Would you like to add non-English, closed caption subtitles for this video??? Then visit kzread.info_video?ref=share&v=zR8Rve_Fy3c

@Maxcb777

5 жыл бұрын

translated almost 6 min today yay

@Maxcb777

5 жыл бұрын

I was wrong, it was ony a bit more than 5 min lol, and i just edited again , had forgot to make Pierre presentation

@andytuesday500

4 жыл бұрын

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 KZread. Thanks for such an extended interview with the great Pierre Grimes

@keylupveintisiete7552

3 жыл бұрын

For me, it's the best. 😌

Jeffrey's questions are so beautiful and respectful of the length, breadth and width of Pierre's knowledge. So refreshing!

I feel so fortunate to have access to this type of content. Thank you, Jeffrey Mishlove.

@metafisicacibernetica

2 жыл бұрын

é nóis!

Pierre is a true sage of our times. I love this channel, thank you Jeffrey.

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!

@Refulgent_Rascal

5 ай бұрын

The Orthodox church has a huge focus on the logos.

Pierre Grimes is such a treasure, as are your conversations with him, Jeffrey. Thank you for this treat.

What a treasure this man is! Thanks for having him on again.

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!

37:28 - "We really need the myth of Prometheus!" Amazing how this sentiment dovetails with Jason Jorjani's message.

Jeffrey, thank you for your long and honest work, bringing us quality content.

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

Marvellous conversation. Important thoughts on the interpretation of ancient texts. Thank you indeed.

Another great one guys...fascinating stuff. Looking forward to more...thanks!

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.

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

Just got my first book of plato, yesterday. It collects the dialogues dealing with socrates, mostly!

Thank you both very much.

Great scholarly debate. Thank you. I was waiting for Pierre or Jeffrey to get into Alchemy/Jung. This program should have Peter Kingsley.

@haljasonfoster2169

Жыл бұрын

We need Peter Kingsley on NTA

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.

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.

@user-tz8xl2kf6q

4 жыл бұрын

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...

@SavageHenry777

2 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@metafisicacibernetica

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-tz8xl2kf6q autos

The long form is the way to go. Thank you Dr Mishlove

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

@ferguscullen8451

4 жыл бұрын

Pierre Grimes' lecture on "why thinking Christians should be Platonists" is available at /watch?v=25q7LY4vz2s It covers some related areas.

@uniformityofnature1488

2 жыл бұрын

Hear hear

Wow wow wow wow. I really could have used this on Sundays growing up.

This was very interesting. Thanks.

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.

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.

Great interview. Thanks

I am really happy that I've listened to this.

It’s time for more Pierre

Loved this! Thanks

So interesting, thank you

What a fun conversation!

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

@daragildea7434

4 жыл бұрын

The so-called "Gospel of John" was written by Greek gentile Christians. The influence of Greek philosophy and mythology is undeniable.

@Z3nHolEminD

4 жыл бұрын

Or Book #66,,, written by the Other John....gtfoh

@matthewkopp2391

3 жыл бұрын

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.

@matthewkopp2391

3 жыл бұрын

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.

Beyond Supergood. One of the Reasons you two enjoy the dialogues you have is because you are both generally not with your peer. :>

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.

I wish Pierre engaged with the Church fathers, so many of the earliest were staunch Platonists! The Trinity is a lesson in Greek philosophy!

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 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.

@dis4980

4 жыл бұрын

Excellent contribution

@eDENjoetree

4 жыл бұрын

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.

Great! "We thinkers, we can have fun together" 🙌 And what fun I could have had if Pierre was my grandfather. Never too late, ofcourse... Thank you for the 'just right' subtilities where staring almost broke the screen! 😉 P.S. Jeffrey, your camera gets sentient. 😂

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

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.

@JuliaHelen777

5 жыл бұрын

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...)

@GJ-dj4jx

5 жыл бұрын

Indeed on both accounts. What kind of society are we when philosophical discussions are almost never included in our general conversation.

@heyzeus7783

2 жыл бұрын

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.

Wonderful

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

Grimes is a national treasure

I really wonder if pierre grimes ever mentioned robert graves in one of his classes/recordings..

what particular word is he saying in 13:40, I can't make out! Some help guys please?

@laurelharris8519

5 жыл бұрын

"...engaged in all kinds of abstract and perilous thinking."

Ty

Thanks Dr. Mishlove. In my search for truth, I keep coming back to your channel. So much to learn, and you seem to have the content which supports that learning process!

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.

'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.

He's a gem

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.

@user-tz8xl2kf6q

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@user-dm5kv9gz8h

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@user-tz8xl2kf6q

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-dm5kv9gz8h 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...

@user-dm5kv9gz8h

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@user-tz8xl2kf6q

4 жыл бұрын

@@user-dm5kv9gz8h 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"...

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 :/

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.

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.

Christianity is the central idea of greek philosophy actually cristianity is a Greek religion for the Greek cosmopolis of the Roman empire

Grimes should be added to the list, right after Proclus, as 'student of Plato'

@metafisicacibernetica

2 жыл бұрын

Ken Wheeler also... (search about Theoria Apophasis on the KZread.)

I'm having some problems with the history assumed by this KZread. 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

Meant, where can I join such gentlemen?

currently reading robert graves' and joshua podro's "the Nazarene gospel restored"

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.

What is New Thinking in it

Grimes is a treasure - a Platonist prophet

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

🖤

Thank you so much, Pierre and Jeffrey. What sublime conversation. It could have lasted hours.

Absolutely adore these guys in conversation!!🤩

The great philosopher Empedoklis ressurected a woman. So, ressurection was known to Greeks

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

@BlySS93

4 жыл бұрын

@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

@mojave19

4 жыл бұрын

Jos A Elizondo First of all, in war.

@logos1.618

4 жыл бұрын

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!

@BlySS93

4 жыл бұрын

@@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

@logos1.618

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

What an amazing man Jeffrey! Please have this man on again. The Logos conversation is amazing because everyone is speaking about it without this beautiful mans understanding !

Mishlove rides again!

@4:25 good definition of Logos

@Arkoudeides.

5 жыл бұрын

Logos means the Divine Logik.Greetings from Greece.

@metafisicacibernetica

2 жыл бұрын

@@Arkoudeides. so, what means divine logic,?

Plz plz let him follow the thread to its conclusion.we will never know what he wanted to say about the 12 principles...

@Arkoudeides.

5 жыл бұрын

The Greek gods are the powers of nature.Greetings from Athens.

@owl6218

5 жыл бұрын

@@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...

08:52

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.

@arrus

4 жыл бұрын

yea lul thats a glaring flaw in Pierre's Anti-Pauline position

@metafisicacibernetica

2 жыл бұрын

uhnnn...

I will be the Oliver Twist here:please,can I have some more?

In farsi, Khod is self, Khoda is God, and khoob is good.

*Watch at 1.5x*

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

@NewThinkingAllowed

Күн бұрын

There are the Dead Sea Scrolls.

@banditbaker1675

Күн бұрын

@@NewThinkingAllowed Indeed there are the Qumran scrolls, but they date from the first century BCE so they are much younger

The Greek Pantheon is many generations after the holly trinity Chaos Gaia Eros in Isiodos Theogonia. Greetings from Athens.

Really want to like this video. The “corruption of catholic priests concerning pederasty argument” is kinda confusing, as “a rejection of Platonism” which relies heavily upon this practice in the symposium. This is why The Epicureans, which does not seem like ‘hedonistic materialism’ but rather a kind of felicific calculus, and their rejection of of pederasty seems more Christian, despite the atheistic aspects which wind their way into Marxism. One could argue that epicurean theism is similar to Yang Chu and Lao Zi, which are not atheistic but rather ambiguously theistic, like a kind of gnostic-agnosticism. Which is also typical of Christ and Ibn Arabi. (Ref. Sufism and Taoism). It would be good if we could get more clarification about Dr Grimes’ take on this problem inherent in the symposium.

Greek philosophy +Judaism=Christianity?

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. ✝️

@niopomilia1485

3 жыл бұрын

Seek the Lord and be reconciled with the Logos. +

One self lifetime transfer quantum entanglement which have the “sproof”unknown answer.

"self" = "soul" (meaning and etymology)

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.

@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 KZread 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 kzread.info/dash/bejne/lGmLk7WFqdbdoJM.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!

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.

I prefer the symbology of poseidon, not neptune...apollo was the first to the moon.

I would like to see transparency in the Catholic hierarchy. especially with the archives of the Vatican. Imagine entering all of those dates times and people and then turning it over to an artificial intelligent algorithm to get a clear understanding of the evolution of the religion most of us practice. Religious transmutation?

Thank you for sharing this remarkable interview! I might hesitate to give Plato a poor grade in his representation on Socrates because what we have of Plato’s pen are curious dialogues that seem to function as explorations of his “unwritten doctrines”. It’s entirely possible that he gave Socrates’ thought and character more thorough analysis in this capacity, that is, in his everyday function of teaching and discussion that was central to the likes of Albinus, Apuleius, Aristotle, and the Neoplatonists. Alternatively , Plato’s clear, straightforward doctrines might have been purposefully hidden, even if they were NOT unwritten, with a view to staying out of trouble. In other words, there may have been incentive to have posterity believe that his core doctrines were unwritten, or to keep them safeguarded from outsiders as did the Pythagoreans. I post this comment more because I find the subject Plato’s “unwritten doctrines” very interesting, not because I think I’m teaching Pierre anything he does not already know! I readily recognize and openly acknowledge his depth and breadth of familiarity with these subjects. To put it vernacularly, he’s hella Hellenic. 😆 Similarly, it is my hope to inspire curiosity and interest in any reader that may not have been aware that Plato had more going on than his extent dialogues. From page 1 of Dillon’s, The Middle Platonists, “..in order to understand the directions taken by Plato’s immediate successors, it is necessary here to say a few words about what are commonly known as Plato’s ‘unwritten doctrines’, since it is to those at least as much as to the dialogues that his immediate successors are reacting.” Page 2 “The reasons for writing the dialogues, and the conditions of their publication, are [..] mysterious.”

again again and again

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... 🌈🦉

If what Pierre says concerning the significance of the word “the” to Greek philosophy is correct (and I’m not sure that it is), therein would lie the problem with “Western” (to use that term loosely) thinking. “The,” as he says, can be used to turn an adjective into a substantive. In other words, it can objectify a quality (i.e., turn a quality into a fixed, changeless object). The world understood as composed of fixed, changeless objects is a world characterized by separation (e.g., this object cannot be that object; A is A and B is B, and A cannot be B; etc.). A world characterized by separation is a world of opposing forces-a view which, in turn, conduces to conflict and alienation. Hence the emphasis on the “self”-i.e., the separate, autonomous self or “ego” that is distinct from all other selves, and which has been the preoccupation of European philosophy and, arguably, the primary mover of European and Middle Eastern history. D.T. Suzuki once put Western thinking (specifically Christianity) this way: “God against man. Man against God. Man against nature. Nature against man. Nature against God. God against nature. Very funny religion!” This perfectly expresses an objectified world of separation as constructed by the use of the word “the.” A closer approximation to what could be called the truth of existence is not objects and separation, but processes and unity-a view held by many pre-Socratic (meaning, pre-Platonic) philosophers, as well as virtually every non-Western (specifically, non-Abrahamic) spiritual system.

@badmen1550

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think D.T. Suzuki fully understood Christian theology. Imagine a God so against man that he took the form of a man in order to absolve all of humanity of their sins. The overly simplistic characterization of Western thought as being about "objects and separation" has been attributed to the Abrahamic religions when really it should only be attributed to the scientific materialism that became prominent after the Enlightenment era. I think a more accurate characterization of Christian theology could be "multiplicity within unity".

I lovethese rascals

The idea that the "Western Tradition" represents a dialogue between different minds across different time periods answers the question "What about these other cultures?" The dialogue presents a coherent progression of ideas from great thinkers using an agreed upon set of terms, definitions and structures. I imagine each culture would have its own dialogue and should be studied independently from the Western timeline.