" arguments from mr. Pageau or the clergy. Or more specifically, the Hermetic, Valentinian and more christian version of gnosticism. But now I start to sympathise more and more even with the sethian and ophite version. I was baptized some time ago into the Orthodox church and if I were honest with myself, not only is it much more gnostic than it claims to be, it's also very bad at doing that. You, mr. Pageau, find it very problematic that the material world is evil in gnosticism, along with most mainstream christians but at the same time you shamelessly affirm the horrible dogma of original (catholics) or primal (orthodox) sin which in effect disvalues the material world just as much as the gnostic myth does. Just read the Apofthegmata of the desert fathers. They are even more extreme in their enkratism and hatred, even *fear* of their bodily reality than most of the gnostic scriptures. Where are the rude heresiologists by the likes of Hippolytus or Iraeneus calling out their heresy? And not only that the 'orthodox' position is just as anti-body as gnosticism is, it's even bad at teaching that, because it introduces several very stark contradictions and uses exemplary Orwellian doublethink to deal with them. 1) the affirmation of perfect almighty creator while asserting the corruption of the world. How in a world can the creator be good if the creation is in any way fallen? Orthodox types (like st. Thomas Aquinas) answer is that free will of the one who is responsible (namely humans) is more precious than the state of the entire cosmos. I don't know about you, but that's just way too far stretched and anthropocentric explanation to me. Surely the almighty God is more clever than we are. The gnostic myth is much more coherent, since it asserts that the demiurge is not the highest spirit. It doesn't need to be outright evil, it may be somewhere in between (like the platonic demiurge), which is what Valentinians say, which is a perfect middle path for me. The gnostic myth is also much more optimistic than mainstream christianity. Yes, optimistic, because it affirms the reality of evil having no substance altogether. The fall of Sophia was, you could say, a "happy little accident". Her repentance then basically corrects all dissonance in the Pleroma. Christianity on the other hand acts as if evil had a substance, calling basically everything evil (modern age, all the other religions, so called heretics, other christians) even while claiming it does not (st. Augustine). 2) the demonic dogma of man being responsible for the corruption of the world. It makes no sense to say that I am responsible for anything when I am born pure into a world of corruption. I do not corrupt the world, it corrupts me. The effect is extrinsic to me, therefore I cannot be held responsible. It is much more coherent to say that some aspect of the material reality (the Pauline 'Sarx'), is responsible, because it makes people selfish, lustful, hateful etc., which is really in line with the teachings of st. Paul. I can surely be held responsible for my individual acts, but the ultimate guilt is not placed upon the individual, which sets him free from the said guilt. My time in the mainstream church has been filled with guilt for all I do. I wasn't called for aspiring towards the Highest, I was only called to 'repent', which basically meant a flagellant-like self hatred (which is precisely what the desert fathers put forth - "we need to hate ourselves". How is that for an evil teaching?). The discovery of gnostic and hermetic thinking set me free from all this. 3) The guilt of sin vs. the unfortunate reality of ignorance. Sin in mainstream christianity is something that man is infused by. It is our very nature (how is that for "gnostic teaching"?). So we are called to cry all the time basically. We can also be judged because of sin, so we are basically judged for our very own existence, thus the only remedy is to basically constantly ask for forgiveness (Jesus prayer). It seems to be similar to our modern environmentalist thinking when basically the most environmentaly friendly thing we could do is basically a collective suicide. Whereas with ignorance (as opposed to gnosis) is only something you can pity. "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do". 4) The exoteric nature of christian salvation vs. the esoteric nature of gnostic one. In christianity, the story basically is all you need. You are saved by participating in some myth, some fleeting story. Whereas in gnosticism or hermeticism, we are saved by actual experience, by living out God himself, by actually uniting with Him. 5) Lame theosis vs. actual theosis. I was surprised that what the orthodox call "theosis" was actually a watered down version of what I thought it would be. I was surprised to learn that this "divinization" is basically just moral and ascetic perfection, according to the measuring stick of Christ. No metaphysics involved, no fundamental change in our inner state, we stay creatures all the same. Yes, the world of the saints blazes with Godly fire, which is good, but the actual individual is still a low creature. He participates in the uncreated energies of God, but stays on the same ontological level as he was at the beginning basically, only purified of sin. But the gnostic, hermetic or upanishadic theosis is the actual deal. The union of Atman and Brahma. Such a total union of "here" and "there" that there is no separation between me and God. I am aware of all the arguments against the second theosis, but I can't help myself, it's just much better, much cooler and much more promising one. I could go on and on, but this is enough it seems to me
Interesting. Have you experienced this union/theosis yet? The merge creates everything/nothing. Whereas I understand Orthodox Theosis retains and divinizes the individual. But as you explain it you remain a lowly creature. Do you know what is meant by "participation in Divinity"?
@@franc3861 As I understand it, one who participates in the uncreated energies of God is united with God as bride is one with the bridegroom. You become one in love, you become one in energies, but not in essence. As you said, one retains his own individuality, therefore is not, in my understanding, "truly" united with God, since there is still a clear "you" and "I" distinction as Martin Buber was talking about that. Why do I say it is not a "true" union? Because there are still two persons, the one who divinizes and the one who is divinized, the division of creature and creator is still there. This division could be overcome by similar rhetoric as with the Trinity, as Meister Eckhart talked about it (consubstantiality of Jesus and the Father, when the divinized person IS the Son), but that's not how orthodox theology handles theosis. On the other hand I put the sufi teaching of "fanaa", which is a complete dissolution of the self in God, the unification of "I" in "you". This is similar - if not identical - to the union of atman and brahma in advaita-vedanta. You could say that theosis is superior, because it needs not one to essentially sacrifice his self to God and ones individuality is retained, but to me it's precisely the point of the self to die in order to be united with God. Symbolism of the cross comes to mind. I don't take my individuality to be very important. It's way too much connected to the "ego". It's far too dangerous to be acquinted with it and to try to save it. Edit: and yes, I experienced it, otherwise I wouldn't be talking at such lengths about that :)
Thank you for revealing your thoughts publicly, because I can see how much this topic is important to you. If you are truly seeking God, then I pray that you'll consider these words. God entered into creation in His Son. Also, God said that creation was good in Genesis. Gnosticism denies the goodness of creation, which is to say that God is a liar and Jesus as the God-man Christ is a fake. To use the Bible as a foundation for an idea, but then deny parts of it, along with rejecting Holy Tradition (the Bible came from the life of its saints, not the other way around), is to ultimately form a heresy -- of which you know, gnosticism is considered such in Orthodox Christianity. My prayer is that in your search for Truth, you read not only the champions of gnosticism, which it looks like you're doing, but also the works of those authors (saints of the Orthodox Church) who opposed it. From there God will reveal to you His Son. You will know that you haven't found Him if you remain tortured in your soul on this topic. May God bless you, and I ask that you keep me, a sinner, in your prayers.
I don't understand how free will being an explanation is "a stretch." That is the moment when the person and nature came in opposition which we then inherited from them sending us down the path of dialectic, as indicated by your dialectic of the I and the Not I. Christianity doesn't totally destroy the self, and we don't become God, it's unity and multiplicity.
Strange attack on Gnosticism (again). So, a 'true Christian' would say that the physical world is equal in truth, power and goodness as Heaven is? When a believer in Gnosticism say that the manifesting of truth is flawed in the flesh/the material world he's stating an obvious truth - that even 'true Christians' agree with. The idea that Jesus contains the hierarchy (instead of simply transcending it) is not a foreign concept in Gnosticism. Gnosticism just takes it very seriously that the devil exists. The idea that the physical world is bad in itself is *not* Orthodoxy in Gnosticism - people within Gnosticism disagree about this (just like they do in 'true Christianity'). But Gnosticism do say that some things are bad in itself. Look at a Nazi camp and try to claim with a stray face that evil in itself doesn't exists. Do Jesus contain the slaughter of 6 million Jews? The 'true Christianity vs Gnosticism'-debate is futile. The teachings of Gnosticism are contained within Christianity. If you read Mark then Jesus even directly says to his disciples that he's teaching in parables as a way if hiding the truth in layers: a 'lesser truth' for the public, a 'higher truth' for his disciples.
I may be wrong, because this is a bit complicated to explain, but matter in Christianity isn't flawed, but a necessary aspect of creation to participate in God. When we say that to be "in the world" is bad, this isn't about rejecting matter, but rejecting a mundane mindset leading to spiritual sickness. So the flaw isn't rooted in the body but in the spirit. In fact, the body is seen as a temple for the Holy Spirit, so God may abide in us. But we, due to sin, end up defiling that temple which is our body. Adam and Eve were created in this way. Also, you can get closer to God by using your body in the proper way, this is, by fasting and doing all practices according to the ascetic life. Furthermore, you may ascend to heaven in both body and soul. There are two cases recorded in Scripture, Enoch and Elijah, and one in the tradition, which is the Virgin Mary. Hence, it's false to state that it's impossible to attain truth within the flesh, as participating from God, from truth, is an attitudinal or even spiritual stance, not a physical one.
“The highest part of the hierarchy is not that which transcends the hierarchy but that which contains the whole hierarchy.” I disagree. I’m in Jordan’s camp, where the transcendent accounts for the whole hierarchy. I.e. the transcendent value isn’t exactly a value, but it’s the process that creates transforms and ranks values.
Indeed secrecy is mostly just attempting deception. Christianity again trumps it. No secrecy, everything is on display. Christ came and openly revealed literally everything to us in words and acts. In case we werent given to understand directly, we have the Pauline letters and all the Churchfathers guiding us in detail how to interpret it all. Now we also have our blessed Jonathan and others who openly and explicitly offer us the Way to look at the world and sacred Scripture. Absolutely nothing is hidden from us. The last book of the Bible is literally called Revelation. The Cannonical Bible is probably available in every book shop in the world. If people knew that is is the Word of God they would break their legs running to buy it. It's almost hillariously tragic how it is almost anti-secret and it always has been and yet we dont see or dont want to see and always try looking in all the places other than which openly says that it is what we are looking for the whole time. This really moves you towards quite some gratitude that God didnt choose to leave your heart hardened and your ears closed...
The gnostics say that the world was created by the demiurge, and hence, not perfect. Perfection lies with the one God of all. You say this is existentially problematic, but I think the whole "original sin" dogma is existentially problematic. The Gnostics never had this problem because their writings were before the Nicean creed introduced this in to Christianity. It's really a matter of faith in the church fathers revisions and decisions versus those who actually lived and wrote not long after Jesus himself. The original Christians versus politicized pontiffs. Why should we believe the latter when we now have the recently discovered Nag Hammadi scriptures for example?
Further clarification is needed. What do you mean by original sin? What did the Nicean creed introduce to Christianity? Who are those who lived and wrote not long after Jesus?
Check out Clement of Alexandria and the early Apostolic Fathers, or Saint Polycarp direct disciple of Saint John, or Saint Ireneus (130 AD, 202 AD) and his long and detailed refutation of all the gnostic doctrines. All of these preceed Nicea and all teach original/ancestral sin, refute the heresies of the gnostics and affirm the doctrine of the incarnation. The fact that the gnostic writing datings preceed the gospels fragments dating, is irrelevent. On what basis can you affirm that temporary precedence, equates superior adherence to truth? That's clearly a logical fallacy. Broadly speaking, gnosticism preaches self-salvation and denies the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and it's salvific effect. It is openly Luciferian and as Saint John states clearly, the doctrine of antichrist. If you want more detailed answers to many of the questions you might have regarding gnosticism and it's incompatibility with Christianity, I would suggest you check out some of Jay Dyer's videos, he goes into these matters at great lenght and in a very informed and detailed manner. Saint Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Against Heresies. "Christ redeemed us by His blood ; He gave His soul for our soul, His flesh for our flesh ; by pouring over us the Holy Ghost He restored union between man and God ; He made God to come down to man by the Spirit and made man to come up to God by His Incarnation ; by His coming He gave us true and permanent immortality, uniting us to Him ; these great truths are the refutation of all heresies." 1 John 4:1-6 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
@@liberd.4694 What does this have to do with Dyer? What has been stated above is literally pre Nicaea. Nicaea would never have happened if there wasn't controversy surrounding Christ as homoousion with the Father, because it was always understood that Christ is homoousion with the Father.
I was adressing the attitude that was born out of men like Iraneus that contributed to the ill treatment of gnostics(such as the cathars) and competing religious movements in the classical world. Although i disagree with many if these groups i can never,in good conscience,as a Christian condone such acts.
This is what we like
When I listen to Jonathan Pageau, I have to pause like every 12 seconds to breath and digest things...
4:06 "...the highest point of a hierarchy is actually not that which transcends the hierarchy but that which contains the hierarchy."
Seeing this idea represented in pre-Christian cultures (namely the ancient Egyptians and later the Pythagoreans of Greece) and then also seeing it revered and practiced in Christianity is what ultimately lead me to Christianity.
To me there just seems to be something incorrect about getting to the top meaning you leave everything below you behind. It seems more accurate that getting to the top means that every step you took to get there is now a part of you.
The person who manages a store probably started off stocking shelves, cleaning, working the checkout and then somewhere along the way became assistant manager before eventually becoming manager. But in becoming manager, it's not like his experience doing all the other "lower" work has disappeared. It's still part of him as much as managing the whole store now is.
I didn’t hear Antonella’s say that Jesus leaves himself, behind. If it did, is referring to transcendence. Because ultimately lJesus IS GOD, he was always going to “fill the highest place”, in His fulfillment of Divinity as Son of God, who IS GOD. So, I don’t see a contradiction. Jesus IS THE CRIMINAL ON THE CROSS, once he is Ascended into Heaven ... just like you and I, when we die and go to him, we will no longer require the things we carried or worked with, on earth. In that respect, Jesus is the same after he transcends this world, and he himself, transforms from being man. Once he is returned to heaven, he is no longer earthly man, like us. Jesus IS GOD.His purpose here was to be the sacrificial lamb, and die and overcome life, that all humankind who believe in this sacrifice, and HIS resurrection, and ultimately his ascendence up to Heaven, ..we also have our Original Sin washed away. Concerning your remark about Jesus not “bringing all his things on “HIS ASCENT”, I’m sorry if I couldn’t tell you more. Have faith. ❤U,Brother. You are Valued & Loved
And a boss/leader like that is always more effective, and usually a better person. Our upside down society also thinks all leaders made it to the top through corruption, which isn’t always true. This mindset obviously leads to the disintegration of society, whether the mindset is warranted or not
In my own reading I've come to similar conclusions and it's how you can distinguish a legitimate enlightened/saved person from one who's kinda faking it. Those who fake it reject everything that came before. But as you say, the truly enlightened person both transcends and includes what has gone before. Everything is properly contextualized and filled in its place within that hierarchy you mention. You're a blessing Jonathan.
I studied gnostic scriptures, One day while I was reading out loud and recording The gospel of Thomas, A door opened behind me and a presence rushed in upon me. I turned around thinking it was my roomate, and was shocked to not see a person behind me but also the door completely closed. Those gnostic scriptures opened a door to the spiritual realm, I don't know what came in through that door but I was caught off guard, When I played back the recordings the recording played back a sound of a door opening something coming in and the door closing behind it. Never touched that book again .
Strange how the word of God has creative power (it brings things into being or presence) and we, made in the image of God, also have death and power in our tongue. Though not at the same level, what we say can open gateways, so we speak blessings and good things to receive the desired will of God. You have an eye to see. keep the faith!
Greetings from Australia. Thank you Jonathan for your contributions. I am earnestly seeking clarity about religious issues atm and as well as listening to you, Jordan Peterson and John Lennox, I am reading Elaine Pagels book about Gnosticism. I have been surprised at the naïveté of some gnostic expectation that we believe their visions. Not all the gnostic books make me respond this way.
Her translation of gnostos is insight, understanding, knowledge of the heart. It’s different to yours and that’s confusing to me.
Also her portrayal of Irenaeus is quite different to yours. You call him a saint. In her book he seems very keen on establishing power in the church for himself (to put it crudely).
I love your talks on patterns and symbolism and your love of the Orthodox Church often makes me feel it might at last be a church I could resonate with.
However, calling Irenaeus a saint makes me wonder if you’re exhibiting blind faith in orthodoxy. I can’t reconcile this thought with your otherwise wonderful insights.
Could you be mistaken about these 2 points?
I'm so glad I found your channel. There isn't an Orthodox Church where we moved to.
Move again maybe
So go to eastern catholic one or if it's not there a regular catholic one.
If the notion that creation is where people go when they're fallen is wrong, if descending down to Egypt is exploring the Glory of creation - what's up with having a Garden to get kicked out of?
There's plenty of meaning on skid row, even some redemption. It's still skid row. Can you really have free will without one?
Just because the servant gets kicked out of the castle doesn’t mean he leaves the kingdom. The authority of the King doesn’t stop at the gate of the castle it encompasses His entire kingdom.
the part that gets missed about transcendence with the human spirit is that it can and should also include what is being transcended. This is the difference between transcending and integrating, and transcending and discarding. This form of transcendence fits onto what you just described as the transcended of the structure not being what's at the top but what is transcending and including the structure itself.
Pretty wild to think the star od Bethlehem in the thumbnail actually happened and lines up with the historical birthday of Jesus and is a cross.
I am a huge fan of Jonathan and watch most of his content as it’s released, however, I find myself confused with these types of critiques on Gnosticism. When Jonathan refers to Gnostics being polarized to transcendentalism, their doctrine of abstracting Christ from his material incarnation, their idea that the material world is evil... these are all great critiques of particularly sethian and ophite Gnostics. But the majority of Gnostics did not share the views of their Seethian and ophite counterparts. In fact, I find it interesting that the gospel of Pistis Sophia was mentioned in this video because it is a gospel which was used by many sects that these critiques do not apply to, and it’s contents seem to point to the exact opposite of these aforementioned doctrines in some cases. For example, the Pistis Sophia emphasizes a balance between the transcendental (God the father/the kingdom of light) with the immanent (Sophia) through Christ (the interaction between the two.) it explicitly mentions the descent of Christ into an earthly incarnation. And Sophia Achamoth’s redemption occurs solely in the 13 material aeons - implying that the material world is not evil, but also divine in the sense that it participates in the story of redemption.
That being said, Im very confused as to why Jonathan seems to conflate sethian and ophite doctrines with the entire Gnostic tradition as well as gospels like the Pistis Sophia. Maybe we can get a deeper elaboration sometime in the future?
Gnosticism in any case lacks universality, and it's focused either on intellectual knowledge separated from the lived aspect, or if it is joined at a certain level it is not fully joined, see how the structure of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church functions, there is a whole body of knowledge and understanding that must be incarnated/lived at a universal level, things like God as a Holy Trinity, and how that plays out at all levels of reality, and how all the stories in the Bible and the revelation of Christ converge and informs absolutely every single aspect of reality and how those informed aspect are to be lived liturgically, personally, etc.
All strains of Gnosticism fail to fulfill that universality (because they lack Grace), they always end up having some kind of separation, in many if not all cases they lack a theology that includes Grace, Faith, Hope, Charity, and it tends to be focused on "learning the mysteries" intellectually and maybe adding some rituals. But it is never complete, it always lacks points of connections at different levels. And if you lack the proper "lived" balance, then in a sense it doesn't matter if you don't say intellectually that the material world is evil, because you end up being an ambassador of the idea that the material world is evil by not engaging in it in a universal manner through Christ, and this balance is only achieved by grace, faith, hope and charity given by God and not some intellectual knowledge or some rituals of the so called mysteries.
@@irodjetson this is wrong on so many levels though. First off, Gnostics valued two types of knowledge. 1. Gnosis, literally the “lived” engagement of reality in a universal manner through Christ and
2. Episteme, literally intellectual knowledge.
Also, they valued one over the other. There is a reason they are called Gnostics and not epistemists.
I’m starting to think that this tendency of Christians to dismiss Gnosticism in one broad stroke of an over-generalized critique is based on a desire for the Gnostics to be inferior rather than a genuine consideration of Gnosticism and its contents - because I have yet to see a broad stroke against Gnosticism like this have any sort of substantiation or even a reference to the overwhelming majority of Gnostics. Like I hear what you’re saying, I see where you’re coming from, and if that’s how Gnosticism actually functioned I’d totally agree. But that’s just not how Gnosticism has ever functioned and we have the actual evidence to prove that, in most cases, Gnosticism actually functions in the exact opposite way - that is, with a strong emphasis on lived experience and redemption through Christ in the Above and the Below.
@@CyberwaveStudios what is the liturgical year of Gnostics? do they have each day to remember a saint or a specific event? are the liturgies different when it gets closer to the remembrance of the Passion of our LORD? do they have the liturgy of the Hours? are the buildings structured in a manner that evokes Christ and the Christian Story? do the sacraments and sacramentals do the same? do they have any? I could go on to point you to how the "lived" knowledge in Gnosticism is not a Christian one and it does not follow a Christian Pattern. We don't dismiss Gnosticism vaguely, this has been analyzed for so many centuries now and so many experts have learned about these things, so many gnostics have converted to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, to assume that we dismiss it out of ignorance is simply wrong. how is it that the whole cosmos universally turns around Christ and his Church in Gnosticism?
Are you truly waiting for one one video or one little comment to encompass all the errors of gnosticism? the basic error is very simple and you can't see it apparently.
@@irodjetson I think there may be a misunderstanding. I am not here to answer your barrage of rhetorical questions designed to convey your ahistorical opinion that there was no Gnostic Christian liturgy. I am simply addressing the claims in this video and presenting my points against the inconsistencies in these types of critiques. And I stand by those points. If you want to find out about Gnostic Christian liturgical traditions, you can do research just as well as i can. The history of Gnostic Christian liturgy has been deeply explicated within the academic community and its not like it’s classified or anything. Gnostic Christian liturgy is literally explicit in many gospels like the baptism rite mentioned in the gospel of Philip so maybe start there and just slowly broaden your research until all your questions are answered. If you want to critique something, I suggest actually familiarizing yourself with the subject matter
@@CyberwaveStudios You assume I am not familiarized.
Off topic but Jonathon could you do a symbolism of collapse, or let’s say choking in sports. After a recent hockey game I find myself wondering about this
When the Leafs suck so bad, they literally bring you to Christ.
Jonathan, i am disturbed by you not knowing Carl Jung's work. How can a scholar like you who talks about symbolism day in and day out, not know about maybe the most important symbolic thinker of the last 100 years or more?
He grew up in a symbolic worldview Im sure he would find Carl Jung interesting but he is already living the symbolic he never needed Jung to introduce to him these concepts
@4:05 I think you just described the holographic universe in quantum physics. The point (Christ) does not transcend the hierarchy, but contains the whole hierarchy. Wow.
Yes, the use of the enlightened Rational Mind, is entirely different: Knowledge of God is understanding the Revelation of the Godhead in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ! Gnosticism is not "tending" anything, it was and is in the Charismatic Christians today above all, the SPEAKING OF THE WORDS (of Scripture usually) ACTUATES THE (platonic) IDEA that is proposed. Please read the Descriptions in the first three books of St Irenaeus... ONLY AFTER we enter in the Holy Orthodox Faith can we make proper distinctions that you. make here between the Palamite vision of the Light.. You have the "cart before the Horse.." no pagan Gnostic can begin to understand the Person of the Revealed God in Christ Jesus Whom we worship. DIFFERENCE: between Pagan Gnostics and the Christian Experience of KNOWING the Lord Jesus Christ as our Personal Bridegroom.
MYTH. The greatest story ever told? Myth is a tale
We live in a Mythos. Myth is not analogous with false. It refers to, "as a time". A series of stories from before memory formed. Tales which run congruent with humanity from a place outside the collective acceptance.
Sorry, I know we've destroyed our own language but you could Google words occasionally.
You seem very angry, considering anyone already a Christian knows and anyone not a Christian doesn't Care.
It's a fairy tale to people who don't know. So, calling it a myth is a point for us. Frankly. It makes us seem edgy.
The fallen world is more of a fallen perception of the world.
I dunno why, but I think Valentinus theology is the most adequate. Like in between orthodox christianity and gnostic christianity.
To be honest, I am gradually drifting closer and closer to gnosticism in my faith, despite all these "classical" arguments from mr. Pageau or the clergy. Or more specifically, the Hermetic, Valentinian and more christian version of gnosticism. But now I start to sympathise more and more even with the sethian and ophite version.
I was baptized some time ago into the Orthodox church and if I were honest with myself, not only is it much more gnostic than it claims to be, it's also very bad at doing that. You, mr. Pageau, find it very problematic that the material world is evil in gnosticism, along with most mainstream christians but at the same time you shamelessly affirm the horrible dogma of original (catholics) or primal (orthodox) sin which in effect disvalues the material world just as much as the gnostic myth does. Just read the Apofthegmata of the desert fathers. They are even more extreme in their enkratism and hatred, even *fear* of their bodily reality than most of the gnostic scriptures. Where are the rude heresiologists by the likes of Hippolytus or Iraeneus calling out their heresy? And not only that the 'orthodox' position is just as anti-body as gnosticism is, it's even bad at teaching that, because it introduces several very stark contradictions and uses exemplary Orwellian doublethink to deal with them.
1) the affirmation of perfect almighty creator while asserting the corruption of the world. How in a world can the creator be good if the creation is in any way fallen? Orthodox types (like st. Thomas Aquinas) answer is that free will of the one who is responsible (namely humans) is more precious than the state of the entire cosmos. I don't know about you, but that's just way too far stretched and anthropocentric explanation to me. Surely the almighty God is more clever than we are. The gnostic myth is much more coherent, since it asserts that the demiurge is not the highest spirit. It doesn't need to be outright evil, it may be somewhere in between (like the platonic demiurge), which is what Valentinians say, which is a perfect middle path for me. The gnostic myth is also much more optimistic than mainstream christianity. Yes, optimistic, because it affirms the reality of evil having no substance altogether. The fall of Sophia was, you could say, a "happy little accident". Her repentance then basically corrects all dissonance in the Pleroma. Christianity on the other hand acts as if evil had a substance, calling basically everything evil (modern age, all the other religions, so called heretics, other christians) even while claiming it does not (st. Augustine).
2) the demonic dogma of man being responsible for the corruption of the world. It makes no sense to say that I am responsible for anything when I am born pure into a world of corruption. I do not corrupt the world, it corrupts me. The effect is extrinsic to me, therefore I cannot be held responsible. It is much more coherent to say that some aspect of the material reality (the Pauline 'Sarx'), is responsible, because it makes people selfish, lustful, hateful etc., which is really in line with the teachings of st. Paul.
I can surely be held responsible for my individual acts, but the ultimate guilt is not placed upon the individual, which sets him free from the said guilt.
My time in the mainstream church has been filled with guilt for all I do. I wasn't called for aspiring towards the Highest, I was only called to 'repent', which basically meant a flagellant-like self hatred (which is precisely what the desert fathers put forth - "we need to hate ourselves". How is that for an evil teaching?). The discovery of gnostic and hermetic thinking set me free from all this.
3) The guilt of sin vs. the unfortunate reality of ignorance. Sin in mainstream christianity is something that man is infused by. It is our very nature (how is that for "gnostic teaching"?). So we are called to cry all the time basically. We can also be judged because of sin, so we are basically judged for our very own existence, thus the only remedy is to basically constantly ask for forgiveness (Jesus prayer). It seems to be similar to our modern environmentalist thinking when basically the most environmentaly friendly thing we could do is basically a collective suicide. Whereas with ignorance (as opposed to gnosis) is only something you can pity. "Father forgive them, for they do not know what they do".
4) The exoteric nature of christian salvation vs. the esoteric nature of gnostic one. In christianity, the story basically is all you need. You are saved by participating in some myth, some fleeting story. Whereas in gnosticism or hermeticism, we are saved by actual experience, by living out God himself, by actually uniting with Him.
5) Lame theosis vs. actual theosis. I was surprised that what the orthodox call "theosis" was actually a watered down version of what I thought it would be. I was surprised to learn that this "divinization" is basically just moral and ascetic perfection, according to the measuring stick of Christ. No metaphysics involved, no fundamental change in our inner state, we stay creatures all the same. Yes, the world of the saints blazes with Godly fire, which is good, but the actual individual is still a low creature. He participates in the uncreated energies of God, but stays on the same ontological level as he was at the beginning basically, only purified of sin.
But the gnostic, hermetic or upanishadic theosis is the actual deal. The union of Atman and Brahma. Such a total union of "here" and "there" that there is no separation between me and God.
I am aware of all the arguments against the second theosis, but I can't help myself, it's just much better, much cooler and much more promising one.
I could go on and on, but this is enough it seems to me
Interesting. Have you experienced this union/theosis yet? The merge creates everything/nothing. Whereas I understand Orthodox Theosis retains and divinizes the individual. But as you explain it you remain a lowly creature. Do you know what is meant by "participation in Divinity"?
@@franc3861 As I understand it, one who participates in the uncreated energies of God is united with God as bride is one with the bridegroom. You become one in love, you become one in energies, but not in essence. As you said, one retains his own individuality, therefore is not, in my understanding, "truly" united with God, since there is still a clear "you" and "I" distinction as Martin Buber was talking about that. Why do I say it is not a "true" union? Because there are still two persons, the one who divinizes and the one who is divinized, the division of creature and creator is still there. This division could be overcome by similar rhetoric as with the Trinity, as Meister Eckhart talked about it (consubstantiality of Jesus and the Father, when the divinized person IS the Son), but that's not how orthodox theology handles theosis.
On the other hand I put the sufi teaching of "fanaa", which is a complete dissolution of the self in God, the unification of "I" in "you". This is similar - if not identical - to the union of atman and brahma in advaita-vedanta.
You could say that theosis is superior, because it needs not one to essentially sacrifice his self to God and ones individuality is retained, but to me it's precisely the point of the self to die in order to be united with God. Symbolism of the cross comes to mind. I don't take my individuality to be very important. It's way too much connected to the "ego". It's far too dangerous to be acquinted with it and to try to save it.
Edit: and yes, I experienced it, otherwise I wouldn't be talking at such lengths about that :)
Thank you for revealing your thoughts publicly, because I can see how much this topic is important to you. If you are truly seeking God, then I pray that you'll consider these words.
God entered into creation in His Son. Also, God said that creation was good in Genesis. Gnosticism denies the goodness of creation, which is to say that God is a liar and Jesus as the God-man Christ is a fake. To use the Bible as a foundation for an idea, but then deny parts of it, along with rejecting Holy Tradition (the Bible came from the life of its saints, not the other way around), is to ultimately form a heresy -- of which you know, gnosticism is considered such in Orthodox Christianity.
My prayer is that in your search for Truth, you read not only the champions of gnosticism, which it looks like you're doing, but also the works of those authors (saints of the Orthodox Church) who opposed it. From there God will reveal to you His Son. You will know that you haven't found Him if you remain tortured in your soul on this topic. May God bless you, and I ask that you keep me, a sinner, in your prayers.
I don't understand how free will being an explanation is "a stretch." That is the moment when the person and nature came in opposition which we then inherited from them sending us down the path of dialectic, as indicated by your dialectic of the I and the Not I. Christianity doesn't totally destroy the self, and we don't become God, it's unity and multiplicity.
AMEN!
Strange attack on Gnosticism (again). So, a 'true Christian' would say that the physical world is equal in truth, power and goodness as Heaven is? When a believer in Gnosticism say that the manifesting of truth is flawed in the flesh/the material world he's stating an obvious truth - that even 'true Christians' agree with.
The idea that Jesus contains the hierarchy (instead of simply transcending it) is not a foreign concept in Gnosticism. Gnosticism just takes it very seriously that the devil exists.
The idea that the physical world is bad in itself is *not* Orthodoxy in Gnosticism - people within Gnosticism disagree about this (just like they do in 'true Christianity'). But Gnosticism do say that some things are bad in itself. Look at a Nazi camp and try to claim with a stray face that evil in itself doesn't exists. Do Jesus contain the slaughter of 6 million Jews?
The 'true Christianity vs Gnosticism'-debate is futile. The teachings of Gnosticism are contained within Christianity. If you read Mark then Jesus even directly says to his disciples that he's teaching in parables as a way if hiding the truth in layers: a 'lesser truth' for the public, a 'higher truth' for his disciples.
That was THE best summary I have ever read on this.
God BLESS you, friend in Christ.
Thank you for defending the Gnostics so well 😁
@@somechrisguy Appreciated.
I may be wrong, because this is a bit complicated to explain, but matter in Christianity isn't flawed, but a necessary aspect of creation to participate in God. When we say that to be "in the world" is bad, this isn't about rejecting matter, but rejecting a mundane mindset leading to spiritual sickness. So the flaw isn't rooted in the body but in the spirit. In fact, the body is seen as a temple for the Holy Spirit, so God may abide in us. But we, due to sin, end up defiling that temple which is our body. Adam and Eve were created in this way. Also, you can get closer to God by using your body in the proper way, this is, by fasting and doing all practices according to the ascetic life. Furthermore, you may ascend to heaven in both body and soul. There are two cases recorded in Scripture, Enoch and Elijah, and one in the tradition, which is the Virgin Mary. Hence, it's false to state that it's impossible to attain truth within the flesh, as participating from God, from truth, is an attitudinal or even spiritual stance, not a physical one.
“The highest part of the hierarchy is not that which transcends the hierarchy but that which contains the whole hierarchy.” I disagree. I’m in Jordan’s camp, where the transcendent accounts for the whole hierarchy. I.e. the transcendent value isn’t exactly a value, but it’s the process that creates transforms and ranks values.
There is a man named Youssef on the loose. He has a helper, Veni Vidi Vici.
Ignore all that they say.
God bless you all.
whose those?
@@icarovdl Two monsters. Avoid at all costs.
@@Th3BigBoy but were are those guys, they do youtube videos? what are u talking about?
@@icarovdl You will find them in the comments from time to time on this channel.
Wth? What is it that they talk about?
Gnosis is secretive, their scriptures don’t show one how to interpret them. Secrecy sounds dubious.
Indeed secrecy is mostly just attempting deception. Christianity again trumps it. No secrecy, everything is on display. Christ came and openly revealed literally everything to us in words and acts. In case we werent given to understand directly, we have the Pauline letters and all the Churchfathers guiding us in detail how to interpret it all. Now we also have our blessed Jonathan and others who openly and explicitly offer us the Way to look at the world and sacred Scripture. Absolutely nothing is hidden from us. The last book of the Bible is literally called Revelation. The Cannonical Bible is probably available in every book shop in the world. If people knew that is is the Word of God they would break their legs running to buy it. It's almost hillariously tragic how it is almost anti-secret and it always has been and yet we dont see or dont want to see and always try looking in all the places other than which openly says that it is what we are looking for the whole time.
This really moves you towards quite some gratitude that God didnt choose to leave your heart hardened and your ears closed...
The gnostics say that the world was created by the demiurge, and hence, not perfect. Perfection lies with the one God of all. You say this is existentially problematic, but I think the whole "original sin" dogma is existentially problematic. The Gnostics never had this problem because their writings were before the Nicean creed introduced this in to Christianity. It's really a matter of faith in the church fathers revisions and decisions versus those who actually lived and wrote not long after Jesus himself. The original Christians versus politicized pontiffs. Why should we believe the latter when we now have the recently discovered Nag Hammadi scriptures for example?
Further clarification is needed. What do you mean by original sin? What did the Nicean creed introduce to Christianity? Who are those who lived and wrote not long after Jesus?
Check out Clement of Alexandria and the early Apostolic Fathers, or Saint Polycarp direct disciple of Saint John, or Saint Ireneus (130 AD, 202 AD) and his long and detailed refutation of all the gnostic doctrines. All of these preceed Nicea and all teach original/ancestral sin, refute the heresies of the gnostics and affirm the doctrine of the incarnation. The fact that the gnostic writing datings preceed the gospels fragments dating, is irrelevent. On what basis can you affirm that temporary precedence, equates superior adherence to truth? That's clearly a logical fallacy. Broadly speaking, gnosticism preaches self-salvation and denies the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and it's salvific effect. It is openly Luciferian and as Saint John states clearly, the doctrine of antichrist. If you want more detailed answers to many of the questions you might have regarding gnosticism and it's incompatibility with Christianity, I would suggest you check out some of Jay Dyer's videos, he goes into these matters at great lenght and in a very informed and detailed manner.
Saint Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Against Heresies.
"Christ redeemed us by His blood ; He gave His soul for our soul, His flesh for our flesh ; by pouring over us the Holy Ghost He restored union between man and God ; He made God to come down to man by the Spirit and made man to come up to God by His Incarnation ; by His coming He gave us true and permanent immortality, uniting us to Him ; these great truths are the refutation of all heresies."
1 John 4:1-6
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus, is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
@@liberd.4694 What does this have to do with Dyer? What has been stated above is literally pre Nicaea.
Nicaea would never have happened if there wasn't controversy surrounding Christ as homoousion with the Father, because it was always understood that Christ is homoousion with the Father.
@@liberd.4694 What persecution are you specifically talking about?
I was adressing the attitude that was born out of men like Iraneus that contributed to the ill treatment of gnostics(such as the cathars) and competing religious movements in the classical world.
Although i disagree with many if these groups i can never,in good conscience,as a Christian condone such acts.