This is a truly marvelous interview. The Greek/Christian connections need to be understood. We need a resurgence of focus on the Logos Thank you Jeffrey, Thank you Pierre!
We need to hear more about whether jesus's teaching overlaps with Greek understanding .. Please have another session of this..obviously I need to read the book but still
This conversation and its ideas about how the religion of Christianity was led astray through the ignorance of time and translation should be required listening for all those who lack understanding of its roots. With proper insight into the creation of Christianity as an organized religion, many of those lost in the labyrinth of western civilization could find their way out.
I would encourage people to look at Orthodox Christian tradition to clear up some of these misunderstandings. The way it is presented here is very misleading, if you don't look into the mysteries of Christianity, you won't get it at all. The power to forgive sins is clearly in the Gospels. But what's more, admitting sins sacramentally and resolving to do them no more cuts the karmic ties from those actions, by Grace. You are free to move forward and evolve. The purpose of the resurrection is a bit more complex than just the Anglo-Protestant "washed in the blood of the lamb" idea....the resurrection is a victory over death, which itself is a symptom of human disconnection from source. We are creators of our own reality, but that state of being is so encrusted with the echoes of human confusions and passions, we never end up getting it right. The resurrection re-defines humanity, lifting it up out of the tangle of sin it creates for itself, by inaugurating a new level of humanity, the Man-God. A new precedent has been established that people can participate in. It has parallels with the idea of Guru Yoga, if that helps. As far as similarity with Greek philosophy...the early Church Fathers acknowledged this, and the continuity of pre-Christian wisdom with Christian Tradition is a subject that was treated thoroughly in late antiquity. And as far as the Bible is concerned......the Bible "Sola Scriptura" is NOT the foundation of the Faith. There is a Tradition which predates the New Testament, and served as a guide to which gospels and letters were the best quality, and deserved canonical status.
Completely agree. Well done. He did make some errors here, and his criticism of Paul is harsh and not particularly accurate. And you’re completely right on Sola Scriptura, a lot of people including secularists have a Protestant outlook on Christianity and the authority of scripture. They presume the Church is a formulation/product of what was written in the New Testament, rather than the New Testament being a formulation/product of the Church/Community that already existed.
So you guys went to the last canonical gospel in respect to chronologically when it was authored (probably very late 1st century). Gospel of John also stands very distinct and apart from the prior 3 Synoptic Gospels. Historical critical scholars see John as composed of about 4 separate source text that have been woven together in a manner of an editor. There are fairly obvious textual literary seams that they base this on. The Logos poem at the beginning of the gospel is one of the distinct sources. So does Logos really equate to Self? The Gospel of John is famously known as the "I Am" gospel because of quotes it attributes to Yeshua where he says things that resemble the I Am language of Yaweh - self assertion of godhood. The Synoptic Gospels do not have anything like that going on. In fact in the earliest gospel, Mark, Yeshua forbids those he heals and cast demons out of to not go around and say that he is the messiah. Consequently this is why scholars view John as espousing a much higher level Christology than the preceding gospels and even the epistles of Paul. In opening verses of Romans epistle Paul recites an early Christian liturgy and in that is says God elevated Yeshual - IOW, the earliest Christians viewed Yeshua as a great servant that was elevated to sonship by God because of his self-sacrificing attitude. John, however, via the "I Am" quotes attributed to Yeshua, and the Logos poem setting out the pre-existence of the Logos, is pretty clearly trying to establish a divinity stature for Yeshua that has always existed. There's really nothing the author does in John that develops the Logos concept into the Self concept. Look instead to Luke - around Luke 18 am thinking where there is a verse that is parallel to 3rd logion of Gospel of Thomas where it has Yeshua saying that the Kingdom is within us - that is where you'll start seeing the Gnostic concepts of Christianity
Thanks that is a good insight of “I am” I didn’t notice that. Off the top of my head I can recall a Logos reference with the Fisherman story at the end, which is nearly identical to the Pythagoras story of counting fish. In the Jesus Story the number counted is 153 which is half of the Ratio 153:256 which is the Ratio of the Vesica Pisces which is two monads intersecting. The Greek word for ratio is Logos. Two monads intersecting means two Gods intersecting or can also mean heaven and earth intersecting, Spirit and Material, Man and God etc. The counting fish story happens after his resurrection. So it is an instruction as to how to interpret the resurrection.
Reason is immortal, all else mortal. - Pythagoras Logos - Reason, wholeness, Right discernment, the soul, ratio, word Translation: The „living whole word right ratio discerning soul-being“ is immortal, all else mortal.
Mark 16:5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." Love Pierre, but this is pretty obvious.
Great interview and fascinating thoughts. But one of the biggest mistakes Mr. Grimes does is to read 19th century protestant "are you safe?"-doctrine into the pauline letters. Not even Luthers "justification by faith alone" in in there. None of the churchfathers, neithere the greeks, nor the latins would even have understood, what those protestant "reformers" or even the modern evangelicals do mean. We should go over to read pauline letters as his contemporaries in late-antiquity did - a christus victor mythology of a divine being trempling down death by death and to those in the tombs bestowing life. "Sola Gratia"-justification theology has not been in Paul before the year 1520 AD. The modern protestant evangelical platitudes of "recieve Jesus as your PERSONAL SAViOUR and GET SAFED" never was in Paul before the age of enlightenment whose individualisation is prerequisite of such a reduced soteriology.
thank you again for an amazing video. I enjoy Pierre Grimes' style a good deal. I have a passion for Nietzsche's works and I can say I'd have loved to hear a discussion between Pierre Grimes and the German thinker. Just to give you an idea of how close some of their respective focuses are, one of Nietzsche's key ideas is that Socrates paved the way for Christianism... and he didn't really like this idea. From my understanding, according to Nietzsche Socrates' triumph 2500 years ago marked the beginning of some kind of dark cultural era, which peaked together with Christianism, and which we are still not out of today.
I'm having some problems with the history assumed by this UA-cam. The dominance of the Greek language had nothing to do with the Greek academies. The countries of that areas, Egypt and Syria had been conquered by Alexander the Great whose language was Greek The successor monarchs of the region were his generals who also spoke Greek. The Septuagint was translated into Greek by about 70 Hebrew scholars who were commissioned by the Greek-speaking king of Egypt to translate those works into Greek. The reason that the Septuagint was written in Greek was because the man paying for the work wanted it in Greek He wanted to deposit the Hebrew holy books with the other half million volumes in the Library at Alexandria each of which was also written in Greek. In the Hellenistic age, Greek became the language of commerce and of scholarship. That said, the residents of Israel at the time were militantly ant-Greek. This was the Maccabee Rebellion which overthrew the GreekvSyrian rule there and established an exclusively Jewish enclave. The bible speaks of itvas does Josephus The spoken language was most likely Aramaic. The use of The Greek in the gospels suggests that these were written at second hand by people who translated the Aramaic into something which might be understood in Corinth or Galatia
Dr. Grimes is one of my favorite guests on your show. I have little background in his topic, and I always learn a lot from him, and enjoy the interaction between you both. Thanks for bringing this to us, JM!
Thank you gentlemen for this fascinating discussion. I would like to pursue this further by reading Dr Grimes' book about Jesus and Socrates dialogue. It makes for a heavenly discussion indeed.
Ρε φίλε ο τύπος λέει ανακρίβειες για να υποστηρίξει τα πιστεύω του και θέλεις να τον διαβάσεις? Άκου λέει δεν αναφέρεται στο Ελληνικό κείμενο της αποκαλυψης του Ιωάννη ο αρμαγεδων, ενώ υπάρχει μόνο στους καθολικους, για τους δικούς τους λόγους? I shelf- γνωθι σαυτον, γιογκα και το κακό συναπαντημα. Ας έλεγε το βιβλίο του "μισώ τον Χριστό". Να τελειωναμε με το καλημέρα. Αι σιχτιρ, παπάρα-τσι...
@@user-tz8xl2kf6q Point out what the inaccuracies are. You shouldn't care what he thinks the origin of christ is. Just because he doesn't agree with the mainstream christian narrative doesn't mean he hates christ, christ can be understood in different ways. Christians don't own history.
Huge respect for Pierre, but i must speak out different point of view: Pierre showcases very typical mode of thinking from one who comes from Greek philosophical tradition, but interestingly seemingly ignoring whole medieval era which was basically Greek thinking instead of Jewish thinking. It was late medieval era when atleast some parts of Christianity started to turn away from Plato and Aristotle towards the Bible, such as Luther. Amongst early Church figures there were people who outright admitted that if you put the Bible against Greeks one should take Greeks! The Church was Greek right from start, and Christian thinking always favored Greek mode of doing philosophy. This is major one to understand and to let to sink in. Creation story of the Bible is direct opponent to Greek tradition, and pretty much anyother tradition as well. And it has reason for it: Man can't reach God thru his own means, this is why eating of the fruit was the downfall. This is directly opposing Greeks. the book of Job is all about that: God scolds philosophers, one could easily think Socrates or Plato or anyone in place of Job's "friends". Book of Job obliterates Boethius' Consolidation of Philosophy almost millenium before Beothius was born. There is HUGE canyon between Greek and Biblical thiking. Greeks are metaphysics which rejects practical difficulties (this is in which Socrates exelled in!), the Bible is plea to God in face of practical difficulties: Job's vailing to God was seen as weakness amongst the Greeks... And isnt' it odd that all the time human reason tries to work it's way forward to God it leads into quesitoning existence of God, Free will and so on? Things it started to pursue. Biblical creation story infact explains why this is, human reason in the pursuit of freedom and god-like status bashes it's head against stone wall, it can't do it. Adam had change to walk with God in Paradise where all was Good, instead he wanted to know what is Good and what is Evil and thus bit the fruit. And this is why Paul is so important character. He saw dangers of Greek thinking and tried to steer early christians from path against which the Scripture spoke of. But ofcourse Greek tragedies were whole another case, they were much closer to Biblical stories than Greek philosophers, and as Pierre said in other video Plato didn't like Homer, or any other tragedies. Plotinus, amongst great Pagan philosophers, saw this and he downplayed meaning of Reason and upheld images of archetypes seeding thru meditation and dreams. Surely big problem here is Aristotle and Epicureans and their faith in human reason. Plato atleast tried to operate beyond human reason, but seemed to have failed.
Turning verbs into nouns is not what "the" gives you. That's not a problem in either Latin or Russian, since both languages have morphological markings of parts of speech. The use of "the" that the man demonstrated is in taking an abstract absolute sense of a word and implicitly postulating the existence of a universal singleton entity referred to by such a linguistic construct. That's where that "castles in the air" type of thinking of "the" languages comes from. Math doesn't have any equivalent of "the", so I don't think it's necessary for abstract logical thinking.
St. Paul’s theology is the same as St. John’s. We must understand that he writes the same truths in a mystery, using allegories (2 Cor. 3:6), revealing to us the same truth but in a different way. God is calling all men to repentance, that they may come home to His Church. ✝️
Jung of course uses the term “The Self” for inner perception of man’s totality which is a penultimate God (not ultimate). With Paul Tillich he translates God unto “Ground of Being” or “Being itself”. And the “New Being” would by similar to “the Self” Jung phenomenological Psychology Tillich ontological theology
@Jeffrey Mishlove Just found your channel several days ago and made a few comments. I must agree with what many in the comments are saying - what you present here is definitely up there with the best UA-cam has to offer! I appreciate what you do! Thank you! If I may bring attention to another video presentation by Pierre Grimes (as it relates to what's being discussed here) I will expound on the present discussion. The Platonic (nondual) model Pierre Grimes presents in the following video _is_ the way reality presents itself - the individual _should_ strive to view it as such and be "one" with his/her experience. However, this is not the case! Gnostic Dualism vs Nonduality ua-cam.com/video/b5W1SLyswp0/v-deo.html At 6:35 minutes, Professor Grimes states, "A war occurs over this, a great struggle, people don't want to admit this… no, no, no, it can't be!" Well… these are the people that "polarize" themselves and create the dual nature of our human experience. The phenomenon expresses itself as individuals who don't conform to the policies, regulations and laws established in our global civilized societies. At 10:30 minutes, he says, "If you accept this, you see (the dual nature of human experience), then you're divorced from reality, you're separated from reality, you're caught in a vast struggle of opposing forces, this is Gnostic thought." This struggle of "opposing forces" is what Freud and Jung both explained in their models of the personality, or psyche (soul). According to Freud, the personality consists of the ID (instinctive desire) which seeks the gratification of basic needs, especially sex and aggression. The Ego which is in contact with the world and aware of social constraints. And the Superego which decides how we ought to behave. Jung said the psyche was a flow of opposing forces of personality which one day merge and form the person's Super consciousness. I think it's fair to say that Freud and Jung were both talking about the same thing. Individuals who adopt a criminal mindset and decide (free will, or deterministic?) to go against social constraints polarize themselves against the nondual nature of the universe creating the dual nature of human experience. Therefore, we may want to appeal to a nondual nature of the universe, but the dual nature of human experience cannot be ignored as evidence to the contrary! But I'm sure you're already aware of these considerations… just directing the natural course of the discussion!
Regarding 23:00 It is before Mark 16: 8 that claims of resurrection are made: Mark 16: 6 "Don't be alarmed", he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. I find it a little bewildering how Grimes isn't challenged on anything (so far as I've watched) in the interview, or I am misunderstanding something here.
Dr. Ammon Hillman disagrees. he says the Old Hebrew language was a dead language and there weren't any Hebrew texts remaining after all the rabbis and leaders of Jerusalem were shipped away to Babylon. So, Ammon says the rabbis needed to recreate the bible after Alexander took over the levant. if you think about it, it makes good sense. The levant was ruled by the Egyptians, then the Hittites, then the Egyptians, then the Assyrians, the Persians, and whoever else wanted barren land in the middle of nowhere. so the Hebrews who had been trading with the Greeks and Hellenized for years needed a new bible. The Alexander Greeks had 150,000 - 250,000 words in their vocabulary and the Hebrews 8,000. Do you think that the Hebrew intellectuals just went to Babylon for the gardens or do you think they were re-educated in the laws, language, and civics of their conquerors? 70 or 80 years in Babylon is two full generations. the Hebrews were complete Babylonian Zoroastrians by then. so the ruling class of Judah that returned came home to empty rooms, that no one cared about anymore. no texts, no oral tradition, no reason to believe. the Hebrews chose the one god concept because they could afford it. from memory, the rabbis told their story to the Greeks who aided and abated the Zoroastrian Hebrews in creating the Septuagint. and when jesus showed up. the levant was Greek.
All of Paul’s letters begin in this fashion: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus,…” Romans 1:1. Paul never centers on himself. Rather, he repents in writing of any such pride. Good talk, sad conclusions.
Paul preaches the Self which is Christ, the offspring. Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. Galatians 1:16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being Colossians 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory 1 Corinthians 6:17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit
PG's search for what the ancient Greeks meant by "Self" and its relation to "Logos". The deficiency of Latin language compared to Greek; the esoteric meaning of the New Testament restored by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, its having been corrupted by the Roman Saint Paul who preferred the idea of Resurrection - the Son of God taking on the punishment for all humanity's sins - to the more ancient belief in continuous Reincarnation: thus Paul takes over control from Jesus... 🌈🦉
I still don't know what is meant by the saying " Man Know Thyself ". It was great that you asked the question but the answer unfortunately wasn't clear. I would love to know.
It's interesting how closely the concept of closeness to a god is tied to the concept of sacrifice. Mainly self sacrifice since by definition any thing you sacrifice must have value to you to have meaning.
Christianity is the death of self and resurrection with God in Jesus. Biblical narrative in many ways is a continual failure of self either as an individual or as a group. Insistence on the reliance of the self is why expulsion from paradise happened and hell as the ultimate destination exists. So... What value is in Socrates? Plato?
Wide vista, deep insight and great interpretation, yet the source remains hidden - if there is any at all. Uroborus might be quite appropriate symbol for logos.
i think that was one of the best conversations I've heard in my life. Pierre is a studied man got down to the nitty gritty about all this jesus stuff. amazing insight. thanks
Sin is the cause of human suffering and every human is cursed with it. You can philosophize for the next 5000 years and you still won’t be able to solve these mysteries unless you come to terms with the spiritual world and the things that are unseen. John 3:16
Never trust anyone who writes things with "New Paradigm" in the title, or on the first page, and never trust anyone born last century, or this, who thinks he knows better how to translate the Bible then all the people who came before. All things came to be according to the Self. Ahahahaha.
Another great interview by Jeff. I wish this kind of programming was on prime time television. It would be a much better world, if it was. That said. It's high time that this country gives it's people a guaranteed basic income.
I agree! Yet the way I see it is: No Body "gives" anything to anyone but we should allow ourselves all the same basic income & nothing more. But then again: Why not just eliminating the idea/concept all together? The destruction of it I see it all around and it stupendously hitting us in to our faces while we still keep going on the same path. 😓 (I, rather, like to ally to this idea(s) as in "the Venus Project" www.thevenusproject.com/ If &/ While at it: please do skip all that "communism" narratieves...)
Yes, absolutely. The saddest part is that a basic income, at least in the US (I haven't studied other nations, but I would guess it is much the same), is entirely feasible... and we still don't have it! Of course, it requires a significant change in the government's spending priorities, but there is a valid economic model that would see an equal for most or even lesser tax burden for those who truly need the basic income in the first place. The sheer worker mobility and personal freedom it would create is perhaps a large factor in why our current corporate system is so dead-set against it. A guarantee that anyone could at least meet their needs without typical employment would usher in a revolution in the relationship between an employer and his employee. Were the working class able to outright quit, move across the country to a low cost of living area, and start a-new, many employers would face a new degree of competition to provide value beyond just the means for someone to live an otherwise miserable life.
Interesting convo, but as soon as he said that there is no "The" in spanish and the example he gave, am sorry but its hard to take him seriously after that.
Socrates prayer: @ 35:55 Oh friend (dear) PAN (Creator who creates PAN (everything (ex.panamerican, pandemonium, pantheistic)), and you other gods, who are worshiped here, make me beautiful on the inside (in the soul). And the material goods that I have, make them in harmony with my ideas. To think only the wise as rich, and to have as much wealth as would be enough to have and tolerate, not another man but the prudent one.
@@Arkoudeides. yes, but he said that each god personifies a principle, I would have liked to know which principles -not just which dominion of nature (like the sea, storm, earth etc) Good to see a reply from Athens, on this topic...
Paul was a man guys, you can drop the Pauline crap, only the big heads describe Paul as Pauline. Why don't you refer to Plato's writings as the "Plato Anne Marie's" writings? Why is the old boy so confused about Pauls letters not mentioned in John? Have ye not read?
@Menachem Mevashir So when I refer to Johns letters as the "Joanne design" its just an adjective for John? With all the gender confusion in the world , we don't need any female names referring to men in the bible, especially Paul. No where in the bible does anyone call Paul, Pauline, only so called teachers do that. Its a very subtle thing, I don't know if you've noticed, but men aren't allowed to be men anymore, and this present evil world wants it that way. Paul was a man not a woman nor a transgender or bisexual, he was a Man. Show me where God refers to Paul as Pauline. Only the PHD's and the big heads like using that term, without considering what they're uttering.
Thank you for letting me know about this problem. I have removed all commercials inside this video. (It may take a bit of time for the new instructions to go into effect.)
The assertion that the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew text is erroneous. The earliest records of the Pentateuch are all written in Greek (the Septuagint), a text written in Hebrew that predates the Greek texts has never been discovered. So it has to be assumed that the Pentateuch was composed by Hebrew scribes in Alexandria approx 260BCE and was written in GREEK, not Hebrew
What is called "Christianity" is not and never has been a monolithic belief system. It's inception after the death of Jesus may have been purely mystical and experiential in his followers. Diverse influences (Greek and Jewish apocalyptic) were constantly shaping the Christian movement from the beginning. Certainly this diversity of undercurrents is present in Paul's letters. Paul did not know the historical Jesus. As we know, orthodoxy arose from Paul's perspectives. The unknown in all of this is, what did the obscure Jewish rabbi Yeshua (probably a mystic), actually teach? It appears the answer can only be outwardly hypothesized... or perhaps inwardly realized. For its essence is both ineffable and noetic.
41:35 Again, another ludicrous argument made by Pierre Grimes. Romans 1: 1 "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus" 1 Corinthians 1: 1 "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God" 2 Corinthians 1: 1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God" Galatians 1: 1 "Paul, an apostle - sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father" and they continue very similarly... "Paul, an apostle of Jesus, by the will of God" etc. It is absolutely disingenuous to claim Jesus is not being made central here, and also Grimes says "he is proclaiming himself a disciple of God, not Jesus", well Jesus isn't a disciple of God is he, he IS God. You can argue that Paul is giving himself a lot of importance yes, but not more than Jesus... I'm not sure if Grimes is misrepresenting these things on purpose or through ignorance.
'And by the way Plato gets a low grade (for interpreting Socrates)' (50.30) those few seconds of en attendant the explosion of pure laughter when Mishlove adds as does Paul for interpreting Jesus. If ever there was a living inheritor of Socrates charming the merchants and spivs of the Agora it's Pierre Grimes. It is that laugh, which only comes with wisdom, that binds or yokes us directly to our great Western conversation.
So the myth of Er can be interpreted as a pre-christ analogy, and the 'logos' is more closely tied to the 'self' than the 'word' according to Homer? I hope I'm understanding this right :/
I was once told.... "the devil is always going to reveal himself by making you think you're God" and everywhere I try to study Buddhism, Classic Greek philosophy ... etc. etc. Everyone centers around "it's not about God, it's about you" I'm honestly scared at this point
@Jos A Elizondo The devil is that part of human nature that is destructive. The part that feels really good and ends up making the world ashes. Humans need to realize we're not gods, and stop centuring around ourselves. Enough with the solipsistic delusions
By 'You' we don't mean the ego or individual self such as Bob, Sue etc. 'You' is the Self when all attribution and false ideas or beliefs of the Self are taken away. This notion of Devil you purpose is unrelated to the Self and the notion of God is not equivalent to the Self. God in Christianity is seen as something different from you, whereas the Self is one and the same with your hyparxis (meaning fundamental essence). Hope that clears it up for you, even though your comment was written 7 months ago!
@@logos1.618 I mean... I agree. But were you arguing against me? Or backing my claim. I cant really tell. Because your comment is out of context Edit: oh I think I understood. But again these religions always feed into the self-God idea. Outside the Ego. Grimes does it too. God is outside of you in metaphysical sense. Just like the Christian's believe. God has nothing to do with the self you talk about
@@BlySS93 However, we are both discussing Metaphysical entities. The Christians believe in a God, which that consider to be ultimate, who is superior to themselves. Where as many Wisdom traditions will claim the ultimate to be the Self which is that which we actually are. So as you claimed, the Christains believe in this 'ultimate' being outside oneself, where as the others claim that you are the 'ultimate', it is a matter of negating the false beliefs of Self to know Self. I think you are also confusing the idea of Self with ego, these two are different. The ego is persona such as I am Bob and I like cars. Self on the other hand is the ultimate Metaphysical entity of Vedantic, Ancient Buddhisim, Hellenic (Platonic, Pythagorean) and among other Wisdom traditions.
I need this so much. "Accidently" found it. Civil, rational discussions. Where can u join? Won't comprehend everything. I need "starting class with Pierre. But even modern bookstores are scant with this.
Thank you sir finally someone undestand it and saying it,imagine there are people here in Greece that they read all those and can’t say it cause of the society we live.
Είναι ένας ακόμα αθεος, που προσπαθεί να μας αποδείξει τον λόγω της αθειας του. Με ωραίο περιτύλιγμα, δεν λέω, αλλά και πολλές μπαρουφες. Β(Μπ)αρουφακη διαβάζει? Μην τσιμπατε ρε παιδιά... Στην αρχή λέει :Το γνωθι σαυτον είναι ίδιο με την γιογκα και τον γιογκι :, και λέω εγώ. Που προσπαθεί με ειδικές τεχνικές να ενωθει με το υπερεγω κλπ κλπ μακακιες...? Ή το άλλο με τον αρμαγεδωνα? Ο τύπος απλά μισεί τον Χριστό.
σ σ ο Χριστός δεν δίδαξε να καίνε γυναίκες για μάγισσες ούτε να έρθει σκοταδισμός 1000 χρόνια στο όνομα του το γνωθι σαυτον ήταν εντολή όχι μια απλή φράση όπως καιρό μηδέν αγαν.Τα ίδια πάνω κάτω με τον Χριστο μας έλεγε και ο σωκρατης και ξέρουμε τι έγινε.Μπαρουφακης είναι πράκτορας απλά μιλάει με αριθμούς που ξέρει και χάνει την ουσία είναι δηλαδη σαν αυτούς που φώναζαν να σταυρώσουν τον Χριστο.
@@ΜιχΛαζ διόρθωση. Αποδέχεται τον Χριστό άνθρωπο, φιλόσοφο, μπροσταρη της εποχής του κλπ. Όπως τον βουδα και τον Σωκράτη. Ενώ όσον αφορά την ουσία του Χριστού σαν Θεό δημιουργό των πάντων, την προσπερνα σαν να είναι κάτι αναξιο λόγου. Με λίγα λόγια με πονηρό και υπουλο τρόπο εξισωνει τους πάντες και τα πάντα, για να πετύχει τον σκοπό του. Και ο σκοπός του είναι ένας. Όλες οι θρησκείες και οι θεοτητες, είναι δημιουργηματα ανθρώπων και ως τέτοιες πρέπει να τις αντιλαμβανομαστε. Δεν μας εξηγεί όμως πως και από ποιον κληρονομησε την δύναμη και την πολυπλοκοτητα της σκέψης του,όλη αυτή την δυνατότητα να αντιλαμβανεται την ίδια του την ζωή, όσο κανένας άλλος ζωντανός οργανισμός! Φαντάζομαι την απάντηση του. Από τους πιθηκους. Μάλλον και το i shelf από εκεί το κληρονομησαμε...
σ σ δεν πιάνω που ακριβώς θές να καταλήξεις φιλε πιστεύω πως κάθε άνθρωπος φοβάται τον Θεό ακόμα και αν είναι άθεος άθεο βγάζανε τον Σωκράτη πχ ενώ έλεγε ότι πιστεύει τον Ένα Θεό και όχι ότι ήταν ας το πω κατεστημένο στην εποχή του.Σημερα οι επιστήμονες βρίσκουμε πράγματα που έλεγε ο αριστοτελης Πυθαγόρα και άλλοι ότι δηλαδη το άτομο αν πας να το χωρίσεις καταρρέει ακόμα και αν υπάρχουν μικρότερα σωματίδια μέσα του αυτό δεν λέει τίποτα όταν καταρρέει δηλαδη ακριβώς αυτό που εκφράζει και η ίδια η λέξη άτομο δεν τέμνεται σε μικρότερα σωματίδια διότι χάνει την ολότητα του όπως σε ένα δάσος αν σκοτώσεις όλα τα ζωάκια δεν είναι πλέον δάσος είναι απλά βλάστηση.Οτι ξέρουμε γενικά ετσι και αλλιώς είναι όλα χτισμένα σε ψέματα δεν πιστεύω στην θεωρία της εξέλιξης από τους πιθήκους πιστεύω στην θεωρία της εξέλιξης κάθε αυτή.Αν η φαντασία του ανθρώπου φτάνει μέχρι ένα σημείο τότε λογικα μέχρι αυτό το σημείο φτάνει και η Συμπαντική πραγματικότητα μιας και η φαντασία του ανθρώπου έφτιαξε θεούς τέχνη μαθηματικά ιδέες κτλπ.Ειμαι ανοιχτός σε κάθε διάλογο μιας και κάθε άνθρωπος έχει διαφορετικά γνωρίσματα ετσι βλέπεις μέχρι σε ποιο σημείο φτάνει η νόηση η φαντασία και η πραγματικότητα του κάθε ανθρώπου.
@@ΜιχΛαζ προφανώς όχι εκεί που καταλήγεις εσύ. Εάν η συμπαντικη πραγματικότητα είναι ίση με την φαντασία του ανθρώπινου γένους, τότε είμαστε ότι ψηλαφουμε και τπτ παραπάνω. Ένα τυχαίο γεγονός. Μόνο που ξεχάσαμε κάτι περιδιαβαινοντας τους αιώνες. Ότι τύχη δεν "υπάρχει"...
Would you like to add non-English, closed caption subtitles for this video??? Then visit ua-cam.com/users/timedtext_video?ref=share&v=zR8Rve_Fy3c
translated almost 6 min today yay
I was wrong, it was ony a bit more than 5 min lol, and i just edited again , had forgot to make Pierre presentation
I was subbed to both of you for months and just found this gem of a conversation. Thank you both ❤️🙏
One of the best shows on UA-cam. Thanks for such an extended interview with the great Pierre Grimes
For me, it's the best. 😌
I feel so fortunate to have access to this type of content. Thank you, Jeffrey Mishlove.
é nóis!
Christianity is the central idea of greek philosophy actually cristianity is a Greek religion for the Greek cosmopolis of the Roman empire
Pierre is a true sage of our times. I love this channel, thank you Jeffrey.
Greek philosophy +Judaism=Christianity?
This is a truly marvelous interview. The Greek/Christian connections need to be understood. We need a resurgence of focus on the Logos Thank you Jeffrey, Thank you Pierre!
The Orthodox church has a huge focus on the logos.
We need to hear more about whether jesus's teaching overlaps with Greek understanding ..
Please have another session of this..obviously I need to read the book but still
Pierre Grimes' lecture on "why thinking Christians should be Platonists" is available at /watch?v=25q7LY4vz2s It covers some related areas.
Hear hear
This conversation and its ideas about how the religion of Christianity was led astray through the ignorance of time and translation should be required listening for all those who lack understanding of its roots. With proper insight into the creation of Christianity as an organized religion, many of those lost in the labyrinth of western civilization could find their way out.
37:28 - "We really need the myth of Prometheus!"
Amazing how this sentiment dovetails with Jason Jorjani's message.
I would encourage people to look at Orthodox Christian tradition to clear up some of these misunderstandings. The way it is presented here is very misleading, if you don't look into the mysteries of Christianity, you won't get it at all. The power to forgive sins is clearly in the Gospels. But what's more, admitting sins sacramentally and resolving to do them no more cuts the karmic ties from those actions, by Grace. You are free to move forward and evolve. The purpose of the resurrection is a bit more complex than just the Anglo-Protestant "washed in the blood of the lamb" idea....the resurrection is a victory over death, which itself is a symptom of human disconnection from source. We are creators of our own reality, but that state of being is so encrusted with the echoes of human confusions and passions, we never end up getting it right. The resurrection re-defines humanity, lifting it up out of the tangle of sin it creates for itself, by inaugurating a new level of humanity, the Man-God. A new precedent has been established that people can participate in. It has parallels with the idea of Guru Yoga, if that helps. As far as similarity with Greek philosophy...the early Church Fathers acknowledged this, and the continuity of pre-Christian wisdom with Christian Tradition is a subject that was treated thoroughly in late antiquity. And as far as the Bible is concerned......the Bible "Sola Scriptura" is NOT the foundation of the Faith. There is a Tradition which predates the New Testament, and served as a guide to which gospels and letters were the best quality, and deserved canonical status.
Excellent contribution
Completely agree. Well done. He did make some errors here, and his criticism of Paul is harsh and not particularly accurate.
And you’re completely right on Sola Scriptura, a lot of people including secularists have a Protestant outlook on Christianity and the authority of scripture.
They presume the Church is a formulation/product of what was written in the New Testament, rather than the New Testament being a formulation/product of the Church/Community that already existed.
So you guys went to the last canonical gospel in respect to chronologically when it was authored (probably very late 1st century). Gospel of John also stands very distinct and apart from the prior 3 Synoptic Gospels. Historical critical scholars see John as composed of about 4 separate source text that have been woven together in a manner of an editor. There are fairly obvious textual literary seams that they base this on. The Logos poem at the beginning of the gospel is one of the distinct sources. So does Logos really equate to Self?
The Gospel of John is famously known as the "I Am" gospel because of quotes it attributes to Yeshua where he says things that resemble the I Am language of Yaweh - self assertion of godhood. The Synoptic Gospels do not have anything like that going on. In fact in the earliest gospel, Mark, Yeshua forbids those he heals and cast demons out of to not go around and say that he is the messiah.
Consequently this is why scholars view John as espousing a much higher level Christology than the preceding gospels and even the epistles of Paul. In opening verses of Romans epistle Paul recites an early Christian liturgy and in that is says God elevated Yeshual - IOW, the earliest Christians viewed Yeshua as a great servant that was elevated to sonship by God because of his self-sacrificing attitude.
John, however, via the "I Am" quotes attributed to Yeshua, and the Logos poem setting out the pre-existence of the Logos, is pretty clearly trying to establish a divinity stature for Yeshua that has always existed. There's really nothing the author does in John that develops the Logos concept into the Self concept.
Look instead to Luke - around Luke 18 am thinking where there is a verse that is parallel to 3rd logion of Gospel of Thomas where it has Yeshua saying that the Kingdom is within us - that is where you'll start seeing the Gnostic concepts of Christianity
The so-called "Gospel of John" was written by Greek gentile Christians. The influence of Greek philosophy and mythology is undeniable.
Or Book #66,,, written by the Other John....gtfoh
Thanks that is a good insight of “I am” I didn’t notice that.
Off the top of my head I can recall a Logos reference with the Fisherman story at the end, which is nearly identical to the Pythagoras story of counting fish. In the Jesus Story the number counted is 153 which is half of the Ratio 153:256 which is the Ratio of the Vesica Pisces which is two monads intersecting. The Greek word for ratio is Logos. Two monads intersecting means two Gods intersecting or can also mean heaven and earth intersecting, Spirit and Material, Man and God etc.
The counting fish story happens after his resurrection. So it is an instruction as to how to interpret the resurrection.
Reason is immortal, all else mortal. - Pythagoras
Logos - Reason, wholeness, Right discernment, the soul, ratio, word
Translation:
The „living whole word right ratio discerning soul-being“ is immortal, all else mortal.
Mark 16:5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. 6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you."
Love Pierre, but this is pretty obvious.
What a treasure this man is! Thanks for having him on again.
Jeffrey's questions are so beautiful and respectful of the length, breadth and width of Pierre's knowledge. So refreshing!
Great interview and fascinating thoughts. But one of the biggest mistakes Mr. Grimes does is to read 19th century protestant "are you safe?"-doctrine into the pauline letters. Not even Luthers "justification by faith alone" in in there. None of the churchfathers, neithere the greeks, nor the latins would even have understood, what those protestant "reformers" or even the modern evangelicals do mean. We should go over to read pauline letters as his contemporaries in late-antiquity did - a christus victor mythology of a divine being trempling down death by death and to those in the tombs bestowing life. "Sola Gratia"-justification theology has not been in Paul before the year 1520 AD. The modern protestant evangelical platitudes of "recieve Jesus as your PERSONAL SAViOUR and GET SAFED" never was in Paul before the age of enlightenment whose individualisation is prerequisite of such a reduced soteriology.
Just got my first book of plato, yesterday. It collects the dialogues dealing with socrates, mostly!
Great scholarly debate. Thank you. I was waiting for Pierre or Jeffrey to get into Alchemy/Jung. This program should have Peter Kingsley.
We need Peter Kingsley on NTA
thank you again for an amazing video. I enjoy Pierre Grimes' style a good deal.
I have a passion for Nietzsche's works and I can say I'd have loved to hear a discussion between Pierre Grimes and the German thinker. Just to give you an idea of how close some of their respective focuses are, one of Nietzsche's key ideas is that Socrates paved the way for Christianism... and he didn't really like this idea. From my understanding, according to Nietzsche Socrates' triumph 2500 years ago marked the beginning of some kind of dark cultural era, which peaked together with Christianism, and which we are still not out of today.
The great philosopher Empedoklis ressurected a woman. So, ressurection was known to Greeks
I'm having some problems with the history assumed by this UA-cam. The dominance of the Greek language had nothing to do with the Greek academies. The countries of that areas, Egypt and Syria had been conquered by Alexander the Great whose language was Greek
The successor monarchs of the region were his generals who also spoke Greek.
The Septuagint was translated into Greek by about 70 Hebrew scholars who were commissioned by the Greek-speaking king of Egypt to translate those works into Greek. The reason that the Septuagint was written in Greek was because the man paying for the work wanted it in Greek He wanted to deposit the Hebrew holy books with the other half million volumes in the Library at Alexandria each of which was also written in Greek.
In the Hellenistic age, Greek became the language of commerce and of scholarship.
That said, the residents of Israel at the time were militantly ant-Greek. This was the Maccabee Rebellion which overthrew the GreekvSyrian rule there and established an exclusively Jewish enclave. The bible speaks of itvas does Josephus The spoken language was most likely Aramaic.
The use of The Greek in the gospels suggests that these were written at second hand by people who translated the Aramaic into something which might be understood in Corinth or Galatia
Dr. Grimes is one of my favorite guests on your show. I have little background in his topic, and I always learn a lot from him, and enjoy the interaction between you both. Thanks for bringing this to us, JM!
And thank you for your thought full ness you both fit together very well in questions and answers. I learned A LOT!
Awesome please keep doing interviews with Pierre his knowledge is very deep and the world needs it
Thank you gentlemen for this fascinating discussion. I would like to pursue this further by reading Dr Grimes' book about Jesus and Socrates dialogue. It makes for a heavenly discussion indeed.
Ρε φίλε ο τύπος λέει ανακρίβειες για να υποστηρίξει τα πιστεύω του και θέλεις να τον διαβάσεις? Άκου λέει δεν αναφέρεται στο Ελληνικό κείμενο της αποκαλυψης του Ιωάννη ο αρμαγεδων, ενώ υπάρχει μόνο στους καθολικους, για τους δικούς τους λόγους? I shelf- γνωθι σαυτον, γιογκα και το κακό συναπαντημα. Ας έλεγε το βιβλίο του "μισώ τον Χριστό". Να τελειωναμε με το καλημέρα. Αι σιχτιρ, παπάρα-τσι...
@@user-tz8xl2kf6q Point out what the inaccuracies are. You shouldn't care what he thinks the origin of christ is. Just because he doesn't agree with the mainstream christian narrative doesn't mean he hates christ, christ can be understood in different ways. Christians don't own history.
@@user-tz8xl2kf6q autos
Jeffrey, thank you for your long and honest work, bringing us quality content.
Israel??? You mean Palestine, don't you Jeffrey?
again again and again
Marvellous conversation. Important thoughts on the interpretation of ancient texts. Thank you indeed.
Ty
I searched for myself and found God. I searched for God and found myself.
Huge respect for Pierre, but i must speak out different point of view:
Pierre showcases very typical mode of thinking from one who comes from Greek philosophical tradition, but interestingly seemingly ignoring whole medieval era which was basically Greek thinking instead of Jewish thinking. It was late medieval era when atleast some parts of Christianity started to turn away from Plato and Aristotle towards the Bible, such as Luther. Amongst early Church figures there were people who outright admitted that if you put the Bible against Greeks one should take Greeks! The Church was Greek right from start, and Christian thinking always favored Greek mode of doing philosophy. This is major one to understand and to let to sink in.
Creation story of the Bible is direct opponent to Greek tradition, and pretty much anyother tradition as well. And it has reason for it: Man can't reach God thru his own means, this is why eating of the fruit was the downfall. This is directly opposing Greeks. the book of Job is all about that: God scolds philosophers, one could easily think Socrates or Plato or anyone in place of Job's "friends". Book of Job obliterates Boethius' Consolidation of Philosophy almost millenium before Beothius was born. There is HUGE canyon between Greek and Biblical thiking. Greeks are metaphysics which rejects practical difficulties (this is in which Socrates exelled in!), the Bible is plea to God in face of practical difficulties: Job's vailing to God was seen as weakness amongst the Greeks... And isnt' it odd that all the time human reason tries to work it's way forward to God it leads into quesitoning existence of God, Free will and so on? Things it started to pursue. Biblical creation story infact explains why this is, human reason in the pursuit of freedom and god-like status bashes it's head against stone wall, it can't do it. Adam had change to walk with God in Paradise where all was Good, instead he wanted to know what is Good and what is Evil and thus bit the fruit.
And this is why Paul is so important character. He saw dangers of Greek thinking and tried to steer early christians from path against which the Scripture spoke of.
But ofcourse Greek tragedies were whole another case, they were much closer to Biblical stories than Greek philosophers, and as Pierre said in other video Plato didn't like Homer, or any other tragedies. Plotinus, amongst great Pagan philosophers, saw this and he downplayed meaning of Reason and upheld images of archetypes seeding thru meditation and dreams.
Surely big problem here is Aristotle and Epicureans and their faith in human reason. Plato atleast tried to operate beyond human reason, but seemed to have failed.
Turning verbs into nouns is not what "the" gives you. That's not a problem in either Latin or Russian, since both languages have morphological markings of parts of speech. The use of "the" that the man demonstrated is in taking an abstract absolute sense of a word and implicitly postulating the existence of a universal singleton entity referred to by such a linguistic construct. That's where that "castles in the air" type of thinking of "the" languages comes from. Math doesn't have any equivalent of "the", so I don't think it's necessary for abstract logical thinking.
St. Paul’s theology is the same as St. John’s. We must understand that he writes the same truths in a mystery, using allegories (2 Cor. 3:6), revealing to us the same truth but in a different way.
God is calling all men to repentance, that they may come home to His Church. ✝️
Seek the Lord and be reconciled with the Logos. +
Pierre Grimes is such a treasure, as are your conversations with him, Jeffrey. Thank you for this treat.
The Greek Pantheon is many generations after the holly trinity Chaos Gaia Eros in Isiodos Theogonia. Greetings from Athens.
Jung of course uses the term “The Self” for inner perception of man’s totality which is a penultimate God (not ultimate).
With Paul Tillich he translates God unto “Ground of Being” or “Being itself”. And the “New Being” would by similar to “the Self”
Jung phenomenological Psychology
Tillich ontological theology
Grimes should be added to the list, right after Proclus, as 'student of Plato'
Ken Wheeler also... (search about Theoria Apophasis on the UA-cam.)
As a Greek i agree. Pauline theology is extremely anti-Greek. You can see it in the preachings of the Greek orthodox priests even today.
@Jeffrey Mishlove Just found your channel several days ago and made a few comments. I must agree with what many in the comments are saying - what you present here is definitely up there with the best UA-cam has to offer! I appreciate what you do! Thank you!
If I may bring attention to another video presentation by Pierre Grimes (as it relates to what's being discussed here) I will expound on the present discussion.
The Platonic (nondual) model Pierre Grimes presents in the following video _is_ the way reality presents itself - the individual _should_ strive to view it as such and be "one" with his/her experience. However, this is not the case!
Gnostic Dualism vs Nonduality
ua-cam.com/video/b5W1SLyswp0/v-deo.html
At 6:35 minutes, Professor Grimes states, "A war occurs over this, a great struggle, people don't want to admit this… no, no, no, it can't be!"
Well… these are the people that "polarize" themselves and create the dual nature of our human experience. The phenomenon expresses itself as individuals who don't conform to the policies, regulations and laws established in our global civilized societies.
At 10:30 minutes, he says, "If you accept this, you see (the dual nature of human
experience), then you're divorced from reality, you're separated from reality, you're caught in a vast struggle of opposing forces, this is Gnostic thought."
This struggle of "opposing forces" is what Freud and Jung both explained in their models of the personality, or psyche (soul).
According to Freud, the personality consists of the ID (instinctive desire) which seeks the gratification of basic needs, especially sex and aggression. The Ego which is in contact with the world and aware of social constraints. And the Superego which decides how we ought to behave.
Jung said the psyche was a flow of opposing forces of personality which one day merge and form the person's Super consciousness.
I think it's fair to say that Freud and Jung were both talking about the same thing. Individuals who adopt a criminal mindset and decide (free will, or deterministic?) to go against social constraints polarize themselves against the nondual nature of the universe creating the dual nature of human experience.
Therefore, we may want to appeal to a nondual nature of the universe, but the dual nature of human experience cannot be ignored as evidence to the contrary!
But I'm sure you're already aware of these considerations… just directing the natural course of the discussion!
Regarding 23:00
It is before Mark 16: 8 that claims of resurrection are made: Mark 16: 6 "Don't be alarmed", he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
I find it a little bewildering how Grimes isn't challenged on anything (so far as I've watched) in the interview, or I am misunderstanding something here.
yea lul thats a glaring flaw in Pierre's Anti-Pauline position
uhnnn...
08:52
Dr. Ammon Hillman disagrees. he says the Old Hebrew language was a dead language and there weren't any Hebrew texts remaining after all the rabbis and leaders of Jerusalem were shipped away to Babylon. So, Ammon says the rabbis needed to recreate the bible after Alexander took over the levant. if you think about it, it makes good sense. The levant was ruled by the Egyptians, then the Hittites, then the Egyptians, then the Assyrians, the Persians, and whoever else wanted barren land in the middle of nowhere. so the Hebrews who had been trading with the Greeks and Hellenized for years needed a new bible. The Alexander Greeks had 150,000 - 250,000 words in their vocabulary and the Hebrews 8,000. Do you think that the Hebrew intellectuals just went to Babylon for the gardens or do you think they were re-educated in the laws, language, and civics of their conquerors? 70 or 80 years in Babylon is two full generations. the Hebrews were complete Babylonian Zoroastrians by then. so the ruling class of Judah that returned came home to empty rooms, that no one cared about anymore. no texts, no oral tradition, no reason to believe. the Hebrews chose the one god concept because they could afford it. from memory, the rabbis told their story to the Greeks who aided and abated the Zoroastrian Hebrews in creating the Septuagint. and when jesus showed up. the levant was Greek.
All of Paul’s letters begin in this fashion: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus,…” Romans 1:1. Paul never centers on himself. Rather, he repents in writing of any such pride. Good talk, sad conclusions.
Paul preaches the Self which is Christ, the offspring.
Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
Galatians 3:29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
Galatians 1:16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being
Colossians 1:27 To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory
1 Corinthians 6:17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit
PG's search for what the ancient Greeks meant by "Self" and its relation to "Logos". The deficiency of Latin language compared to Greek; the esoteric meaning of the New Testament restored by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, its having been corrupted by the Roman Saint Paul who preferred the idea of Resurrection - the Son of God taking on the punishment for all humanity's sins - to the more ancient belief in continuous Reincarnation: thus Paul takes over control from Jesus... 🌈🦉
Grimes is a national treasure
I still don't know what is meant by the saying " Man Know Thyself ". It was great that you asked the question but the answer unfortunately wasn't clear. I would love to know.
The long ending of Mark is attested in the Church fathers and are contained in early translations to the Latin and Coptic.
It's interesting how closely the concept of closeness to a god is tied to the concept of sacrifice. Mainly self sacrifice since by definition any thing you sacrifice must have value to you to have meaning.
Thank you both very much.
Christianity is the death of self and resurrection with God in Jesus. Biblical narrative in many ways is a continual failure of self either as an individual or as a group. Insistence on the reliance of the self is why expulsion from paradise happened and hell as the ultimate destination exists. So... What value is in Socrates? Plato?
Wide vista, deep insight and great interpretation, yet the source remains hidden - if there is any at all. Uroborus might be quite appropriate symbol for logos.
i think that was one of the best conversations I've heard in my life. Pierre is a studied man got down to the nitty gritty about all this jesus stuff. amazing insight. thanks
Sin is the cause of human suffering and every human is cursed with it. You can philosophize for the next 5000 years and you still won’t be able to solve these mysteries unless you come to terms with the spiritual world and the things that are unseen. John 3:16
Never trust anyone who writes things with "New Paradigm" in the title, or on the first page, and never trust anyone born last century, or this, who thinks he knows better how to translate the Bible then all the people who came before. All things came to be according to the Self. Ahahahaha.
Another great interview by Jeff. I wish this kind of programming was on prime time television. It would be a much better world, if it was. That said. It's high time that this country gives it's people a guaranteed basic income.
I agree! Yet the way I see it is:
No Body "gives" anything to anyone but we should allow ourselves all the same basic income & nothing more.
But then again:
Why not just eliminating the idea/concept all together?
The destruction of it I see it all around and it stupendously hitting us in to our faces while we still keep going on the same path. 😓
(I, rather, like to ally to this idea(s) as in "the Venus Project"
www.thevenusproject.com/
If &/ While at it: please do skip all that "communism" narratieves...)
Indeed on both accounts. What kind of society are we when philosophical discussions are almost never included in our general conversation.
Yes, absolutely. The saddest part is that a basic income, at least in the US (I haven't studied other nations, but I would guess it is much the same), is entirely feasible... and we still don't have it! Of course, it requires a significant change in the government's spending priorities, but there is a valid economic model that would see an equal for most or even lesser tax burden for those who truly need the basic income in the first place. The sheer worker mobility and personal freedom it would create is perhaps a large factor in why our current corporate system is so dead-set against it. A guarantee that anyone could at least meet their needs without typical employment would usher in a revolution in the relationship between an employer and his employee. Were the working class able to outright quit, move across the country to a low cost of living area, and start a-new, many employers would face a new degree of competition to provide value beyond just the means for someone to live an otherwise miserable life.
Interesting convo, but as soon as he said that there is no "The" in spanish and the example he gave, am sorry but its hard to take him seriously after that.
Socrates prayer: @ 35:55
Oh friend (dear) PAN (Creator who creates PAN (everything (ex.panamerican, pandemonium, pantheistic)), and you other gods, who are worshiped here, make me beautiful on the inside (in the soul). And the material goods that I have, make them in harmony with my ideas. To think only the wise as rich, and to have as much wealth as would be enough to have and tolerate, not another man but the prudent one.
One self lifetime transfer quantum entanglement which have the “sproof”unknown answer.
Another great one guys...fascinating stuff. Looking forward to more...thanks!
It’s time for more Pierre
Wow wow wow wow. I really could have used this on Sundays growing up.
Logos is not "self". 😆
The self participates in the logos, the logos operares through selves
@@handyalley2350 proof?
I prefer the symbology of poseidon, not neptune...apollo was the first to the moon.
Paulinism+Augustinianism
Plz plz let him follow the thread to its conclusion.we will never know what he wanted to say about the 12 principles...
The Greek gods are the powers of nature.Greetings from Athens.
@@Arkoudeides. yes, but he said that each god personifies a principle, I would have liked to know which principles -not just which dominion of nature (like the sea, storm, earth etc)
Good to see a reply from Athens, on this topic...
fully automated platonic communism
🖤
The long form is the way to go. Thank you Dr Mishlove
"self" = "soul" (meaning and etymology)
I wish Pierre engaged with the Church fathers, so many of the earliest were staunch Platonists! The Trinity is a lesson in Greek philosophy!
Pythagorean triangle
Paul was a man guys, you can drop the Pauline crap, only the big heads describe Paul as Pauline. Why don't you refer to Plato's writings as the "Plato Anne Marie's" writings? Why is the old boy so confused about Pauls letters not mentioned in John? Have ye not read?
@Menachem Mevashir So when I refer to Johns letters as the "Joanne design" its just an adjective for John? With all the gender confusion in the world , we don't need any female names referring to men in the bible, especially Paul. No where in the bible does anyone call Paul, Pauline, only so called teachers do that. Its a very subtle thing, I don't know if you've noticed, but men aren't allowed to be men anymore, and this present evil world wants it that way. Paul was a man not a woman nor a transgender or bisexual, he was a Man. Show me where God refers to Paul as Pauline. Only the PHD's and the big heads like using that term, without considering what they're uttering.
Would you please post this episode on your podcast? Four commercials in the first 13 is waaay too much, sorry I must stop listening.
Thank you for letting me know about this problem. I have removed all commercials inside this video. (It may take a bit of time for the new instructions to go into effect.)
This was very interesting. Thanks.
The assertion that the Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew text is erroneous. The earliest records of the Pentateuch are all written in Greek (the Septuagint), a text written in Hebrew that predates the Greek texts has never been discovered. So it has to be assumed that the Pentateuch was composed by Hebrew scribes in Alexandria approx 260BCE and was written in GREEK, not Hebrew
There are the Dead Sea Scrolls.
@@NewThinkingAllowed Indeed there are the Qumran scrolls, but they date from the first century BCE so they are much younger
Great interview. Thanks
Wonderful
Mishlove rides again!
What is called "Christianity" is not and never has been a monolithic belief system. It's inception after the death of Jesus may have been purely mystical and experiential in his followers. Diverse influences (Greek and Jewish apocalyptic) were constantly shaping the Christian movement from the beginning. Certainly this diversity of undercurrents is present in Paul's letters. Paul did not know the historical Jesus. As we know, orthodoxy arose from Paul's perspectives. The unknown in all of this is, what did the obscure Jewish rabbi Yeshua (probably a mystic), actually teach? It appears the answer can only be outwardly hypothesized... or perhaps inwardly realized. For its essence is both ineffable and noetic.
People say the opening music is bad, but I can’t help but love it. If there’s a full version, I wish I had it.
41:35
Again, another ludicrous argument made by Pierre Grimes.
Romans 1: 1 "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus"
1 Corinthians 1: 1 "Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God"
2 Corinthians 1: 1 "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God"
Galatians 1: 1 "Paul, an apostle - sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father"
and they continue very similarly... "Paul, an apostle of Jesus, by the will of God" etc.
It is absolutely disingenuous to claim Jesus is not being made central here, and also Grimes says "he is proclaiming himself a disciple of God, not Jesus", well Jesus isn't a disciple of God is he, he IS God. You can argue that Paul is giving himself a lot of importance yes, but not more than Jesus... I'm not sure if Grimes is misrepresenting these things on purpose or through ignorance.
Thank you so much for this interview. Much of what was discussed reflects upon much of the problems and hope of our current understanding and future.
'And by the way Plato gets a low grade (for interpreting Socrates)' (50.30) those few seconds of en attendant the explosion of pure laughter when Mishlove adds as does Paul for interpreting Jesus. If ever there was a living inheritor of Socrates charming the merchants and spivs of the Agora it's Pierre Grimes. It is that laugh, which only comes with wisdom, that binds or yokes us directly to our great Western conversation.
Funny: 70, & not 70 million, 4 me. This is 'LIFE' in a sense, yet, "What 's on l8er?" - oh?! Some thing other than what's really important...
Also Apollonius of Tyana
had a lot of things is common, and it's recorded that he was making miracles too. He was Pythagorian tho
So the myth of Er can be interpreted as a pre-christ analogy, and the 'logos' is more closely tied to the 'self' than the 'word' according to Homer? I hope I'm understanding this right :/
He's a gem
Grimes is a treasure - a Platonist prophet
I was once told.... "the devil is always going to reveal himself by making you think you're God"
and everywhere I try to study Buddhism, Classic Greek philosophy ... etc. etc. Everyone centers around "it's not about God, it's about you"
I'm honestly scared at this point
@Jos A Elizondo The devil is that part of human nature that is destructive. The part that feels really good and ends up making the world ashes.
Humans need to realize we're not gods, and stop centuring around ourselves. Enough with the solipsistic delusions
Jos A Elizondo First of all, in war.
By 'You' we don't mean the ego or individual self such as Bob, Sue etc. 'You' is the Self when all attribution and false ideas or beliefs of the Self are taken away. This notion of Devil you purpose is unrelated to the Self and the notion of God is not equivalent to the Self. God in Christianity is seen as something different from you, whereas the Self is one and the same with your hyparxis (meaning fundamental essence).
Hope that clears it up for you, even though your comment was written 7 months ago!
@@logos1.618 I mean... I agree. But were you arguing against me? Or backing my claim. I cant really tell. Because your comment is out of context
Edit: oh I think I understood. But again these religions always feed into the self-God idea. Outside the Ego. Grimes does it too. God is outside of you in metaphysical sense. Just like the Christian's believe. God has nothing to do with the self you talk about
@@BlySS93 However, we are both discussing Metaphysical entities. The Christians believe in a God, which that consider to be ultimate, who is superior to themselves. Where as many Wisdom traditions will claim the ultimate to be the Self which is that which we actually are.
So as you claimed, the Christains believe in this 'ultimate' being outside oneself, where as the others claim that you are the 'ultimate', it is a matter of negating the false beliefs of Self to know Self.
I think you are also confusing the idea of Self with ego, these two are different. The ego is persona such as I am Bob and I like cars. Self on the other hand is the ultimate Metaphysical entity of Vedantic, Ancient Buddhisim, Hellenic (Platonic, Pythagorean) and among other Wisdom traditions.
Awesome convo
I need this so much. "Accidently" found it. Civil, rational discussions. Where can u join? Won't comprehend everything. I need "starting class with Pierre. But even modern bookstores are scant with this.
Article
currently reading robert graves' and joshua podro's "the Nazarene gospel restored"
Thank you sir finally someone undestand it and saying it,imagine there are people here in Greece that they read all those and can’t say it cause of the society we live.
Είναι ένας ακόμα αθεος, που προσπαθεί να μας αποδείξει τον λόγω της αθειας του. Με ωραίο περιτύλιγμα, δεν λέω, αλλά και πολλές μπαρουφες. Β(Μπ)αρουφακη διαβάζει? Μην τσιμπατε ρε παιδιά... Στην αρχή λέει :Το γνωθι σαυτον είναι ίδιο με την γιογκα και τον γιογκι :, και λέω εγώ. Που προσπαθεί με ειδικές τεχνικές να ενωθει με το υπερεγω κλπ κλπ μακακιες...? Ή το άλλο με τον αρμαγεδωνα? Ο τύπος απλά μισεί τον Χριστό.
σ σ ο Χριστός δεν δίδαξε να καίνε γυναίκες για μάγισσες ούτε να έρθει σκοταδισμός 1000 χρόνια στο όνομα του το γνωθι σαυτον ήταν εντολή όχι μια απλή φράση όπως καιρό μηδέν αγαν.Τα ίδια πάνω κάτω με τον Χριστο μας έλεγε και ο σωκρατης και ξέρουμε τι έγινε.Μπαρουφακης είναι πράκτορας απλά μιλάει με αριθμούς που ξέρει και χάνει την ουσία είναι δηλαδη σαν αυτούς που φώναζαν να σταυρώσουν τον Χριστο.
@@ΜιχΛαζ διόρθωση. Αποδέχεται τον Χριστό άνθρωπο, φιλόσοφο, μπροσταρη της εποχής του κλπ. Όπως τον βουδα και τον Σωκράτη. Ενώ όσον αφορά την ουσία του Χριστού σαν Θεό δημιουργό των πάντων, την προσπερνα σαν να είναι κάτι αναξιο λόγου. Με λίγα λόγια με πονηρό και υπουλο τρόπο εξισωνει τους πάντες και τα πάντα, για να πετύχει τον σκοπό του. Και ο σκοπός του είναι ένας. Όλες οι θρησκείες και οι θεοτητες, είναι δημιουργηματα ανθρώπων και ως τέτοιες πρέπει να τις αντιλαμβανομαστε. Δεν μας εξηγεί όμως πως και από ποιον κληρονομησε την δύναμη και την πολυπλοκοτητα της σκέψης του,όλη αυτή την δυνατότητα να αντιλαμβανεται την ίδια του την ζωή, όσο κανένας άλλος ζωντανός οργανισμός! Φαντάζομαι την απάντηση του. Από τους πιθηκους. Μάλλον και το i shelf από εκεί το κληρονομησαμε...
σ σ δεν πιάνω που ακριβώς θές να καταλήξεις φιλε πιστεύω πως κάθε άνθρωπος φοβάται τον Θεό ακόμα και αν είναι άθεος άθεο βγάζανε τον Σωκράτη πχ ενώ έλεγε ότι πιστεύει τον Ένα Θεό και όχι ότι ήταν ας το πω κατεστημένο στην εποχή του.Σημερα οι επιστήμονες βρίσκουμε πράγματα που έλεγε ο αριστοτελης Πυθαγόρα και άλλοι ότι δηλαδη το άτομο αν πας να το χωρίσεις καταρρέει ακόμα και αν υπάρχουν μικρότερα σωματίδια μέσα του αυτό δεν λέει τίποτα όταν καταρρέει δηλαδη ακριβώς αυτό που εκφράζει και η ίδια η λέξη άτομο δεν τέμνεται σε μικρότερα σωματίδια διότι χάνει την ολότητα του όπως σε ένα δάσος αν σκοτώσεις όλα τα ζωάκια δεν είναι πλέον δάσος είναι απλά βλάστηση.Οτι ξέρουμε γενικά ετσι και αλλιώς είναι όλα χτισμένα σε ψέματα δεν πιστεύω στην θεωρία της εξέλιξης από τους πιθήκους πιστεύω στην θεωρία της εξέλιξης κάθε αυτή.Αν η φαντασία του ανθρώπου φτάνει μέχρι ένα σημείο τότε λογικα μέχρι αυτό το σημείο φτάνει και η Συμπαντική πραγματικότητα μιας και η φαντασία του ανθρώπου έφτιαξε θεούς τέχνη μαθηματικά ιδέες κτλπ.Ειμαι ανοιχτός σε κάθε διάλογο μιας και κάθε άνθρωπος έχει διαφορετικά γνωρίσματα ετσι βλέπεις μέχρι σε ποιο σημείο φτάνει η νόηση η φαντασία και η πραγματικότητα του κάθε ανθρώπου.
@@ΜιχΛαζ προφανώς όχι εκεί που καταλήγεις εσύ. Εάν η συμπαντικη πραγματικότητα είναι ίση με την φαντασία του ανθρώπινου γένους, τότε είμαστε ότι ψηλαφουμε και τπτ παραπάνω. Ένα τυχαίο γεγονός. Μόνο που ξεχάσαμε κάτι περιδιαβαινοντας τους αιώνες. Ότι τύχη δεν "υπάρχει"...
Old thinking allowed
I am really happy that I've listened to this.
In farsi, Khod is self, Khoda is God, and khoob is good.
Beyond Supergood. One of the Reasons you two enjoy the dialogues you have is because you are both generally not with your peer. :>
I will be the Oliver Twist here:please,can I have some more?