Man, how did I miss this episode? Doesn't his being a nazarite mean he's of an order of Jews that do not remove their hair by cutting? Hence, hippie Jesus?
@Jaybird196 Possibly. The Nazarites, appear to be a very obscure sect. It may very well be that the Nazarites were the first "Christians." Or even pre-Christians. Having a Messianic cult, without "Jesus." By simple "Unveiling," they may have spawned the cult of John the Baptist, and the cult of Jesus, well before the introduction of the actual characters.
About the lack of historicy of Jesus, I do have a couple of objections. Still, I agree with you in that if he existed at some time, he does not seem to be the originator of the theology. My first objection is that while the gospels on the surface seem to make him into an ideal person, jealous sect leader hides underneath. (Luke 14.26 is what I would expect from a sect leader isolating his flock). Weak evidence though, since Christianity's makers would also be jealous sect leaders, projecting.
@trondreitan (cont): The second objection has to do with the nativity. Matthew and Luke's accounts are wildly different, but they have this in common. They try to squeeze a Nazareen into a Bethlehemic tradition (by various means). If Jesus as a person was developed from scratch, I would expect that in his story, he would be born in Bethlehem because that's where he's from and that's where he grew up. No excuses made because none would have to be made.
@trondreitan (cont2): I feel rather silly for making these objections though, since I do not have much hinging on the historicy of Jesus. It's just that from my present knowledge, a mythologized historical Jesus seems to make more sense than a purely mythological Jesus. Still, if you're right about your general chronology of the scriptures, the Jesus myth gets increased plausibility. Even if I may sound a bit sceptical at times, I really enjoy the ride, so keep it up!
@trondreitan Hey, thank you! The "Nazareth" tradition seems to come from the non-birth accounts. In other words, the non-birth tradition made Nazareth his "home." I wanted to check G-James to make certain, but G-James doesn't mention Nazareth at all. Neither does G-Thomas. That may seem trivial, though G-James IMO appears to be significantly older than the infancy in Matt or Luke. Matt and Luke both appear to have come from proto texts G-Hebrews and G-Marcion, that didn't have an infancy.
@Xoroaster Thx. Just to check that I understand correctly, let me try to restate this as follows: The first attempts at making Jesus a person made him into being from Nazareth and then later authors of the Jesus-story discovered they had a prophesy to fulfill concerning his birthplace.
@trondreitan Right, and deeper into the theology, Joseph was supposedly from Nazareth. But Jesus was not the Son of Joseph. That's part of the "Mystery." He is known as, supposedly, a Nazarite. But over and over again, that seems to be part of the "hidden mystery" that people don't understand. People think he's from Nazareth, but he's from "heaven," birthed in Bethlehem according to "prophecy."
AHHH! The penny just dropped. Let me see if I have this right. So Heaven is where the forms are and the barrier between the world we percieve and the world of forms is knowledge? Only rather than just being straight forward philosophy these guys are thinking of it in terms of theology?
@ketsan Exactly. The Barrier, is physically the Dome of the Sky. Though more theologically, Wisdom represents the Barrier. Pierce the Barrier, Wisdom, through Spirit of Apocalypse, and you kind find out what "Heaven," "God," and all the other Forms are.
@Xoroaster So the actual Platonists are trying to develop wisdom through their own studies but the Christians think they can take a short cut just by having wisdom revealed to them by a kinda celestial Plato?
This reminds me of pure land Buddhism which teaches that you don't need to do any of the hard work, the meditation, the investigation into the nature of reality, all you need to do is call on Amitaba Buddha and he'll wisk you into heaven.
@ketsan Yeah, sort of. And it goes back into Judaism. Philo combines Plato's Forms with the Genesis creation account. Though, Philo emphasizes Form of Light more than anything, he does mention the Forms of Light, Spirit, Logos. In "On Dreams," Philo hints at an idea of Apocalypse of Wisdom. Unveiling divine wisdom. In that case, through dreams.
@Xoroaster Oh right, I see. So Philo is basically a proto-Christian? Also would I be right in thinking that Acts Of the Apostles isn't mentioned by anyone before Iranaeus?
@ren19992008 As far as I can tell, Marcion or his predecessor. "Paul" appears to be a Marcionite pen-name. It was the later authors, and Irenaeus/Tertullian, that adjusted "Paul" into the first century.
I think it is important to identify possible historical people behind the characters of the Bible. It would give your studies more direction and help you to order the dates of the books. For example, was Mary the wife of Harod the Great Miriamne the First? Why was one of the historical Jesus' the son of Panther? Did he have a Roman father? Or was it because this guy studied Egyptian magic and mysteries and had a panther pelt when he returned from Egypt?
@ren19992008 I have no doubt that a lot of this theology came from some very interesting sources. To me, it falls more in line with comparative religion. I've tried to avoid that, in general, because I'm interested in reconstructing the entire "Christian" theology from it's birth to Catholicism. Though, once all of that is done entirely, comparative religion IMO, will become far more important. At that point, Mode of Transmission becomes rather simple I think.
@MisterBoswell Well, yeah. Technically, I think in the NT it is James that pushes works. The Peter texts in the NT, are probably Montanist texts. Very late texts, not quite representative of the older "Peter" theology. James/Peter/John represent Jewish "first" theologies. James and Peter, I actually have in the same camp. Or very similar theologies, originally.
Sophia = both deity and form? Both interpretations were in the word then just as now, right?
Sophia may be an oracle of divine truth.
Just as Mother Nature is the oracle of nature's truths giving only rulings and never rules (our best scientists are attempting to determine the rules from the rulings), so too Sophia an oracle of supernatural truth?
@George4943 Yeah, in a sense. Sophia is the barrier. They are trying to understand wisdom, "unveil" divine wisdom, determine the nature of "heaven," and determine what messages "heaven" is sending them through Sophia. This where Spirit of Apocalypse comes in. Apocalypse, is an attempt to Unveil the greater reality hidden by Sophia.
Truly it does not say "her" in Greek, it says "it". Those lines are neither Gnostic or Ebionite. They are Roman Catholic Pseudo-Gnostic garbage found first in Irenaeus and Tatian.
I remember discussing the historical versus the myth of Jesus and having something on the desk and covering it with coats and clothing and asking people to guess what was underneath and that is how we see Jesus - through other people's clothing of him and we can try and strip it away but then we are guessing. I remember some feminist theologians getting excited about Sophia but it all felt a little contrived then and still does. Sophia is grammatically feminine in Hebrew and Greek.
Matthew changes all the stuff in Luke wording wise. That "wisdom is justified by her works" is a anti-Gnostic line. The "children" one in Luke was not in Marcion.
When Matthew says "her works" and Luke says "her children", is it possible that those are simply GRAMMATICAL feminines (meaning "its") because "sophia" is feminine gender in the Greek language? Remember, in Greek (as in Latin, German, and Russian) nouns have three grammatical genders, and the articles and pronouns must comply. Right? Or?
@jdh501 I'm going to look into that more. That may very well be correct. My ancient greek is not particularly strong. The author is either using Sophia in the sense of "Divine Wisdom/Form of Wisdom," or in the sense of a deified Form. Like, Spirit as a Form, or Spirit as "Holy Spirit" deity. It looks a bit vague to me, though specifically the pronoun puts a specific emphasis on Wisdom, where it shouldn't be required if this was some basic mention of everyday "wisdom."
@Xoroaster I don't have a Bible with me now. The King James Version is particularly poetic (the translators used the poetic/romantic word "her" a lot for certain abstract ideas), so it might be a good idea to check all available translations of those verses and see how they compare and if they use "her" or "its" at that particular spot. Could just be an "Elizabethan" ideosyncrasy. Good video though. Keep up the great research.
@Xoroaster At last, aomehing this dumbwit can follow! I always imagine supposing there is a Girl called "Faith". If I wrote I went to the Church with Faith, it could mean two things. In most languages though, you may say "And I came back with her" as both concept and person are feminine. In English you say"and I came back with it" so you know. Pesky things, these foreign languages LOL Jesus should have been an ancient Briton, then we could have got rid of him by now.
As I mentioned before, Sophia, or Wisdom speaks throughout the ancient book of proverbs. She speaks as a person "being with Him from the beginning." I don't think there is any doubt that some of the ancient mystical Jews regarded her as the female counterpart of Yaweh or Elohim. NOT Mary the mother of Jesus, but a goddess in her own right.
If Jesus was historical person, then it is obvious that his story is way over blown. That even granting the possibility of him doing miracles. There are still so many versions of Jesus and theological differences that it call could possibly be attributed to one man.
@TheAtheistPaladin That's very true. I've avoided the historicity subject quite often, because I generally find it irrelevant. I'm more interested in how the theology worked, and spread, and how these people thought. It's very interesting to me. In some ways it is very crude, and in some ways very complex. It seems very "human." They lack a lot of knowledge, and attempt to make up for it with theology and philosophy.
Soooo, the Holy Ghost is really full of holes... alright Men, abandon your Christian Army's. Tell, the Holy Ghost he can go Home now.. he's been replaced by a Woman of wisdom.
@gettingolder2 Hehe. It took until sometime in the 300's for the more modern Catholic trinity to be decided on. Though, technically, some Christian theologies had upwards of eight, twelve, or even more deities. And the ones that didn't think there were that many deities, still used them as Platonic Forms. Sophia the deity, or Sophia the Form of Wisdom. Christianity struggled with assumed aspects of "God" for quite a while.
@Xoroaster Thank you for your reply. All joking aside, after your video on this subject, just thinking what were they thinking to put this out there, the way they did, then so many People believe this crazy stuff, can just boggle the mind. Case in point, the many People that believe in what the Pope say's is Gospel, boggles the mind. Or any so call holy Man for that matter.
Man, how did I miss this episode? Doesn't his being a nazarite mean he's of an order of Jews that do not remove their hair by cutting? Hence, hippie Jesus?
Jaybird196 1 month ago
@Jaybird196 Possibly. The Nazarites, appear to be a very obscure sect. It may very well be that the Nazarites were the first "Christians." Or even pre-Christians. Having a Messianic cult, without "Jesus." By simple "Unveiling," they may have spawned the cult of John the Baptist, and the cult of Jesus, well before the introduction of the actual characters.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
About the lack of historicy of Jesus, I do have a couple of objections. Still, I agree with you in that if he existed at some time, he does not seem to be the originator of the theology. My first objection is that while the gospels on the surface seem to make him into an ideal person, jealous sect leader hides underneath. (Luke 14.26 is what I would expect from a sect leader isolating his flock). Weak evidence though, since Christianity's makers would also be jealous sect leaders, projecting.
trondreitan 1 month ago
@trondreitan (cont): The second objection has to do with the nativity. Matthew and Luke's accounts are wildly different, but they have this in common. They try to squeeze a Nazareen into a Bethlehemic tradition (by various means). If Jesus as a person was developed from scratch, I would expect that in his story, he would be born in Bethlehem because that's where he's from and that's where he grew up. No excuses made because none would have to be made.
trondreitan 1 month ago
@trondreitan (cont2): I feel rather silly for making these objections though, since I do not have much hinging on the historicy of Jesus. It's just that from my present knowledge, a mythologized historical Jesus seems to make more sense than a purely mythological Jesus. Still, if you're right about your general chronology of the scriptures, the Jesus myth gets increased plausibility. Even if I may sound a bit sceptical at times, I really enjoy the ride, so keep it up!
trondreitan 1 month ago
@trondreitan Hey, thank you! The "Nazareth" tradition seems to come from the non-birth accounts. In other words, the non-birth tradition made Nazareth his "home." I wanted to check G-James to make certain, but G-James doesn't mention Nazareth at all. Neither does G-Thomas. That may seem trivial, though G-James IMO appears to be significantly older than the infancy in Matt or Luke. Matt and Luke both appear to have come from proto texts G-Hebrews and G-Marcion, that didn't have an infancy.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
@Xoroaster Thx. Just to check that I understand correctly, let me try to restate this as follows: The first attempts at making Jesus a person made him into being from Nazareth and then later authors of the Jesus-story discovered they had a prophesy to fulfill concerning his birthplace.
trondreitan 1 month ago
@trondreitan Right, and deeper into the theology, Joseph was supposedly from Nazareth. But Jesus was not the Son of Joseph. That's part of the "Mystery." He is known as, supposedly, a Nazarite. But over and over again, that seems to be part of the "hidden mystery" that people don't understand. People think he's from Nazareth, but he's from "heaven," birthed in Bethlehem according to "prophecy."
Xoroaster 1 month ago
AHHH! The penny just dropped. Let me see if I have this right. So Heaven is where the forms are and the barrier between the world we percieve and the world of forms is knowledge? Only rather than just being straight forward philosophy these guys are thinking of it in terms of theology?
ketsan 1 month ago
@ketsan Exactly. The Barrier, is physically the Dome of the Sky. Though more theologically, Wisdom represents the Barrier. Pierce the Barrier, Wisdom, through Spirit of Apocalypse, and you kind find out what "Heaven," "God," and all the other Forms are.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
@Xoroaster So the actual Platonists are trying to develop wisdom through their own studies but the Christians think they can take a short cut just by having wisdom revealed to them by a kinda celestial Plato?
This reminds me of pure land Buddhism which teaches that you don't need to do any of the hard work, the meditation, the investigation into the nature of reality, all you need to do is call on Amitaba Buddha and he'll wisk you into heaven.
ketsan 1 month ago
@ketsan Yeah, sort of. And it goes back into Judaism. Philo combines Plato's Forms with the Genesis creation account. Though, Philo emphasizes Form of Light more than anything, he does mention the Forms of Light, Spirit, Logos. In "On Dreams," Philo hints at an idea of Apocalypse of Wisdom. Unveiling divine wisdom. In that case, through dreams.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
@Xoroaster Oh right, I see. So Philo is basically a proto-Christian? Also would I be right in thinking that Acts Of the Apostles isn't mentioned by anyone before Iranaeus?
ketsan 1 month ago
Historical Jesus? Yes. Historical Christ? No
yrtemmyscirtemmysa 1 month ago
And who was the historical Paul?
ren19992008 1 month ago
@ren19992008 As far as I can tell, Marcion or his predecessor. "Paul" appears to be a Marcionite pen-name. It was the later authors, and Irenaeus/Tertullian, that adjusted "Paul" into the first century.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
I think it is important to identify possible historical people behind the characters of the Bible. It would give your studies more direction and help you to order the dates of the books. For example, was Mary the wife of Harod the Great Miriamne the First? Why was one of the historical Jesus' the son of Panther? Did he have a Roman father? Or was it because this guy studied Egyptian magic and mysteries and had a panther pelt when he returned from Egypt?
ren19992008 1 month ago
@ren19992008 I have no doubt that a lot of this theology came from some very interesting sources. To me, it falls more in line with comparative religion. I've tried to avoid that, in general, because I'm interested in reconstructing the entire "Christian" theology from it's birth to Catholicism. Though, once all of that is done entirely, comparative religion IMO, will become far more important. At that point, Mode of Transmission becomes rather simple I think.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
"In a revealed religion the last thing you need is a human being" I love that. Now for the rest of the video.
NoFaithNoPain 1 month ago
@4:45, sure you don't mean the JAMES & Paul arguments? : )
MisterBoswell 1 month ago
@MisterBoswell Well, yeah. Technically, I think in the NT it is James that pushes works. The Peter texts in the NT, are probably Montanist texts. Very late texts, not quite representative of the older "Peter" theology. James/Peter/John represent Jewish "first" theologies. James and Peter, I actually have in the same camp. Or very similar theologies, originally.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
Sophia = both deity and form? Both interpretations were in the word then just as now, right?
Sophia may be an oracle of divine truth.
Just as Mother Nature is the oracle of nature's truths giving only rulings and never rules (our best scientists are attempting to determine the rules from the rulings), so too Sophia an oracle of supernatural truth?
Perhaps the Gnostic "Word"?
George4943 1 month ago
@George4943 Yeah, in a sense. Sophia is the barrier. They are trying to understand wisdom, "unveil" divine wisdom, determine the nature of "heaven," and determine what messages "heaven" is sending them through Sophia. This where Spirit of Apocalypse comes in. Apocalypse, is an attempt to Unveil the greater reality hidden by Sophia.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
Truly it does not say "her" in Greek, it says "it". Those lines are neither Gnostic or Ebionite. They are Roman Catholic Pseudo-Gnostic garbage found first in Irenaeus and Tatian.
pandirasbox 1 month ago
Well Judas and the anointing are among the many things they dont agree on.
pandirasbox 1 month ago
gospel of Hebrews versus gospel of the Lord
pandirasbox 1 month ago
NO! Wisdom is the Holy spirit.
pandirasbox 1 month ago
Sophia is always female in Greek as in Hebrew sometimes it is too. Yes it is the female aspect of God.
pandirasbox 1 month ago
I remember discussing the historical versus the myth of Jesus and having something on the desk and covering it with coats and clothing and asking people to guess what was underneath and that is how we see Jesus - through other people's clothing of him and we can try and strip it away but then we are guessing. I remember some feminist theologians getting excited about Sophia but it all felt a little contrived then and still does. Sophia is grammatically feminine in Hebrew and Greek.
johncrwarner 1 month ago
Matthew changes all the stuff in Luke wording wise. That "wisdom is justified by her works" is a anti-Gnostic line. The "children" one in Luke was not in Marcion.
pandirasbox 1 month ago
Not one manuscript backs up your hypothesis. You shouldn't have gone null hypothesis. You should be formulating many and testing them.
pandirasbox 1 month ago
When are you going to prove Revelation was written before the gospels?
pandirasbox 1 month ago
A revealed religion needs many people. People don't die for a myth. I'm sure the Holocaust and Hitler were myths too.
pandirasbox 1 month ago
When Matthew says "her works" and Luke says "her children", is it possible that those are simply GRAMMATICAL feminines (meaning "its") because "sophia" is feminine gender in the Greek language? Remember, in Greek (as in Latin, German, and Russian) nouns have three grammatical genders, and the articles and pronouns must comply. Right? Or?
jdh501 1 month ago
@jdh501 I'm going to look into that more. That may very well be correct. My ancient greek is not particularly strong. The author is either using Sophia in the sense of "Divine Wisdom/Form of Wisdom," or in the sense of a deified Form. Like, Spirit as a Form, or Spirit as "Holy Spirit" deity. It looks a bit vague to me, though specifically the pronoun puts a specific emphasis on Wisdom, where it shouldn't be required if this was some basic mention of everyday "wisdom."
Xoroaster 1 month ago
@Xoroaster I don't have a Bible with me now. The King James Version is particularly poetic (the translators used the poetic/romantic word "her" a lot for certain abstract ideas), so it might be a good idea to check all available translations of those verses and see how they compare and if they use "her" or "its" at that particular spot. Could just be an "Elizabethan" ideosyncrasy. Good video though. Keep up the great research.
jdh501 1 month ago
@Xoroaster At last, aomehing this dumbwit can follow! I always imagine supposing there is a Girl called "Faith". If I wrote I went to the Church with Faith, it could mean two things. In most languages though, you may say "And I came back with her" as both concept and person are feminine. In English you say"and I came back with it" so you know. Pesky things, these foreign languages LOL Jesus should have been an ancient Briton, then we could have got rid of him by now.
NoFaithNoPain 1 month ago
As I mentioned before, Sophia, or Wisdom speaks throughout the ancient book of proverbs. She speaks as a person "being with Him from the beginning." I don't think there is any doubt that some of the ancient mystical Jews regarded her as the female counterpart of Yaweh or Elohim. NOT Mary the mother of Jesus, but a goddess in her own right.
Hereticbooks 1 month ago
All you have to do is look at any travel brochure for Hagia Sophia to see this in action.
Flirri 1 month ago
If Jesus was historical person, then it is obvious that his story is way over blown. That even granting the possibility of him doing miracles. There are still so many versions of Jesus and theological differences that it call could possibly be attributed to one man.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
"call could"
correction
that it all couldn't
TheAtheistPaladin 1 month ago
@TheAtheistPaladin That's very true. I've avoided the historicity subject quite often, because I generally find it irrelevant. I'm more interested in how the theology worked, and spread, and how these people thought. It's very interesting to me. In some ways it is very crude, and in some ways very complex. It seems very "human." They lack a lot of knowledge, and attempt to make up for it with theology and philosophy.
Xoroaster 1 month ago 2
Soooo, the Holy Ghost is really full of holes... alright Men, abandon your Christian Army's. Tell, the Holy Ghost he can go Home now.. he's been replaced by a Woman of wisdom.
gettingolder2 1 month ago
@gettingolder2 Hehe. It took until sometime in the 300's for the more modern Catholic trinity to be decided on. Though, technically, some Christian theologies had upwards of eight, twelve, or even more deities. And the ones that didn't think there were that many deities, still used them as Platonic Forms. Sophia the deity, or Sophia the Form of Wisdom. Christianity struggled with assumed aspects of "God" for quite a while.
Xoroaster 1 month ago
@Xoroaster Thank you for your reply. All joking aside, after your video on this subject, just thinking what were they thinking to put this out there, the way they did, then so many People believe this crazy stuff, can just boggle the mind. Case in point, the many People that believe in what the Pope say's is Gospel, boggles the mind. Or any so call holy Man for that matter.
gettingolder2 1 month ago
Boooo, the Trinity is nothing but a myth.
TheGenuineChristian 1 month ago
@TheGenuineChristian Yes, it is.
Xoroaster 1 month ago