People seem to completely miss what the discussion is about... Pageau is making a theological argument, not an artistic one. God the Father can only theologically be imaged by God the Son. This is not a commentary on the artistry of the painting.

@burnttoast111

3 ай бұрын

Yes! Michelangelo is famously known as "The Theologian Photographer of Supernatural Events Without any Interest in Making Art Who Paints Because Film Cameras Haven't Been Invented Yet". Obviously Pageau's grasp of the situation cannot be improved, and is further substantiated by Jesus's words before the 500 in 'The Book of FIlm Cameras Haven't Been Invented Yet', where he proclaims 'As whilst thee wish to paint Thy Lord God, only I can. And I whilst not.' It's a rock solid theological position.

@jordanbtucker

2 ай бұрын

Well god would just be an older version of Jesus, so the white hair and beard make sense.

@burnttoast111

2 ай бұрын

@@jordanbtucker Theologically, there are some problems here. Jesus has been referred to in some texts as the agent of creation, and also was supposed to be descended from the house of David. I think you just aren't supposed to think about it.

1:43 Alex: 🥺 👉👈

@mikaeus468

3 ай бұрын

Alex when finally confronted with Jesus's love:

@maalikserebryakov

3 ай бұрын

@@mikaeus468 jesus on the cross: “OH GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN MEEEEEEEEE” christians: Forget what he said. He died for our sins

@mikaeus468

3 ай бұрын

@@maalikserebryakov Oh my God, he didn't say that. He said "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit." Read the Bible. The parts I like, preferably.

@borgwardd24

Ай бұрын

​@@mikaeus468He did say that. Matthew 27:45-47 says so. But it's a quotation of Psalm 22. If you seriously want to understand the meaning of what Christ said, it's important to read the whole Psalm.

I personally find that painting to be the most profound religious painting out there because it embodies what religion is about. Reaching for the divine/something greater.

@arnaldoflores2403

3 ай бұрын

If you look closely, Adam is not really reaching out as much, it's God that actually reaches out more, which is part of the idea in christianity, that God is always reaching out to humanity, rather than us reaching out to Him

@dobbersanchez1185

3 ай бұрын

Reaching out for something greater, with a safe supply of naked babies around. Catholic AF

@AssailantLF

3 ай бұрын

this seems like a very secular interpretation of the painting

@RangerRyke

3 ай бұрын

@@AssailantLF it is. Iv always found abstract interpretations more interesting because they tend to spot universal psychological implications.

@dobbersanchez1185

3 ай бұрын

Hey where'd my witty naked-baby church-child-abuse joke go? free speech?

6:35 Raphael was not a sculptor, but a painter and arquitect, and he must have been about 15 years old when Michelangelo made his Pieta, so there must be a mistake here.

@jursamaj

3 ай бұрын

Well, it's like the rest of religion: somebody makes up a story, it gets repeated a lot, and eventually people think it's true.

@miguelbarahona6636

3 ай бұрын

Raphael was a sculptor, one of the most famous is the bronze statue of St. Michael the Archangel, which is in the Louvre Museum. Another notable sculpture is the Madonna della Sedia, which is housed in the Palatine Gallery in Florence.

@miguelbarahona6636

3 ай бұрын

@@jursamaj First, check your facts.

@Paprikaah

3 ай бұрын

⁠@@miguelbarahona6636Isn’t Madonna Della Sedia a painting?

@albertotiraferri3241

3 ай бұрын

Yep, so is the St. Michael in the Louvre, which makes me a bit confused about what's going on here.

I've always thought the idea of a cathedrals interior is to give the impression of arriving in something special and to be admired, Similar to the buildings in ancient Roman.

@kevinbeck8836

3 ай бұрын

depends on the theology of those that built the cathedral. The designs vary greatly

@murderyoutubeworkersandceos

3 ай бұрын

>in ancient ROMAN let me visit u in your modern american

@johnrangi4830

3 ай бұрын

@@murderyoutubeworkersandceos I don't understand the relevance of that response but ok.

@murderyoutubeworkersandceos

3 ай бұрын

@@johnrangi4830 if u did, u wouldntve fucked up

@johnrangi4830

3 ай бұрын

@@murderyoutubeworkersandceos oh you're trying to funny, ok. Here you go, ha ha ha you're so entertaining.

I'm sure someone already said this, but Jonathan Pageau does understand Renaissance Catholicism? I mean, it's fine if you don't like it, that's chill. It is clearly not innovation for innovation sake, and I have a feeling the Pope might be more well versed in biblical visual metaphor than most. Not to mention the desire to blend this with platonic ideals from Michelangelo's point of view, which injected some interesting things. Every dang inch of it is deeply thought out and stewed in fervent, intelligent, and artistically challenging religious expression of devotion. Again, its just a painting on some old building, but if you are going to talk about it publicly, seems wise to have a depth of knowledge and understanding to draw from.

as an atheist i love the michaelangelo piece as for me it represents not god creating man but man creating god- if you look at the image with the opposite interpretation it can make sense for you even if that wasnt the artists intention

@GrandmasterFerg

3 ай бұрын

I look at it with both interpretations

@RuthwikRao

3 ай бұрын

Is this the Westworld thing?

I mean to be fair, imagine you're Michael Angelo and you're asked to make a painting of a being that's supposed to have no physical form, what else could he have done?

@OhManTFE

3 ай бұрын

Literally a billion different things

@joannware6228

3 ай бұрын

@@OhManTFE Examples please.

@OhManTFE

3 ай бұрын

A glowing white silhouette

@rodomolina7995

3 ай бұрын

@@OhManTFE Would've been boring asf, you still have to make it look beautiful

@OhManTFE

3 ай бұрын

You asked for an example I gave one. Go think up any other idea you want. Something less boring than a generic bearded guy like santa out of uniform

By that logic you should not draw a cube on a 2D sheet of paper, because it will always be a false representation of the ""Metaphysical"" thing itself...

@siyabongampongwana990

3 ай бұрын

Lol exactly dawg. Pageau just coping.

@YorgeZay

3 ай бұрын

God is not a cube... We know what cubes look like and how to physically represent them because they exist in a tangible way in physical space, the point is that we can't say the same of God the Father and should therefore not depict Him.

It seems odd that Jonathan appears to be taking the painting literally. He says it's theologically bunk because God isn't a bearded man, but I doubt Michaelangelo thought God actually looked like that either. It's pretty obviously supposed to be an artistic imagining. Is art supposed to always be literal?

@emiliawisniewski3947

Ай бұрын

To the Orthodox, yes. But that’s why their art isn’t as popular but Catholic is.

H Alex, I've always wanted to visit the Pristine Chapel. My grandmother was a cleaner there

@crushtheserpent

3 ай бұрын

haha

Have Pageau back on

무신론자로써 마켈란젤로의 작품을 사랑하는 이유는 현실을 담아낸 귀중한 표현이기 때문입니다.

As an atheist, tbf i can see the symbolism of touching hands to give Life as an attempt to avoid breathing in an another man's mouth to avoid the gay baggage (i remember the criticism over the Peter's kiss- tho not 100% sure it was peter i remember)

@GrandmasterFerg

3 ай бұрын

Touching hands in also pretty gae

@ReverendDr.Thomas

3 ай бұрын

Do you use any of the following (somewhat euphemistic) terms? • gay • homophobia/homophobe • transphobia/transphobe • trans-sexual • transgender • cis gender • sex worker • African-American • capitalism/capitalist • any gender-specific pronoun other than he/she, him/her or his/her Then CONGRATULATIONS - you are (either knowingly or unwittingly) a silly shill for the loony left!

@feedingravens

3 ай бұрын

When I understand it correctly, is that thou shalt not make any graven images, not only from God or Jesus, but also of anything God created. Because creating an image of God's creation is to challenge God as creator, and that is intolerable. Islam takes that serously, therefore all is full of ornaments, but no depictions of nature, animals or humans. Jesus got fingered by God, and not begotten - according to Michelangelo...

@midnight8341

3 ай бұрын

​@@feedingravensthat in the picture is Adam, not Jesus. Also: literally the Roman catholic church ordered the ceiling to be painted. They paid for it after it was painted. So who the hell is anyone else but that organisation to criticize them for it? Sure, they're hypocrites after their own rules, but THAT'S not even close to the most hypocritical thing they're ever done, so people should really reevaluate their priorities...

@sadderwhiskeymann

3 ай бұрын

@@feedingravens that's a valid point, among other objections in this vid. I was addressing the other (the "what's that supposed to mean?")

That's Zeus, bro.

Question about religion (I’m a newbie): why did the Christian god decide to “talk” to humans at the time he did. As in. Why did he choose that specific time and place and person to speak through ?

@mikaeus468

3 ай бұрын

He's omniscient, at least in Judaism/Christianity/Islam, so presumably he revealed himself at the optimal time and in the optimal way to achieve his desired goals.

@nadinewhite993

3 ай бұрын

Because that's when the people who wrote the stories decided to write them. How do you mass wealth and power if there's tons of different gods people are worshipping? What you do is roll all the gods into one and all the power and wealth is yours. So the timing coincided with when enough travel had occurred for people to gather up a bunch of stories from different times and mythologies and to then edit and wrap them all up into one bundle.

@TheMatriarch-uf6xs

2 ай бұрын

There’s so much hidden but it was likely to bring messengers since God was aware of what evils would unfold on earth - as suffering brings virtue to enrich the army of angels in Catholic dialogue. If we look at more archeological reasons why, the tribe of Da’an is an interesting find - it was to establish a systemized world with not so moral ends as we see now. It’s so hard to sift through everything, but even in early Christian’b(Gnostic) teachings, it speaks of the God who spoke to be the demiurge, not the Monad or the actual creator; but a “jealous God” to be like a God. His mother was Sophia, daughter of the creator who tried to be like God, and birthed our universe; hence the light before the light. There are numerous floods so my own theory is…when humans, who have so much light in them, and the ability to be like Gods (Aeons), the demiurge wipes them out, and the Da’an come to help. Most alien abductions react negatively to prayer and don’t return so there is a correlation with space and dark ..: entities, however defined. Beyond our space is likely where God exists, but is in everything we see, and Jesus came down from beyond the universe to warn us. The child (Aeon) of the Monad, and couteree Moses (who saw the demiurge). Something like that. Just my theory

@burnttoast111

2 ай бұрын

@@TheMatriarch-uf6xs It's weird when you compare this to history. Suffering, if severe enough, leads to desperation. The 1929 stock market crash shook the world. Common people suffered under severe austerity, and it probably didn't seem like an end was in sight. This led to fringe lunatics taking power in both Germany and Japan. People deeply unpopular before the crash. Leading to approximately 70 - 85 million deaths in WW II. Don't get me wrong. I think to be a good person, you need to struggle a bit in life. You need some hardship to have real compassion for others who are struggling. But severe desperation can lead to accepting anything which promises to be a solution, and this can lead to terrible outcomes.

wow, I never said it before, but I've had the same thoughts about that image. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an 'aberration' (I'm no iconographer), but yeah, theologically it is hard to accept. I don't know how anyone would imagine God like that... I just take it as part of the history of art more than illustration of theology. I'm sure it's helped some people at some point, but not me. In fact, I've never been a fan of Michaelangelo, I've tried to like it before, because I generally like old Catholic things... but I find Eastern iconography much more compelling.

@burnttoast111

3 ай бұрын

Don't worry my friend. All Christian art was aberration until the time that those depictions become accepted and replicated. If you looked at the oldest Christian art without an explanation of what you were looking at, there's a really good chance you would have no idea what you were looking at.

I understand the touch because I have actually kept up spiritual practice for 3.5 years currectly, every day. Keep up a meditation discipline and you will also understand it.

@burnttoast111

3 ай бұрын

I don't know what makes me more sad. That you are so close to the 3.67 year threshold where beliefs can no longer be maintained, or that you are saying that you believed something you didn't understand. I wish you the best.

@bike4aday

3 ай бұрын

You're the second person I've seen say this in Alex's comments over the last couple days. I too started practicing back in 2020. It is true... Those who have felt the touch know it, those who haven't don't. I've not been the same since. Just the way it is

@jason-iy7vs

3 ай бұрын

@@burnttoast111 you're strange

@burnttoast111

3 ай бұрын

@@jason-iy7vs How so?

@jason-iy7vs

3 ай бұрын

@@burnttoast111 name one thing that you believe in that you "understand"

Alex, you evil genius, that thumbnail is hilarious 😂😂😂

It seems to me like Michelangelo's personal interpretation of god. The silhouette surrounding the old man is meant to look like a brain, so I guess it represents the mind of god. As for the naked babies, they could the rest of god's children, his creations. The outstretched fingers may have been a compromise, so as to avoid portraying god breathing life into Adam which may be misconstrued as a homosexual act, etc. It definitely feels like he made it up as he went although I wouldn't be too harsh on him personally. Theological knowledge tends to fade through time as languages change and the original meanings behind terms and concepts shift. It may never have even occurred to him that to portray the ineffable makes no sense or that it could lead to false assumptions.

@kevinbeck8836

3 ай бұрын

Yes I am glad someone else mentioned that. The red cloth around God the Father is indeed shaped like a brain. I took it to mean that "God" is a product of our mind or that our world is shaped by our minds. Adam was "created" when our minds developed Thats my interpretation anyway

@siyabongampongwana990

3 ай бұрын

Nothing is wrong with the painting. Pageau just coping and appeasing Alex at the expense of Michael Angelo.

@nilsqvis4337

2 ай бұрын

I'm pretty sure the brain thing is just a coincidence that was discovered later. Back when it was painted the brain's significance wasn't known at all.

@kevinbeck8836

2 ай бұрын

@@nilsqvis4337 Back when it was painted the brain's significance wasn't known at all?! My friend, its been known since the Romans that an injury to the head can alter a personality. Humans aren't stupid. They might not have understood how a brain works but they damn well know its important

What was Michelangelo's resaoning/rationale for painting this?

@brunosm.l2267

3 ай бұрын

We don't have one, I think. Bare in mind those works were commissioned

Mark Rylance as da Vinci and about Michaelangelo is called Leonardo 2003 ‧ Documentary ‧

I'm sorry, but haven't we figured out the meaning of that particular work of art at this point? With the image of the human brain behind the godlike figure, and the two fingers coming close to touching basically illustrating humanity being equal to "god" as far as which created which (or at least each being just as likely to have created eachother)? Not saying Michelangelo was a secret atheist (he may have been, but I don't think you can know one way or the other definitely), but maybe this was just a way for him to safely express his own occasional doubt (or just to express the doubt of others without being labeled a doubter himself). Either way, I highly doubt he expected everyone to look at the bearded man and think that was what God looked like, but merely for him to stand in for God to express a separate meaning with his work (like the one's I described above). Basically, I'm saying I think the guy is focusing too much on and getting too angry at the depiction of God in the painting as opposed to what the work in its entirety is supposed to be getting across (whether we agree on what that is or not) :).

@erinmagner

3 ай бұрын

Michelangelo was definitely not a "secret atheist", but he was probably homosexual and lived in celibacy.

@brunosm.l2267

3 ай бұрын

That's entirely your interpretation. And no, we can't figure it out 'scientifically' because the meaning was not put into words or explained, it was just put on a chapel. Some of the meaning it's pretty obvious because it was made for a chapel, but art always have its details and one can continue interpreting it. In some cases even finding out new things like in Boch's paintings.

@RubedoURTV666

3 ай бұрын

@@brunosm.l2267 Uuuuummmmmmmm..... Who said this was figured out "scientifically?" :)

@brunosm.l2267

3 ай бұрын

@@RubedoURTV666 'scientific' doesn't mean only empirical science, there is also 'historical science', etc. But you can change "scientifically" for "for a fact".

@RubedoURTV666

3 ай бұрын

@brunosm.l2267 Now I'm even more confused because who said anything about "a fact" either? Advice, if you're gonna throw quotes around, make sure someone actually said what you're quoting. If you read the entirety of every comment here - you'll see you're not making any sense :).

This argument just shows the disconnect between "lay theology" and the "sophisticated" theology of the priests. Of course the lay members have always visualized God as an old bearded man. And since the priests *were* lay people before getting "trained" in theology, that was still in the back of their minds as well.

@erinmagner

3 ай бұрын

It was also the Renaissance and a lot of clergy were very interested in antiquities of pagan figures. One of my favorite Michelangelo sculptures is one of his first commissions called The Bacchus. He chose to sculpt a realistic drunk man as the god of wine, instead of the whimsical playful dancing depictions that were common. The client rejected and to be fair, the purpose behind his choice was probably an insult. My guess is that Michelangelo didn't have full artistic license for each image given that this was going to be scripture and therefore it needed to serve the needs of the public, not just Michelangelo.

Yet when we pray we say God the father and things like we are his children; and yet he is surprised that God is surrounded by naked babies. And Adam and Eve ate the apple and felt shame when they realized that they're are naked, and covered themselves...God asked them "who said you are naked?"...God does say in the bible that we be like children...surrounded by naked babies could represent that those we are with God, are his children -Nakedness = truth, no shame and the Babies = eternal youth, fountain of youth etc... I think you can make the connections. I think Jonathan Pageau was just subconciously appeasing the person who invited him, maybe to avoid being pressed on certain things and having to explain them but if he does not really understand or view the painting as a monstrosity then I think he is definitely wrong because I'm sure Michael Angelo knows much more about representing God visually than he does -Jonathan is just an interpreter, he does not specialize or get paid for representing God visually.

"In this life no one can fulfill his longing, nor can any creature satisfy man’s desire. Only God satisfies, he infinitely exceeds all other pleasures. That is why man can rest in nothing but God." -St. Thomas Aquinas

I mean... There are bigger problems with christian theology than to believe or not believe that God is a bearded man in the sky. But it is just kind of a strange take... The bible does say that God created man in his image, and he takes sort of a humanoid form in other parts of the old testament. Furthermore, ancient jewish artifacts did portray God with human form from the days of them being henotheists. So I think he is overstating his case a bit. Or giving too much weight to his theology as if it is a superior form... When they are just opinions.

@Diepvries11

3 ай бұрын

It's fine to represent god as a bearded man in the sky. Anybody who is convinced and devoted to their faith, know he is more than that. If you don't like it when he is portrayed, it seems to me their belief is very flimsy. Same as how it's not allowed to show pictures of mohammed.

Is theology a theory or a science, proven? If it is a theory, it can be challenged with another theory such as the representation of creation on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. And what would happen if it were said that theology is a monstrosity?

If there is any divinity would it not by definition be incomprehensible to mortals? So any and all depictions of a divinity in any religious system are someone's imagination as are the supposed teachings and writings of such a divinity.

Naked babies represent innocence (adam and eve were naked prior to sinning) and safety (no need to worry about environment or predators) The fingers represent a desire from both parties to have relationship, but separated by a chasm (the fall, sin). Why represent the Father as a bearded man? Obviously not meant to be taken literally. Instead, focus on the overlaps: Men are personal, the Father is personal (more can be added). Also, I'm just making this up. I have no idea if the above interpretations were intended.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

2 ай бұрын

@@TND.4.worldpeace interesting. I'll look into that

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

2 ай бұрын

@@TND.4.worldpeace were my own comments totally off?

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

2 ай бұрын

@TND.4.worldpeace thanks man. May I ask why you chose that profile picture?

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

2 ай бұрын

@@TND.4.worldpeace oh bro. Didn't realize I was talking to Kanye. Cmon man

Also, claiming that god can't be represented physically or doing so is a sign of theological deterioration is silly in so many levels. One, there are passages describing god's appearance in the bible. Two, theology has never been solid or "undeteriorated", there are many doctrines and so called orthodoxies.

I just visited the Sistine Chapel.

god the father had no father. his son had two fathers tho'. was mary a surrogate?

From the thumbnail I thought Alex was talking to Dan Harmon

@MichaelDeHaven

3 ай бұрын

That could've been interesting.

@borna1231

3 ай бұрын

Haha, me to!

@HIMYMTR

3 ай бұрын

​the guy who made community?

@borna1231

3 ай бұрын

@@HIMYMTR Yes, and Rick and Morty. My favourite thing of his is the podcast though.

I wonder if Michelangelo thought or even cared if his work was interpreted literally? Is the artist or patron responsible for others' thoughts?

@burnttoast111

3 ай бұрын

Clearly it wasn't some big problem at the time. He painted it, and it remained on the ceiling of a celebrated religious site. It makes one wonder if people who are upset at it imagine that the clergy at the time all had fused spines & neck braces, preventing them from looking up, or perhaps if no one could find a ladder to cover it up. I think the most troubling thing is people who think art is supposed to be like a film documentary. All the while they say things they don't like in their scripture are allegory, not meant to be taken literally.

it was a commission. the artist was paid to represent something like "god the father (using all that represented at the time) giving life to adam". now i am sure that they could have done something else, but this was approved by the commissioners. sure, there is art involved, but mostly it is craft. the various representations are drawn from the bible in various ways, but as its so vague it was more about what the commissioner wanted from the text. please, don't blame the artist for needing to be paid by a commissioner: we artists have an odd fetish for eating and paying rent. i have no idea who guy talking as an artist is, but he seems a tad ill informed about the basics of the history of the subject

I saw the Sistine Chapel ceiling and don’t get me wrong. A hell of a lot of work went into it, but honestly, it’s a bit gaudy in over the top images. The pictures of naked men really doesn’t do much for me, and Michelangelo’s portrayal of naked women is clearly a man who never saw a naked woman since he paints them with men’s bodies which is revolting to look at. Raphael was a far better painter.

Wow, I thought this guy was regressive when I saw him bagging on modernist architecture. Turns out his aesthetics are literally medieval.

God comes across as physical being walking around and talking in the book of genesis. He’s very Zeus or Odin. It’s only after that he gets made into a mysterious invisible force.

Mark rylance did a great film that includes Michelangelo they were rivals and Michaelangelo didn’t like the criticisms of his patron rushing him so he painted his paetrons face in hell

@burnttoast111

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, Michelangelo had some fun with it, which is great. Gotta make the best of your situation.

''What are they admiring there ''?...A quite revealing question there from Alex.

As an atheist, even I understood what their hands are showing. God’s arm down to his fingers are fully stretched, whereas Adam only has to extend his arm, wrist or fingers a little and he’ll be able to touch God. Symbolizing God has done most of the work already, we just have to put in a little effort be to connected with God.

I used to watch Pageau all the time for years when i was a Roman Catholic, and i have to say, just from his body language to me he look very intimidated!

I recall being told that there’s theological significance to the lazy way in which Adam seems almost reluctantly to be reaching out to God. I’ve no idea what that significance is! My own view as to the child images which seem to proliferate in art of the time is that this is how they were perceived. Put bluntly, they were little angels who were available to celibate priests. Sex with children was not a breach of this celibacy.

@danieltemelkovski9828

3 ай бұрын

Yeah, cool take bro.

In real life Michaelangelo was called rude obnoxious and an angry man who spent more time in the mortuary examining an Antomy he had a toxic personality

@Skautar

3 ай бұрын

so what

@Skautar

3 ай бұрын

so what

@vez3834

3 ай бұрын

@@Skautar If what he said is true, it's a good reminder to not make these people into something impossibly good in your mind. They are just humans at the end of the day.

@siyabongampongwana990

3 ай бұрын

That is how society starts justifying the killing of God's children. Well, the Devil is definitely not rude or obnoxious or angry.

The Sistine chapel is used for religious purposes without the crowed- that is the election of the Pope.

Funny thing is that golden calf God got mad about in the Old Testament? That wasn't meant to be a new god that the Hebrews made up in that moment. That was supposed to be a representation of THE god. They say, "This is the god who led us out of Egypt." The reason God got pissed was because he didn't like being depicted in art. God was basically like, "That's not what I look like! I'm the pillar of fire! I'm the burning bush! I'm mysterious. No one can look at my face and live. And you've reduced me to this?" This is why there was a rule made afterwards that they should not make graven images of God. If this god were real, he would probably be pretty offended by this painting.

@chrismathis5601

3 ай бұрын

The cow was a call back to other ancient holy beings, much like they are today in Islam. That’s what his problem was with it. Not a god, no, but the representation of something that was worshipped. It was an idol, and the argument could be made that so is the cross today.

@ChristopherWentling

3 ай бұрын

@@chrismathis5601But it is true that they believed they were making an idol of their god, not an Egyptian one. That is lost by many. To them they were creating an idol of Yahweh.

is the depiction of light in iconography of christ's baptism and the transfiguration not a "depiction" of god the father?

@andrewpirr

28 күн бұрын

The dove in the icon of Christ's baptism and the Light on Mt. Tabor represent the uncreated energies of God. They don't represent God the Father nor God the Holy Spirit.

@johnkoutsoupakis

25 күн бұрын

@@andrewpirr according to who? this is the first time I’ve ever heard of “uncreated energies” being depicted in Byzantine iconography. You have any other examples of these “uncreated energies” in byzantine icons, because I’d love to see them.

@andrewpirr

25 күн бұрын

@@johnkoutsoupakis have you researched much about Orthodox iconography?

I was waiting for a comparison of Muslims not allowing the representation of Muhammad or the Jews not being allowed to pronounce the written name of god in some ancient Hebrew writing.

Judd Apatow????

I like the image of Jane Goodall reaching in a similar way to touch the hand of a baby chimpanzee

What if we… 🥹👉👈

@unrecognizedtalent3432

3 ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂

Sorry to be the "down to earth" Diogene to your conversation but the main problem with the Chapel is having to pay several hundreds euros, on reservation, to visit this place in good conditions. Otherwise get ready for the worst experience ever (policemen shouting, people pushing, pickpocketing, long queue outside and inside the museum etc.) It has a name: greed. In the end, lame. So many things to see in Rome, anyway.

The title is the only thing wrong. This is not "The Creation of Adam". This is "The Redemption of Adam" -- and what it depicts, without words, is the Reformation argument about salvation. Who's doing the work here? God, obviously. Is Adam making any contribution at all? That's what the argument is about.

I'm not sure what is more insane, the idea that there is a big old geezer up there with a great white beard who is very, *very* concerned with the lives of a subgroup of primates or instead the idea of an unthinkable Cthulhu-like entity who is also (very bizarrely) concerned with what we get up to. The former at the very least makes sense from an anthropological perspective, for there is nothing unusual about a culture developing a myth to quench the need for an explanation of life and this leads to the cosmic extrapolation of a social hierarchical structure ending in a powerful, overseeing deity that reflects those social structures present in that human community.

@matthewphilip1977

3 ай бұрын

A subgroup of primates according to some evolutionists.

I'm not religious but didn't the Bible say humans are made in the image of God, so it's not that far fetched to depict God as a father archetype

🤦‍♀️

I don’t agree that it’s “nonsense” to depict God the Father. Even before the incarnation of Jesus Christ the Bible speaks of times when God manifested himself. Any person of the Trinity did and could take on a visible manifestation, but Pageau is right in that it is most proper for us to replace these images with the image of Christ since Christ did come in the flesh. Christ is God, so the OT God is Christ. We can depict God the Father because of the sonship of Christ incarnate. A son looks like their father. Which is why we depict God the Father as an “older Jesus”.

I'm an atheist who has extensively studied the bible. I'm not through the whole video yet, but if you say that the creation story claims that god created adam with speech only, you're not very well informed.

thumbnail be like: 👉👈😌

That’s when God said, pull my finger.

I don't see the point of this conversation. The artistic imagery has no claim of being religiously correct and as an atheist, I don't even get the meaning of religiously correct, it is just a great painting, religion is something else, what's the sense of missing things together, it makes no sense at all.

For the first three centuries of Christianity was unpopular to portray the image of Christ often times he was portrayed as the Good Shepherd. As far as I'm concerned if he existed he was nothing more than a first century Galilean cult leader.

@feedingravens

3 ай бұрын

In the orthodox church he is usually depicted as pantokrator, as world ruler.

@burnttoast111

2 ай бұрын

IIRC, the earliest depictions of Jesus are as a philosopher, wearing those Greek robes, etc. In the Gospels, the character of Jesus scores incredibly high as an archetype of a mythological hero. IIRC, something like 24/26 points. He puts many mythological heroes to shame for not being mythological enough. Real people are pretty much never above 10 - 12 / 26. IIRC, most mythological heroes are around 16 - 18.

Isn't God there portrait as the silhouette of the brain organ. So the material thinking organ made Adam what he is?

@Angelmou

2 ай бұрын

@@TND.4.worldpeace No, the painting of Michelangelo represents the brain anatomy. Look that up.

How can Jesus be God if… When Jesus said to the Father “you are the only true God” (John 17:3), Jesus himself is telling us there is no other God. When Jesus said, “my Father is greater than all” (John 10:29) and “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). When Jesus said if you don’t believe I was sent from God, you shall die in your sins (John 8:24). When Jesus said, “I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him” (John 8:26). When Jesus said, “they understood not that he spake to them of the Father” (John 8:27). Still today, people don't understand that Jesus only spoke from the Father and not himself. These people will miss eternal life because they don't believe the Father has sent Jesus. They will die in their sins because salvation is to know them both; for they are one in agreement in all things (John 10:31). Jesus said “I have given them your word, that you have given me; and they have received them, and know that I CAME FROM YOU, and you have sent me” (John 17:8). Repent, and God will forgive.

There is no here there. Something you might want to fix Just say'n

I do not understand why anyone insists that art be theologically factually accurate. What about nonrepresentational painting? It is visually "inaccurate." So what? So don't use nonrepresentational art as anatomy class diagrams or building blueprints. Medieval people used paintings, stained glass, mosaics and sculpture to "tell" biblical stories. Does that use make the art "documentary?" Is someone using Van Gogh's Sunflowers as botanical texts? The Sistine Chapel ceiling is only "monstrous" if you mistake it for an "accuate" portrait of God the father. I suggest the depiction of Adam should not be used as a passport photo or for a driver's license. I also think da Vinci's Last Supper should not be used as evidence of how people were arranged to eat a Passover meal. Everyone--sit on one side of the table. Really? How monstrous!

For the aspiration of an intellectual understanding the almost completely cynical approach to actually try to not understand was quite disheartening.

To save you some time: There is no problem. Pageau is just whining. The real problem is the toxic christian theology.

@Dragantraces

3 ай бұрын

This is the funniest thing I've seen in a while. I can't believe anyone would think this is a debate worth having.

I like these modern theologians. I had always thought the truth of religious claims and stories was what mattered. Now I realize the utility of the faith in the results it produces is what matters, not what we believe.

Michaelangelo painted numerous Gnostic painting, including his first one. The church was upset with an image of God since in the Old Testament, and through many religions God and heavenly images are not supposed to be shown, but aside from writing; people wanted to show what they witnessed and interpreted, thus drawing and painting. Leonardo had an image hid away of Jesus holding the globe….so is it also not up to this man’s standard? God is surrounded by the innocence of children within a brain. Adam saw God in a way other children of God cannot, even if they have the jolt spirit due to the human condition. Moses was said to have seen God fully, but to comprehend it ourselves would require too much for the human mind to comprehend, hence God breaking out of the mind in the image to touch the first human in Genesis. Michealangelo is describing something perhaps this man can’t understand, and when images emerge to believers, they can barely understand it either - the Holy Spirit as defined isn’t logical, so of course he’s going to nitpick it. The painting was tongue in cheek but he hated doing the Sistine Chapel and just used the money to sculpt. He used projects for other projects. It was very hard to watch his dialogue, like an undergrad unprepared for an assignment scrambling to talk their way out of it. Alex handled it well and asked good questions. Whether you believe in God or not, it’s a mix of scripture and Gnostic understanding of the mind. Those who don’t really understand either, even if they don’t believe it in, will not get it.

@TheMatriarch-uf6xs

2 ай бұрын

*holy spirit, not Holy Spirit

I get why many Cristians hate that God would be depicted în any way, but this one God, YHWH, comes from a whole pantheon of gods, gods with bodies and faces, where Yah is the youngest of them! Somehow it feels right to think that God can be seen. Altho I'm a ateist, I grew up as a Christian Orthodox

I could never figure out the twisted theology that allowed a depiction of "God" in a holy place, when one of the most famous commandments given by this "God" is to not make any visual depictions of him ("graven image"). I get that Michelangelo didn’t care about that, but surely SOMEONE at the Vatican had heard of that particular commandment before…

Lingchi for all christians

The Creation of Adam, is god. The depiction of god is a brain, and Michaelangelo was saying we create god, right to the church's face. Hero! I have it tatted across my chest, but as a mirror-image, to elicit the observation, "It's the wrong way around", to which I respond, "Exactly!"

Well, God apparently wrestled Jacob as a man - likely a bearded one, so I see no problem with his depiction as such.

The problem with the Sistine chapel has nothing to do with Michelangelo. It was built on money extorted from the saints on threat of torment in the afterlife. Its advertising slogan was actually, "When a coin in the coffer clings, a soul from purgatory springs." Michelangelo was an artistic genius but he was paid with the price of blood and even those who condemned Christ knew nothing good comes from the same.

"As an atheist, (blah, blah, blah.)"

Yo what? Allah is described in the Quran and he has two right arms from memory?

The image of Christ is fallacious. In actuality he looks strikingly like Danny Devito!

Religion, even Christianity as rich as it is, is bunk...very little makes sense in it for any rational person...I mean if there is anything that makes sense in religion like Christianity is its art... Jonathan Pageau talks about theology like its math and Michelangelo made a mistake in the series of algebraic equations. Jesus as a son of God...(another son of god, there were like 5 of them before Jesus...now that makes a lot of sense) ...This is already a complete gibberish...The New Testament is a collection of "new" Jewish fairy tales based loosely on the collection of old Jewish fairy tales. One contradiction upon the other...Miracles...Fake letters of Paul (half of them), and how much is lost in endless re-writing of the NT, translations...and how about almost zero evidence of any kind for nearly 200 years in the early Christian period when Church simply destroyed or faked almost everything...Pageau, I just realized, is the Russian Orthodox, so obviously he has to say something negative about Vatican. One version of nonsense never likes competition. I like to add that Christianity is by far the most superior religion (especially if you look at the intellectual poverty of Islam and its endless addiction to violence) among monotheistic faiths, Christianity stands at the root of the Western civilization...

If man was made in God's image, the image of God should be like the image of man.

knowing symbology goes a long way with translating the meaning of any historical artwork.. i'm not even a fan of Michelangelo's work, however i understand it's basically a self referencing metaphysical painting, similar to the structure of the Bible.

Pageau is a wierd cat....no wonder hes always following peterson around

As soon as i hear the word "logos" i check out

I have found Alex and his conversations very interesting. However, this is getting silly. Ankle biting sophistry.

@kevinbeck8836

3 ай бұрын

ankle biting sophistry 😂 I doubt Id agree with you but I love this insult

@paulwicht6294

3 ай бұрын

@@kevinbeck8836 Feel free to use! There’s a lot of it out there.👍😊

Im a christian....this is my response....who the hell cares...worry about something else for god's sake...and that's not directed at alex

Its shows adams arrogance. Ie. His response when questioned about eating the apple, seemingly sarcastic, "YOU made her" lol

Doesnt the Bible say man was made in God's image?

@a5cent

3 ай бұрын

Yes. But there is no consensus on what that actually means. Nobody takes that to mean God has two eyes, two legs and two arms, at least not if you also consider God to be a timeless and spaceless entity, which most do. Those concepts are mutually exclusive.

@alskdjfhgqzwez6723

3 ай бұрын

@@a5cent it is so pathetic to see when people instead of admitting they have been duped, they just reinterpret the words. Just admit what it says. (Not you if not you)

@Anne_Onymous

3 ай бұрын

Either way... It's ART lol

@a5cent

3 ай бұрын

@@alskdjfhgqzwez6723 I have no idea what you are trying to say. Check your grammer? If you don't like the fact that there is no consensus on what that means, I'm certainly not the one to blame. I don't have an opinion nor do I care much. I'm only the messenger.

@alskdjfhgqzwez6723

3 ай бұрын

@@a5cent i put (not you if not you) on the end precisely to avoid this

These comments are just athiests giving their theological takes with no effort to steelman Christians but just forcing it through their materialist and progressive worldview.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

Not all of them. Some of them are from Christians, who hold the theological majority in the US, crying about how oppressed and hurt their feelings are because people don't take their bronze age superstitions seriously. "All these damn atheists asking me to prove my claims. Why can't they just let me play pretend??"

@bike4aday

3 ай бұрын

That's exactly it. They're riping out bits and pieces of another worldview, removing them from their context and supportive structures, then tossing them into another worldview and declaring its illogical and contradictive. Anything you do that to will be illogical and contradictive!

@synaxarium

3 ай бұрын

They would rather die than even consider looking through a different lens/frame.

@JD-wu5pf

3 ай бұрын

@@synaxarium Your lens is "things I believe in hard enough with zero proof are just as real as things I can measure and quantify." It's a bad lens. Your belief system is a joke.

@bike4aday

3 ай бұрын

​@@JD-wu5pf That's a perfect example of what OP was referring to - no effort to steelman and describing it how a materialist lens would see it.

Pageau is an incurious literalist.

@jason-iy7vs

3 ай бұрын

You must be misunderstanding

@havadatequila

3 ай бұрын

@@jason-iy7vs if you question art because it doesn't conform to your particular interpretation of scripture, you are a literalist.

@jason-iy7vs

3 ай бұрын

@@havadatequila This man's whole life is dedicated to a symbolic understanding of the world. for you to put him aside as an "incurious literalist" is a misunderstanding of him

Dumb and Dumber.

1:30 "Why is he surrounded by all these naked babies?" Those are cherubs. Not babies. 🤦😆

@nikitaafanas

3 ай бұрын

Cherubim dont look like babies. The babies were taken from pagan rome/greek images of puttos

First

@alskdjfhgqzwez6723

3 ай бұрын

Shut up

i must say, your click bait gets me every time. And I am also disappointed every time. Wonder how long it will take before i checkout and unsubscribe?

@MichaelDeHaven

3 ай бұрын

Why do you consider this video "clickbait"? Just curious, not an attack. I actually didn't enjoy this particular video myself, but that's because I find Pageau boring and annoying.

@Anne_Onymous

3 ай бұрын

The title was literally what the clip was about lol The dude Jonathan was explaining what he thinks is wrong with it and called it a "monstrosity." That's what the title says.

@ephemera5714

3 ай бұрын

No one cares

“God is…” always follows with complete BS.

Jesus saves. . . at the First National Bank

I'm an atheist. I've got a lot of atheist themed tattoos all over my body (pointing out I support secular art)*. I loved my time sitting in the Sistine Chapel and watching priests deliver communion. Come on. This is an incredibly lame take. This is why people hate listening to atheists. We're so obsessed with being right that we lose sight if whether the issue is important or interesting enough to discuss. Alex, come on brother. This is incredibly boring. You don't have to post everyday. Take a day off and accept you didn't get good content one day.

The necessary response, lame as it sounds, is this: to have known Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, is to have known the Father. The monstrous imagery - for a monstrosity it is .. in classic styling - comes from the likeness of God to Adam; wiser true, not callow, true, but shockingly alike. In short: Adam though a genuine monster formed among all of the material living creatures (animals) is oddly made holy to God even his very limited corporeal humanity - dust to dust - and all because of Jesus; a reality unshaken even by a senseless wrong done (aka rebellion, or sin). 'O happy fault! O necessary sin!' This is what the obscene iconography screams down at us - our lazy flesh and not only our over-active mind is what God gave us: for a purpose. We may not especially like our bodies, excessively complex and clumsy as they can be, but they are part and parcel of .. us (rather than something we lug around or a fragile pot that had us poured into it); we are what we eat, so it seems, but here - much to our dismay, perhaps - we are taught that we are what we are, bodies and all. Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek. God bless. ;o)

Dear Alex. I advise you not invite this guy to your podcast again. He‘s so mediocre in the Art department.

@GrandmasterFerg

3 ай бұрын

He has some very impressive carvings

@clorofilaazul

3 ай бұрын

Not really. They are ok, but average, at most. I was referring to his knowledge of Art History and Art Analysis. @@GrandmasterFerg

@GrandmasterFerg

3 ай бұрын

@@clorofilaazul ok

@clorofilaazul

3 ай бұрын

@@GrandmasterFerg These workers probably don't consider themselves as "artists", and their work it much more interesting and crafted: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gmltmLdvfbSqkbg.html

@kevinbeck8836

3 ай бұрын

dude nobody cares about this guy's crappy art, only reason he's here is that him and Jordy are real close. If you are paying close attention you can see lines of thought JP has taken from this guy. Im thinking Alex is maneuvering the social media space to get Peterson on his podcast. I dont know Alex's endgame but I can only hope it involves making JP clean his philosophical room because that guy is all over the damn place. He's been mouthing off for years but most Americans are too unfamiliar with philosophy to point out how incongruent and biased his assertions are. Alex could do it though