Pope Benedict XVI vs. Bart Ehrman - Matthew Ramage

[@bman5257]

Papa Benedict was a great pastor, strong faith and strong intellect.

[@augusto894p5]

This is what I was searching for. It's hard to see people speaking about these themes from a more religious perspective. Thank you from Brazil!

[@KyleWhittington]

Born in a foreign nation, attained US citizenship, has roots in Kansas, does a video about Pope Benedict XVI. Suan and Dom Dalmasso (The Logos Project) might be the same person.

[@intellectualcatholicism]

Shhhh!

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@matthewj.winbow2212]

This was an excellent 👌 conversation and I can't wait for the next.

[@ppc-results]

Thank you

[@roberthoyle1971]

Bart ehrman is THE new testament scholar that i glean most of my biblical scholarship from. Most believers dont like him or his beliefs (or disbelief) its nice to hear believers say something positive or nice about him once in a while. Bart is a superstar. Really knows his stuff. Lost his faith over the issue of suffering and an apparently absent god. His books are phenomenal. He gives his "critics" a copy of his manuscripts prior to publishing so they can "counter publish" His book HOW JESUS BECAME GOD and his critics response book HOW GOD BECAME JESUS is required reading for believers and non believers alike!

[@tomthx5804]

Actually, he is fairly useless and a bit of a clown.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

A few of Bart Ehrman's views I know of are very infantile (like the telephone game idea), or feel strained to shoe-horn (bah, to justify) his unbelief. I've seen Brant Pitre publicly challenge some of his most outrageous ideas. I've never heard Ehrman address the challenges and, although I know he knows about them, he keeps on repeating his ideas (and some that are not only his) with not even a mention of them. For example, one of the ideas that he most helped popularize is the one about the Gospels' anonymity. The challenges that Pitre raised against this theory are very serious, pretty much conclusive from a logical/commonsensical standpoint. He knows (or should know) of them. Yet, he keeps on spreading this falsehood without batting an eyelid. That, in my book, counts as intellectual dishonesty. In the end, it comes down to a fairly solid alternative: either the early Church Fathers who clearly identified the authors of the Gospels were being dishonest, or Bart Ehrman is being dishonest. Put to choose between them, I rather stick to my belief in the honesty of Irenaeus of Lyon, who held his belief in continuity with the Didache, Saint Justin Martyr and others, and to great peril to his well-being, than in the dubious honesty of one whose well-being seems to stand in direct correlation to the wider broadcasting of his lies. (Yes, lies, in the sense that, even if he honestly believes what he preaches, he knowingly conceals the challenges). Well, that, and the fact that Irenaeus' version wasn't seriously challenged for well over fifteen centuries, whereas Ehrman's is already being challenged.

[@danielcarriere1958]

I agree with the sentiment that Pope Benedict was very conservative in his papal work, but that in his earlier theological works, he is sometimes very liberal, sometimes mocking more traditional views. For example, he mocks the idea of time in his introduction to Christianity in relation to the resurrection of the dead, granted in a tentative way, but it caused me to question whether his thoughts might not lead to a form of Gnosticism about the body. Most of this does not enter into, for example, the CCC. But we have some echos of this thinking here: "646 Christ's Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was the case with the raising from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus' daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus' power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ's Resurrection is essentially different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. At Jesus' Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is "the man of heaven".512 The Resurrection as transcendent event 647 O truly blessed Night, sings the Exultet of the Easter Vigil, which alone deserved to know the time and the hour when Christ rose from the realm of the dead!513 But no one was an eyewitness to Christ's Resurrection and no evangelist describes it. No one can say how it came about physically. Still less was its innermost essence, his passing over to another life, perceptible to the senses. Although the Resurrection was an historical event that could be verified by the sign of the empty tomb and by the reality of the apostles' encounters with the risen Christ, still it remains at the very heart of the mystery of faith as something that transcends and surpasses history. This is why the risen Christ does not reveal himself to the world, but to his disciples, "to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people."514" This phrase, "beyond time and space" or "transcends history", is something that really resonates with early Ratzinger's views (see Spes Salvi). Granted, the state of Christ is a mystery, and our resurrected state is also a mystery, but can we definitively say that there will be no experience of time or matter in the afterlife? That seems to be what Ratzinger's view is. But I like Bishop Barren's view a bit better, where he describes our resurrected state as including all the powers and modalities that we had before, only with something added. That which makes it capable for us to exist eternally in the presences of the beatific vision and in the kingdom of heaven. No need to postulate a mode of being so foreign from our own, that it equates more closely to an impersonal nirvana state. No need to mock a more literal interpretation of the new heavens and the earth that might involve in some way, space and time. That appears to go beyond what scripture presents. Certainly eternal life that involves the succession of time, seems like it could become subject to boredom and become a sort of hell, but maybe not! Maybe eternal life involves eternally finding new facets of God's being to discover and love! Who knows? Certainly the resurrected Christ could enter into time and space at will. Certainly the Virgin Mary can do so as well, at least in the form of visions granted to the select few. But again, there is no evidence of that more acerbic mode of discussion from Benedict.

[@stevenjames6830]

Inspiring philosophy, the protestant has already answered most of these objections when it comes to biblical criticism I think the church was right to see it as a threat, and it’s perpetrators has been suspicious at least in many of the times it does seem like some attempt to destroy the faith that is circular and relies on internal evidence. I honestly think that a lot of the scholars really are acting in bad faith like a lot of academia is nowadays….

[@isaacromero3475]

That sounds like an uncharitable take toward people in academia. I’ve personally found some of IP’s “answers” unsatisfactory but I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[@stls800]

​@@isaacromero3475Can you give any examples? I think that his new gospel series is absolutely awesome

[@CP3CP3CP3]

Many people believe IP is actually Catholic btw.

[@sapereaude6935]

Do you have any more sources on why the PBC's former declarations concerning traditional authorship are no longer binding?

[@stefanfouche6823]

I bet what made it non binding is not binding. Leaves us in a bit of a bind. Just kidding. I am more traditional to my approach to these questions. At the very least, we should still ask the obvious question, why did the church fathers disagree so much with Erhman

[@giovanibenjamin9655]

@@stefanfouche6823becuz Bart was a Protestant he never cared about church authority, and still don’t, he do he’s best to make the fathers look like they didn’t know what they were talking about, coming up with random “ contradictions “ that are not their, because he wants everybody to have a simplistic literal approach to the whole Bible and separate it from any exegesis, reduce the Bible to just myth, oh and God somehow “ doesn’t exist so theirs no way “ the apostles or any other authors were actually spiritually guided and had them write it in such away that we can properly exegete it

[@danielcarriere1958]

I really like the discussion on Pope Benedict's approach to the infancy narratives. see 34:00. Interpreted history. Yes, they are not video camera recordings of events. They are tweaked by a theological overlay, but this is not an invention. It was a fortification of the reality they learned from Mary. It was based on historical facts. It lines up neatly with prophecy, but that is not because the gospel writers were making stuff up. They were applying prophecy to the historical facts. The cynicism and default naturalistic skepticism cannot admit this. Because prophecies don't exist. There can be no fulfillment of them. Those prophecies themselves must be read in their historical context, and it is not permissible to apply them to the time of Jesus. To do so would enter into the domain of faith. Something they are unwilling to do. But this is something we as believers can do. The historical critical method, stripped of its default cynicism and naturalistic skepticism, certainly can coexist with faith. It can show us where some of this theological overlay was done, what the context of these writings must have been, who the audience was they were targeting, what their needs were, and how the text responds to that need. And, it can also reveal to us some of the historical facts of the matter that we are not required to reject just because this theological work is happening, just because the facts of Mary's life are being interpreted in light of prophetic traditions. And that this interpretation takes on different forms for Matthew, speaking to a primarily Jewish Christian audience, than for Luke or Marc, speaking to primarily pagan Christians, is OK.

[@mendez704]

I guess the problem I have is that you believers, catholic or otherwise, think the bible is a book written in one single spirit, and not a compilation of books written in a lapse time of a thousand years, written by different authors in different spirits: Or as Bible Scholar Dan Macklelan uses to say, that the bible is univocal. Once you start from there, you are unable to treat the bible from an historical perspective.

[@danielcarriere1958]

Catholics can do both. The Catholic approach is called the canonical criticism. This method focuses on the final form of the biblical canon, emphasizing how the text functions within the community of faith, rather than just its historical or literary origins. One method can be deployed without prejudice to the other method.

[@mendez704]

@@danielcarriere1958 I don't see how. Both methods have contradicting principles. You can't assume that the bible is one texts that speaks with one voice and at the same time say that it is many texts with different voices, and different ideas of what God is and does (in many cases, contradictory ones).

[@danielcarriere1958]

@@mendez704 Here is a quote from the CCC. But if you want the TLDR, the historical critical method would be restricted to the literal sense. One could, as Bart Ehrman does, restrict one's activity to just the literal sense. As a Catholic, I could respect your contributions from that perspective, even if you rejected all the other senses of scripture. I would simply reject some of your conclusions as requiring a priori commitments to naturalism that I myself don't hold. Bart is at his best when he refrains from importing in his worldview to make judgments about the ultimate nature of the miraculous events described in scripture. "The senses of Scripture 115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. 116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83 117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. 1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84 2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85 3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86 118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88 But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89"

[@mendez704]

@@danielcarriere1958 But the point is, you don´t need to have a commitment to naturalism to see the problems with the way Catholics interpret the bible. I can still assume things like God or miracles...but if one book of the bible says God character or nature is x and another tell us it is non-x, you cant have both to be true (even if you don´t accept naturalism).

[@danielcarriere1958]

Agreed. But making two different texts cohere is an act of interpretation. You can say the two texts are hopelessly contradictory or you can find some way to accommodate both. Typically this is done by exummenical councils or more rarely by papal decree. And so doctrine develops. The DNA is contained in scripture, but its full flowering occurs over time.

[@icosahedron7497]

42:43 Wait, so is Benedict suggesting that Jesus may have not actually said what the Bible says He said? Am I understanding this correctly? If so, that's... not good. Just imagine a protestant dismissing Mt 16:18 or any of your favourite passages with ''yeah but maybe Jesus didn't really say it that way''.

[@tomthx5804]

Bart Ehrman is the Pee Wee Herman of theologians. Benedict is the Mike Tyson of theologians.

[@danielcarriere1958]

Bart Ehrman is not a theologian at all. He is a biblical scholar who specializes in the historical critical method.

[@annestephens9631]

Thank you for this - it's been a grand conversation sketching out a vast conceptual territory. In fairness to a historical approach, excluding 'miraculous interventions' has to be the cornerstone - otherwise history slips from science into art? And although living our lives backing into the future while building our past is the human condition, 'prophecy fulfilled' is a narrative trope - while accepting the rhetorical power of such tropes to shape events. My apologies if these comments sound curt or overdogmatic.

[@danielcarriere1958]

But that is exactly what such statements amount to. Dogmatic proclamations about what you allow into the realm of the possible. It is simply a statement of your world view.

[@danielcarriere1958]

And to be clear, I think it is possible to do good historical critical analysis without being a believer. You can just put a question mark as to the nature of Paul's visions, or the empty tomb, or apparitions of Jesus, or to the claims of healings, exorcisms, multiplication of loaves, and so on. In short, you can be agnostic to their nature. But if you are going to definitively rule out the supernatural, then you are going beyond the tools of the historical critical method.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

If you exclude 'miraculous interventions' on the basis of the impossibility to explain them, you pretty much exclude the very basis for the historic enterprise. In fact, you saw the branch on which you sit to achieve any kind of knowledge. You can bracket a miraculous intervention (in the sense that you don't deal with it at all), but you must still implicitly presuppose realities that are impossible to be explained, such as the existence of the universe, of life, or human reason itself. You can deny all you want that the emergence of human reason is a miraculous event (in the sense of the impossibility to be explained), but you must still presuppose it as true if you want to use it. Likewise, if you want to do history about Christianity, you must still presuppose the Resurrection as true. You can altogether ignore mentioning it, which would make you a very bad historian. You must, at the very least, explicitly acknowledge that something extraordinary happened, something that you don't deem yourself capable of explaining. You may, if you will, go as far as admitting that the first Christians had an extraordinary faith in an extraordinary event that they called the Resurrection (which is as far as some non-believer historians have the honesty to go). What you cannot as a serious historian do is to flatly deny the miracle only to justify your lack of belief.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

This video was fed to me by KZbin and I’m not sure why it wants me to watch this. The argument really evolves less around Bart Ehrman and more around what the Roman traditional church carries as presuppositions. So let’s dig into one example, if one follows the evolving polemic of heaven and hell then one might, by the ninth century conclude that the Serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan, and because Adam and even disobeyed god, then sin originated. But there is a problem, these texts have a context and that context is the ancient neareast and Mesopotamia. If 150 years ago we did not know this we might be forgiven, but now it’s impossible to sort of handle the evolution of the Hebrew Bible without the comparative literature. I like to make this point, when the stories in Genesis were source composed, there were city states, these city states had tutelary gods and they had foundational myths. Of the hundreds of myths that existed, we only know a dozen or so and only 6 with reasonable knowledge and these differ over time. So the text we have begins Bereshith bara Elohim Et Hassamyim weret haeretz. And we are going to see the immediate difficulty in translating the text. In beginning created Elohim the skies (heavens) and the earth (or habitable land) Some authors aware of this literature put “when in the beginning”. The proper noun Elohim has evolved from the title of the Canaanite pantheon of 70 gods, its meaning has morphed over time from this to the meaning Majestic God or something on this order. The original pantheon was headed by ‘El, the most high, which was Elkanusa in Hurrian, El Shadd…. Among the Amorites and Elyon by northern Canaanites. This morphed into the Angelic council of YHWH. The waters in Genesis two correspond to Apsu and Tiamat in the Enuma Elis, but the qualities of Tahom are more like NinAbsu in the Eridu mythology. And so we see the problem, we have relation vectors with a wide variety of literature that point to the text and some of these vectors point back to the pottery Neolithic of Eridu. The second creation story comes from another source, but here again we see influences of Eridu. The crafting of men from clay, this is a narrative we see from Enki and Nammu, his mother and granddaughter of Absu and NinAbsu (Tiamat, Tahom). Nammu naturally gave birth to Enki. In the Eridu system Nammu appears to the first god, her ancestors were natural spirits. Nammu appears in the literature 2700 BCE, and in storied literature as assigned by her lover An and the divine council to make helpers. Nammu doesn’t know how and asks her son Enki who then prescribes how to mold men from clay. In this story the garden of Eden is located before the Tigris and Euphrates merge, and so this mysterious place lies about 12 miles from Eridu and roughly corresponds to Ur. There is in the garden the glistening one, a serpent, the pictures show a snake, but The story tells us the serpent lost his legs because of his deception. This does not seem to make sense, but in a Mesopotamian context it makes perfect sense, the serpents have legs in Mesopotamian mythology. So the story is clearly pointing to a Mesopotamian source, and if we read onto the Noah myth, we know precisely the flood city, Shuruppak. But there are other precedences, the royal gardens of the kings. And so then is the serpent Satan and did Adam and Eve sin. The serpent was cursed because he was the most clever of the beasts and he pointed out to Eve her misconception that if she touched the fruit she would die and the serpent essentially says you can eat the fruit and you won’t die. The serpent did not lie. The mortality comes from the gods having fear that the humans would become powerful as them. This has a precedence in the story of Adapa and the South Wind. And so Adam and Eve were denied immortality because the gods were afraid, not because of Sin. In the story of Adapa, the YHWH equivalent Enki tricks Adapa to believing no the council is trying to poison him so he refuses the food of life, Enki bearing down that Adapa is an Abgul (the equivalent of Jonah) and his obligation is to serve. Understanding this literature in context does not present us with original sin, but the Apostle Paul does give Adam something like this. And the reason “we” give Paul authority is because we close the eye to what Paul is. First, no Christian alive today follows Paul’s theology of Jesus, Paul believes Jesus, born of a woman, was made messiah by his sacrifice for sin, he was taken to heaven, the sacrifice accepted, and thus he can return as a messiah (not a god). There is no Trinity in this theology and Paul was a Jew. But most christians do not understand, they almost refuse to understand Paul never met Jesus. Paul was a mystic with a capital M. He lets us know about his trip to the Hekhalot in 2 cor 12, it also indicates someone was helping him. And it is through this mysticism he comes to see Jesus as lord, in the same manner the mystic of Endor draws Samuel from his eternal sleep. This is necromancy. It is through Paul’s mysticism that he is trying to creating an ownership of sin by gentiles and then trying to sell salvation, he really believe Jesus would return promptly, but this was false prophesy. Gentiles don’t carry Jewish sin because the 613 laws of Moses were intended for the chosen people. Paul tries to convince his Greek audience that they have sin associated with the lost tribes, but those tribes were scattered east of the Tigris. He tries to convince them that they are sons of Noah, but that story is from Shuruppak and Kish, lower Mesopotamia. The Hebrew Bible does not promote sin on the goyim of Europe.

[@danielcarriere1958]

"But there is a problem, these texts have a context and that context is the ancient nearest and Mesopotamia. If 150 years ago we did not know this we might be forgiven, but now it’s impossible to sort of handle the evolution of the Hebrew Bible without the comparative literature. ....And so we see the problem, we have relation vectors with a wide variety of literature that point to the text and some of these vectors point back to the pottery Neolithic of Eridu." These genesis accounts, and also the oral traditions from when they come, have a literary and historical context. Not sure why this is a problem. The first several chapters of Genesis are clearly using mythological language. The important factor for Catholic believers is what the author intended to convey. The historical critical method can help us there. But we are not obliged to stop there. We can, and have every right, to read these texts from a canonical perspective. And so future generations, would read into these accounts, meanings that go beyond what their original authors intended. They can do this because they too were inspired by God. This way of reading the text requires faith, or at least if undertaken by a non believer, requires tolerance for the flexibility of meaning that texts take on to future writers. And so, through the lens of faith, we have typological, mystical, and allegorical reinterpretations of earlier texts. Looking at the second genesis account, all that matters is that the author never mentions any of the other source material. Whether they inspired the writing of these texts or not, any meaning that might have derived from these non Jewish literary sources simply becomes a secondary matter. Perhaps they can help clarify how to read some parts of scripture, but other than that, the fact that none of the other gods were mentioned, and only the Elohim was mentioned is significant. The same can be said with the 10 plagues of Moses. A historical critical review of each plague reveals that Yahweh is attacking the domains of significant Egyptian deities with each plague, thus showing his domination over all creation. This certainly is a step forward towards philosophical monotheism. And further refining of this happens during the time of the Prophets. The prohibition against idolatry takes a two pronged approach: First - that the gods of the idols were no gods at all. The idols are just inert wood or stone. They can provide no benefits. And Second - that these gods are demonic in nature. They leads their adherents into wickedness and sin. What you see is the development of doctrine, something very much part of the Catholic tradition. A progressive revelation of the mystery of God. Is this all human invention? You seem to imply that it is. I rather believe, through faith, that this is the word of the divine logos, a personal God that comes to elevate the world, debased by sin. It reveals and points prophetically to the messiah, who came as promised, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered and died for our sins. Paul's writings, of course, must also be read in a historical critical way, but can also be read with a canonical approach.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

@ “You seem to imply this is human invention”. Yes and no. I am a mystic, so when I see mysticism I call it, even when the scholarship does not. The problem is it’s very difficult to see mysticism in the ancient literature because people are tuned to theologies as gods as functionaries of the state. When it comes to defining temple life it goes back to 5300 BCE and we have writing from about 3100 BCE and that early writing is talking about how to brew beer or account for trade for the festivals of the gods and they assume everyone knows why the festivals are occurring so no writing. So we are seeing select writings well after the fact and very dependent on which demagogue is in charge With regard to the levantine writing, if I have a theological bias it revolves around the events that transpired during the late Bronze Age collapse. However this has to be prefaced in that the Hebrew Bible projects itself back into the Bronze Age, but seems to know nothing about the world before the Uruk Period. This will be confusing but Eridu was established in the pottery Neolithic, it progress through the copper age and the early Bronze Age and into the dynastic period where the focus of the foundational myths begin, whereas the foundational creation myths in the Bible are even using dynastic ideas in these two creation myths. And so the real focus is that the writers of the Bible are not that aware of the history that precedes the Bronze Age collapse and if we read from judges 3 we are encountering a polytheistic society recovering from the collapse in the Iron Age, theologically the priests of El pick up society and assemble diverse interests assembled from the four corners, (Hebrew, Hittite, Amorite, Midianites) using a pattern laid down by the colonizers a Millenium previously. We get a taste of the theology is Samuel as he predicts the woe that the people will face once they have a king. The Bible begins effectively with the recovery of a people after the Egyptians leave because the system of wealth collapses. They reject this recovery version of god in favor of another kind of god, a god that is a power god who comes on the clouds with heaven and imposes unity through religious suppression. And even at that the proponents of different versions of the very same named god are fighting and killing each other. As a consequence of this in fighting we have two traditions representing two foundational myths. From a mystical perspective as the middle Bronze Age becomes the late Bronze Age my perspective is that the sages did see the writing on the wall, they realized that eventually Eridu would become nothing more than a relic site. The reason they could see this as Dynasties, with each generation were pulling power away, first Akkad, then Babylon, then Assyria. And the nature by which they did this, like Naram-Sin, was to declare themselves gods and usurp power reserved by priests. The sages were there to serve, but this type of service was rejected and they headed west. I would tell you where they stopped, you wouldn’t believe it and anyway that site was lost in the Iron Age to the philistines. They eventually moved to the desert east of the Red Sea and over time the sages of other gods came and they established communities creating the first of a tradition of desert mystics. The crazy king figure in Daniel is not Nabo Kudduri Usar but Nabonidus and he went to Tayma for a decade because he saw the destructive nature of dynastic ambition in the Iron Age created so much death and instability. He was however too little and too late. There is a prayer for Nabonidus in the Dead Sea scrolls. From this perspective that the Judaism is adopting (or bringing back) some pre-existing sage tradition from the Bronze Age. But the sages are the weakest of the theological groups and are generally subordinate to Levites prophets, Cohenim prophets and high priests. So yes, I confirm that there is an actual wisdom seeking mystical thread in Judaism, but it’s not the Judaism that is producing foundational myths. I could say it’s theological, if it pleases you. But the text we are reading are the confluence of political and theological standing in these communities. As I repeat this there are hundreds of bits and pieces of foundational myths in the air, but the bits included are based on particular state perspectives that supported the theological perspective of the high priests. I would recommend one reading, the book of Job, it’s myth, just let the story tell you what the author is trying to convey, it is a layered text and has meaning at different levels but at one level the author is a bit of a cynic, he is not portraying the grace of god, quite the opposite. And haSatan is not a foe, but a buddy at a wagering table. The person, possibly a sage is fighting back against the imposition on certain types of state theology in Jewish texts. The craft of the sage is to serve, even when it is unpopular, (Jonah is a play on the abgul). Again, I’m don’t convert people, but my point is this. One group of people at a time gathered ideas and assembled them into a theology, then looked for proof texts, which they didn’t find, so they gather bits and pieces and formulated mythologies that suited their needs. Hey, the Enuma Elis did the same thing. However the Hebrew theology of the Pharisees no longer suited the post Iraneaus Christians so that they began reading their theologies into the text. This is mythology, no one can stop you from repurposing myth as long as you are honest that is what you are doing. That we understand this, there is an unintended consequence of doing this, it’s not a platform of foundation for arguing a theology or for oppressing or excluding those in disbelief. [ex-Ha] Satan can be a serpent if that is what you want him to be, but you cannot argue this is part of the Hebrew Bible or that anyone who sees Jesus as a spiritual leader should believe this. As you say Catholicism has a doctrine. There are good and not so good aspects of the doctrine, if it is a healthy belief system then it will correct its false steps. But I will tell you in terms of history, the Absu traditions lasted 4000 years in some form or fashion, and Catholicism at best is 1700 years, only time will tell their worthiness.

[@danielcarriere1958]

@@Darisiabgal7573 I suppose I would want to question you about what you mean as mysticism. It seems to be something that can be fairly easily eclipsed or hijacked by the state for the purposes of controlling and oppressing and excluding others. Certainly there are numerous examples of this happening throughout history. But again, what is mysticism to you? Simply a human activity? Or is it the divine logos of God reaching into history, inspiring scripture writers, to communicate truths he wants to communicate? And I would push back a little. Sometimes key defining mystical utterances are said to political authorities overreaching their divinely appointed limits. Sometimes it is kings, sometimes it is priestly or prophetic classes, as Elijah and Elisha demonstrate. Sometimes it is the people. The authors of scripture have a variety of audiences. Can this judeo Christian tradition be compared to the absu tradition? Length of time is one criteria for such a comparison. But there is also the contents. Most of that appears to be lost to us now though. As you say, what remains is mostly discussions about brewing beer. LOL. But this is far too relativistic for me. I believe in truth. It appears in different forms in different societies, but I believe the truths expressed in the Judeo Christian tradition to be unique.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

@ what I mean by mystic is that I have mystical experiences and for a year they were unprompted by magick and daily. I am not a palm reader or Claire voyant. I am not an athiest. My experiences lead me down a path of many Christian mystics and I had many visions, just as Paul, just as othe Christian mystics. I found the cause was acute Iron overload and I actively avoid experiences now, but occasionally those that are passed need to speak. As a consequence when I retired I began studying mysticism and religion and realized I was not really a Christian because I understand what others were seeing were delusionary visions, just like mine. On the other hand I don’t discount mystical visions completely, it’s just Marguerite Poirete or Miester Eckhart like visions may be deeply spiritual in nature but reflect something local not universal. As for exclusionary practices, what is the purpose of Satan, Heaven and Hell. I bring to your attention what Epiphanius said about the Ebionites, the remnant of the disciples after the disruption by Ananus Ben Ananus . . .neither “Christian or Jew”. It is obvious that if the followers of the Jesus tradition did not come on board with post-Pauline traditions, then they were to be excluded from the conversation altogether. But that you make the point, yes I am exclusionary, I do not train anyone who is not a natural mystic to become a mystic, because I consider the precept of using magick to have mystical experiences profane. Moreover I think mysticism is best when kept esoteric. What I try to educate natural mystics is to modulate their experiences so that they are not accidentally allowing themselves exceed certain boundaries. I do believe if you read the Orthodox Church statements about mysticism I am not too far from their position. As a mystic I still believe the Gospel of John has a mystical core to it, as describe by Elaine Pagels, the gospel on the Greco-Roman side of the conversation. It is an open door, once you know how to open, what you then do is up to you. However, the gospel of John is also cluttered with symbols of Greek mystery cults and it’s strangely anti-Semetic. If you understand that I have no problem using the text as a mystical text. Was it not Elijah who said to king Ahab, I have sent my prophets to you and they are deceived into telling lies, so that your plans might fail. Was it not Ezekiel who said god gave the Israelites bad laws so that they might pass their first born through the flames so they might know the power of their god. Was it not Jeremiah who said god never asked them to make sacrifices of their children. Was it not Saul who was accused by Samuel for not submitting all that he captured if his enemy as an offering to god, to the very last infant? We have to be very careful what prophets say, as a mystic I am saying this, these are not words to be told to children. As with the succession of belief associated with E.Absu and Eanna (the guys writing about beer accounting) I firmly believe the Hebrew traditions a fork and a succession of theology. As for what is missing concerning the Abgul, if they were practicing mysticism cautiously, then we should know absolutely nothing. Their role in the process was to serve, they found this hard to do in close proximity to dynasties, so they camped out in the desert being called from time to time, when the kings had an ear to listen. Ezekiel, is laying on the bank of a canal in Larsa, over one shoulder is Bad Tibera a couple dozen miles away, over the other shoulder Ur (of the Chaldean at that time) beyond that Eridu in another direction Uruk. He is dreaming about a heavenly structure that was essentially laid out in Uruk as the place of the council of gods (Anunnuki or Igigi) and he is invisioning his god YHWH as having returned to his throne in Jerusalem, but the women outside the temple are crying for Tammuz, Tammuz was the shepherd king of Bad Tibera, he behaved poorly when his wife Ishtar god here self meat-hooked after taking off all her clothes so that she thought she would control Kur, the underworld. Restored to life by the divine council she finds her husband taking liberties with her priest, he is then sentenced to an eternity of dying and rising. And thus women shed tears for his departure. But why is the nod to Dumuzi in the Bible. The simple reason, local magick is playing on the mind of Ezekiel. These prophets in the Hebrew Bible are only human and they are imperfect, the pagan traditions enter their mind of mystical experiences, and thus we need to take care and look for these signs.

[@danielcarriere1958]

​@@Darisiabgal7573 "@ what I mean by mystic is that I have mystical experiences and for a year they were unprompted by magick and daily. I am not a palm reader or Claire voyant. I am not an athiest. My experiences lead me down a path of many Christian mystics and I had many visions, just as Paul, just as othe Christian mystics. I found the cause was acute Iron overload and I actively avoid experiences now, but occasionally those that are passed need to speak. As a consequence when I retired I began studying mysticism and religion and realized I was not really a Christian because I understand what others were seeing were delusionary visions, just like mine. On the other hand I don’t discount mystical visions completely, it’s just Marguerite Poirete or Miester Eckhart like visions may be deeply spiritual in nature but reflect something local not universal. " When I was much younger, I took a degree in Classical Studies and comparative religions. My focus in the final year of my degree was a class in comparative mysticism. There certainly seems to be a common element to mystical experiences across cultures. They can be experienced by deeply religious people and I have heard of some accounts of atheists having such experiences as well, although they would not characterize these experiences in religious terms. Or at least not in terms of western monotheistic ones. Atheists who have such experiences tend towards pantheistic explanations, such as deep feelings of oneness with the universe, and so on. But the universality across cultures of such experiences is noteworthy. Behind such experiences is certainly a biological capacity to receive such experiences. One might be tempted to reduce them all to physical experiences. Or, it might be an organ by which we can encounter the divine, a capacity to contact a world beyond our every day experience. Those experiences are certainly filtered through our cultural traditions. But if there is a personal God, and he wanted to communicate himself in a definitive way to human beings, he would certainly meet human beings in such a way through such faculties. He would certainly communicate himself to them through such experiences. And also, if he was real, he could do so in other ways, not involving visionary trance states. Scriptures shows both types of encounters with God. Finally, with regard to the Bible borrowing from the myths of other cultures, I admit that this is a fact. But I also want to point out again, and this is something you haven't responded to, that there is much that they don't borrow from these cultures. And what they don't bring over is the polytheism of Ur, of Uruk, of Egypt, of Canaan. At best, you can discern elements of polytheism in the Genesis stories. But for all intents and purposes, it is a practical monotheism. The other Gods, for what they are worth, are powerless when compared with Elohim, with Yahweh. And they soon turn into angelic servants of God or demonic beings. And even as demonic beings, as is shown by the story of Job, they are tolerated for a purpose. You see development of this strain of monotheistic thinking that certainly represents a gradual and inexorable departure from the polytheism of the ancient world. And, in the Christian era, this rejection of the pagan Gods was so acute, that Christians were called Atheists at some points. Perhaps it is wiggish of me to say this, but I can't help but conclude that the rejection of polytheism was progress. Something that was anticipated by Plato and Aristotle several centuries before, as well. A philosophical background that brought reason and logic to the forefront, and was influential in logos theology. The merging of these two traditions in Christian neoplatonism certainly forms the basis for our modern view that the world is essentially an ordered place, where various sciences can develop a body of knowledge. Each field having a logy. These developments did not occur in any practical or lasting sense in other civilizations. Anyway, this is becoming an essay. I understand that you are critical of the Judeo Christian tradition, but I encourage you not to throw out the baby with the bath water. :) Some of the problems you bring up certainly need an explanation. As a Catholic believer, I am willing to admit that some of the barbaric acts tolerated or even commanded by God, cannot be seen as normative for us today, and certainly need to be given explanations. How can a good God demand the genocide of his enemies as Saul was commanded, or Joshua. Jesus, the Christian Joshua, who ushers us into the heavenly promised land, allows us to reinterpret these past commands in a spiritual sense. Thus the enemies of Israel become spiritual enemies.

[@marknovetske4738]

🙏👏👏👏❤

[@bernardwalsh9587]

Gentleman, great programme but I think you better uopdate your notions of evolution. At a macro level it never occured. At a microlevel there is evidence for the changes. This the most up to date scientific findings according to many scientists such as Stephen Meyer.

[@User28870]

"This the most up to date scientific findings according to many scientists such as Stephen Meyer." Well, you're already off to a bad start with that comment.

[@bernardwalsh9587]

@@User28870 Faith in God or Faith in Dawkins. You choose!!!

[@User28870]

@@bernardwalsh9587 ok

[@georgeallen7887]

Entirely cartoonish

[@robertvalentini8007]

You need to listen to more Catholic apologetics to understand why some of the most brilliant Protestants convert to to Catholicism when they research Christian history and what the Catholic Church actually teaches.