0:00

In my estimation, the historical

0:02

Jesus of Nazarith was a

0:04

disciple of John the Baptist.

0:06

Jesus calls him the greatest

0:08

man that's ever lived. Like,

0:10

who was he? Why is

0:12

it that Jesus, God himself,

0:14

according to Orthodox Christianity, would

0:16

need to be baptized. This

0:18

is really strange. Christians will

0:20

say only God can forgive

0:22

him. This is really strange.

0:24

Christians will say only God

0:26

can forgive sins, what the

0:28

forgiveness, Christianity. for the forgiveness

0:30

of sins. What does that mean? In biblical scholarship

0:32

for the past few hundred years, it's been mainstream

0:34

to say that Jesus didn't actually claim to be

0:36

God. If you read the ESV that and I'm

0:38

at the podium and I'm doing my debate and

0:40

I say Jesus didn't claim to be God, because

0:42

look, he said, now imagine my opponent gets up.

0:45

He's saying Jesus did claim to be God. Take

0:47

a look at the English Standard version. That translation,

0:49

that one word, is crucial to understanding the nature

0:51

of Jesus and what he's blaming to be. So

0:53

if you are ever reading the Bible and either

0:55

something jumps out at you, you think it's important

0:57

or interesting? Well, definitely if it's confusing, the first

0:59

thing that you should always do. Hey guys, if

1:02

you're not following me on Spotify, please hit

1:04

that follow button and leave a five-star

1:06

review. They're both a huge, huge help.

1:08

Thank you. Alex

1:20

O'Connor, thanks for stopping through the last minute

1:22

man. Oh cool, thanks for having me. Dude,

1:24

I shout out to Alessi by the way,

1:26

producer Alessi for putting this together. So this

1:28

was literally like 36 hours ago, but I

1:31

didn't talk to Alessi before he reached out to

1:33

you. Ironically enough though, we had Lee Cronin

1:35

in here maybe like three, four weeks ago

1:37

and he mentioned David Deutsch about like

1:39

multiverse theory. And so right after the podcast,

1:41

I was like to David Deutsch. And it

1:43

came up to an interview you did with

1:46

him, you did with him, he did with him.

1:48

He did with him. Yes. I started watching it.

1:50

And I was like, I never seen this guy before. I

1:52

looked at the channel. I saw he got in a

1:54

fight with some dude for 20 minutes on camera.

1:56

I thought that was interesting. I saw the topics

1:58

you were doing, like from a philosoph. standpoint I'm

2:00

like all right I'm gonna subscribe we're gonna

2:03

follow this and then boom unless he hits

2:05

me up and I'm like all right that's

2:07

that's the universe saying this needs to happen

2:09

yeah there's something going on there David's great

2:11

I just had him back on actually he's

2:13

a really popular episode I mean I know

2:16

people like David Deutsch but something about that

2:18

moldyverse stuff just really really peaks the interest

2:20

yeah what what was his exact point on

2:22

that again like obviously he believes that could

2:24

be a thing yeah he believes it is

2:26

a quantum Well, I don't know if he's

2:28

actually a quantum physicist, but he's got a

2:31

great deal of interest in quantum physics at

2:33

the very least. And so he's talking about

2:35

what's called the many worlds and interpretation of

2:37

quantum mechanics. So in quantum mechanics, there are

2:39

multiple ways to interpret the data. So you'll

2:41

have heard that quantum mechanics says that something

2:44

can be true and false at the same

2:46

time, or that atoms can be in two

2:48

places at once. And that's one way of

2:50

interpreting the data. I mean, it seems as

2:52

though, for example, for example, an electron. when

2:54

you imagine it as like a

2:56

little particle zooming around a nucleus.

2:59

It's actually this cloud of probability. And

3:01

when you observe it, the wave

3:03

function collapses and suddenly it's all

3:05

in one place. You know what? Shroading

3:07

is cat. Yes, yeah, we talked about

3:09

that much. Shroading is a lot of

3:11

people forget or neglect to mention a

3:14

reductio at absurdum. It's supposed to sort

3:16

of be a bit of a joke.

3:18

A reductio ad absurdum. A reductio ad

3:20

absurdum which is a reduction to absurdity.

3:22

Sorry I'm sort of, we're really off

3:25

of the deep end. We're running into

3:27

it. This is a really useful tool

3:29

and you'll have come across it before.

3:31

It means taking an argument

3:33

or a position, pushing it to its

3:36

logical conclusion and showing that that's

3:38

absurd. So for example, suppose you

3:40

said I think that we should

3:42

minimize suffering for everyone. That's what

3:44

we ought to do. I said, okay, well the

3:47

easiest way to minimize suffering for everybody

3:49

would just be to kill everyone on

3:51

the planet and suffering is gone. But that's

3:53

a ridiculous conclusion. So I've taken

3:55

the idea, I've pushed it to

3:57

its conclusion, showing the conclusion is

3:59

ridiculous. Yes. Therefore, the premise must be

4:01

wrong. And we have to adapt it or

4:03

change it. It's called a reductia. Or change

4:06

a way to do it. Yeah. So you

4:08

might say, oh, OK, then, well, we need

4:10

to reduce suffering while keeping everyone alive, or

4:12

something like that. So to disprove an idea,

4:15

you can take it to a conclusion, show

4:17

that the conclusion is ridiculous, and

4:19

say so the idea must be

4:21

wrong. So Shrodinger does this with

4:23

quantum mechanics, because quantum physicists are

4:25

observing. Weird stuff going on in

4:27

the quantum level and it it

4:29

looks as though until you observe

4:31

a particle It's in multiple places

4:34

at once. Yeah, as like a

4:36

probabilistic cloud Yeah, for people who haven't

4:38

seen my episodes of Michukaku and

4:40

some of the other ones we talked

4:43

about Can you just explain the Schrodinger's

4:45

cat? Yeah, exactly so so Schrodinger

4:47

comes along and he says okay So

4:49

if the idea is that quantum randomness

4:52

Basically when a quantum random event

4:54

happens until you observe it both of

4:56

them have happened or both of them are

4:58

true at the same time, but when

5:00

you observe it, it collapses into

5:02

one sort of option. Shrodinger says,

5:05

okay, well, imagine we've got a

5:07

cat inside of a box, and

5:09

we've got this quantum event, which

5:11

has a 50% chance of killing

5:13

the cat, and a 50% chance of

5:15

having the cat remain alive. And that

5:18

box is, it's a, you can't see

5:20

through the box. So crucially, you can't

5:22

observe it. The idea is that if

5:24

quantum mechanics, if this interpretation of

5:27

quantum mechanics is true, then because that

5:29

quantum event both happens and doesn't

5:31

happen before it's observed, well if half

5:33

the time it kills the cat and half the time

5:35

it doesn't, that means the cat must be both

5:37

dead and alive at the same time until you

5:40

open the box and find out. And this has

5:42

captured the imagination of pop culture because

5:44

the cat is both dead and alive at the

5:46

same time. And that's the bit that people remember.

5:48

But people think that this is some kind of

5:51

like like... truth about science, that Schrodinger's cat is

5:53

like this argument as to how a cat can

5:55

be dead and alive at the same time. No,

5:57

Schrodinger is doing a reductio I'd absurd him. He's

5:59

saying... that's ridiculous. The cat can't be

6:02

dead and alive at the same

6:04

time, therefore this interpretation of quantum

6:06

mechanics must be wrong. It can't be

6:08

that, you know, everything exists in this

6:10

cloud of probability until you observe it,

6:12

and then suddenly it just snaps into

6:15

a real position. That doesn't make any

6:17

sense. So that's what Shroading is

6:19

supposed to demonstrate, and the

6:21

interpretation of quantum mechanics that

6:23

this relies upon is called

6:26

the Copenhagen interpretation. And as I said

6:28

to David Deutsch, and apparently he said

6:30

that he's been using this ever since,

6:32

I said you can't spell the Copenhagen

6:34

interpretation without cope, which apparently he's picked

6:36

up one and started using, so I'm

6:38

quite proud of that one. There is

6:40

another interpretation of quantum mechanics called the

6:42

Many World Interpretation, which instead

6:44

of saying that like... you know,

6:47

imagine quantum event, you've got option

6:49

A and option B. And until

6:51

you observe it, both kind of

6:53

happen probabilistically, and then when you

6:56

observe it, it collapses into one

6:58

or the other. The many worlds

7:00

interpretation says that when

7:02

a quantum decision like that needs

7:05

to be made, both of those

7:07

realities exist. Option A and

7:09

option B both happen in

7:11

sort of separate branching realities.

7:13

What you're just doing is finding out which

7:15

of those branches you're in, you just find

7:17

out. And so there is another version of

7:19

events in which you open the box and

7:22

the cat is dead. And there's another sort

7:24

of alternate universe, so to speak, in which

7:26

you open the box and the cat is

7:28

alive. So David Deutsche is a big proponent

7:30

of this idea. And he's like certain of

7:32

it. He's like, yes, the multiverse exists. But

7:35

it's not like, when you think of the

7:37

multiverse, you imagine like a bunch of orbs

7:39

sort of existing in the ether next to

7:41

each other, next to each other. For him, it's

7:43

not so much that there are these

7:45

different separate universes that exist in one

7:48

big space, but rather every time a

7:50

quantum event can go one way or

7:52

another, there's like a different branch of

7:54

reality. And that's what the multiverse is.

7:56

So for him, the multiverse definitely exists,

7:59

but it's this. like quantum multiverse

8:01

branches of reality that occur every single

8:03

time a quantum decision has to be

8:05

made. Yeah, Dr. Kaku got me really

8:08

obsessed with that like the way that

8:10

he talks about and then when I

8:12

talk with him like he was explaining

8:15

building upon it about how it's like

8:17

it's almost like the radio is turned

8:19

to just the right transistor. Yeah, yeah. At

8:21

that point it'll be... you know we could

8:23

be in this room and it's you and

8:25

me but if you just turn a little

8:28

bit this way they could be like a

8:30

dinosaur walking through here and yeah exactly and

8:32

you know it's all it's theoretical so it

8:34

could all be bullshit and probabilistically Maybe it

8:36

is, but when there's things in the universe

8:38

that line up that don't make sense, like

8:40

ideas that will match from across the planet

8:42

to one place or another, or like a

8:45

lessee, as we pointed out, reaching out to

8:47

you when I find your channel and don't

8:49

say anything. Like, you know, could it be

8:51

coincidental? You know, we're looking at similar things?

8:53

Sure. But I always think about that with

8:55

the deja booze of the world and stuff

8:57

where it's like... Maybe there's some sort

9:00

of like little cross-pollination happening. Maybe

9:02

it's not a full-blown multiverse But

9:04

there's something to that transistor radio

9:06

idea that that that could that could create

9:08

other realities for it It would be cool if

9:10

you could travel between these branches of

9:12

reality for different reasons as well It's not just

9:15

that you could enter a universe in which like

9:17

you were wearing a blue jumper instead of a

9:19

red one, but I thought about this like Is

9:21

there another universe that's identical except like

9:24

time moves at a different rate?

9:26

When you're in that universe it

9:28

feels the same because you're also

9:30

moving at a slower rate, but

9:32

compared to the other branches of

9:34

reality time is moving slower or

9:36

faster, which means that potentially by

9:38

moving between these realities you could

9:40

move into a universe that's identical

9:42

except like further back in time? And

9:44

so it's kind of this way of

9:46

maybe regaining the ability to do backwards

9:49

time travel, which seems impossible within one

9:51

universe. That's kind of a conjectural

9:53

entertaining possibility. But the idea that

9:55

we could just move between these

9:57

branches of reality, I think, doesn't

9:59

work. essentially impenetrable because they

10:01

are literally branches of reality.

10:04

You'd have to somehow step

10:06

outside of it, which I

10:09

think in principle might be

10:11

impossible. But it's exciting. Another

10:14

motivation. Yeah, I'm not a

10:16

physicist, so I'm not sure

10:18

about that, but I think if

10:20

there were any realistic potential for that

10:22

to be the case, I think... theoretical

10:25

physics would have some kind of grasp

10:27

on it. A lot of theoretical physics

10:29

is stuff that, although we'll never do

10:31

in practice, here are some things we

10:33

could do, like worm holes, or what

10:35

would happen if we traveled at the

10:38

speed of light? And although we'll never

10:40

do that in practice, you can still do

10:42

the math and work out what would happen

10:44

just in principle. But moving between quantum

10:47

branches of reality or outside of

10:49

our own universe, I mean... I'm

10:51

not even sure what it means

10:53

to go outside of our universe,

10:55

or like what the mechanism would

10:57

be. But another sort of motivation

10:59

for some form of multiverse is

11:01

the fact that it's not just

11:03

coincidence is like, you know, I

11:05

was not crazy, I was just

11:07

thinking of this guy yesterday and

11:09

then he called me. It's like

11:11

the fundamental constants of the universe,

11:13

the stuff that allows the universe

11:15

to like exist are an incredibly

11:17

finely tuned set of promises. And

11:19

so a lot of people use

11:21

this as an argument for God's

11:23

existence. Other people use it as

11:25

a motivation to believe in the

11:27

multiverse. Because if the strength of

11:29

gravity was stronger by an

11:32

unfathomably small amount, just like

11:34

the tiniest, tiniest nudge, too strong,

11:36

then after the Big Bang, everything would

11:38

have collapsed in on itself. And

11:40

the universe would have imploded. Why

11:42

does it have to be one or the other on

11:45

some of these things? That's one thing I

11:47

set up and think about. I'm like, I'm

11:49

like, Like, the two examples you just gave,

11:51

like, God, and the multiverse, for

11:53

example, why couldn't they both exist at

11:55

the same time? Oh, well, they could.

11:57

That would be, that would be really

11:59

interesting. Yeah. certainly possible but we

12:01

wouldn't have any sort of

12:04

considerations or evidence that would

12:06

point to that because take that

12:08

fine tuning of gravity or whatever

12:10

constant you want to pick. If

12:12

you hypothesize, well that's because God

12:14

designed it that way, that doesn't

12:17

rule out a multiverse but there's

12:19

no need now. for the multiverse as an

12:21

explanation. So you'd kind of want some other

12:23

reason to think that the multiverse exists. It

12:25

doesn't rule it out, I mean it could

12:27

exist. But you no longer need it as

12:29

an explanatory tool. Similarly, if you're like a

12:32

physicist and you say, well I believe in

12:34

the multiverse and that's how we get the

12:36

fine tuning of gravity because there are infinitely

12:38

many universes with different degrees, and of

12:40

course we have to be in the one

12:42

that has them all tuned perfectly, that doesn't

12:44

mean God can't exist, but God can't is

12:46

no longer needed as an explanation. for the fine

12:48

tuning because you've got the multiverse.

12:51

Once again I have to tell you

12:53

guys about this game-changing product I use

12:55

before a night out with drinks. It's

12:58

called z-biotics pre-alcohol. Pre-alcohol is the world's

13:00

first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented

13:02

by PhD scientists to tackle rough

13:04

mornings after drinking. Here's how it works.

13:07

When you drink, alcohol gets converted into

13:09

a toxic byproduct in your gut. It's

13:11

this byproduct, not your dehydration, that's to

13:14

blame for your rough next day. Pre-alcohol

13:16

produces an enzyme. to break this byproduct

13:18

down. Just remember to make ZBiotics

13:20

your first drink of the night, drink

13:23

responsibly, and you'll feel your best tomorrow.

13:25

I've told you guys on multiple ads

13:27

before that I was a little skeptical

13:30

the first time I went to ZBiotics

13:32

last year, but after I used it

13:34

my buddy's wedding, it worked like

13:36

a charm and I've used it every

13:39

night that I go out to drink

13:41

since. So whether it's vacations, weddings, birthdays,

13:43

reunions, or just a good night. Get

13:46

the most out of your upcoming night.

13:48

antibiotics.com/ Julian to get 15% off

13:50

your first order using code

13:52

Julian J-U-L-I-A-N at checkout. Pre-alcohol

13:54

is back with a 100%

13:56

money-back guarantee. So if you're

13:59

unsatisfied with your Location

14:16

the lab. Quinton only has

14:19

24 hours to sell his

14:21

car. Is that even possible?

14:23

He goes to carvana.com. What

14:25

is this? A movie trailer? He

14:28

ignores the doubters, enters his

14:30

license plate. Wow, that's a

14:32

great offer. The car is

14:34

sold, but will Carvana pick

14:36

it up in time for? They'll

14:39

literally pick it up

14:41

tomorrow morning. Done with the

14:43

dram. Don't with the dramatics.

14:44

today. Pick up these, may apply. So

14:46

it could be, could be both, could

14:48

be neither. But particularly with the fine

14:51

tuning, it is the case that if

14:53

those consonants were different, then... nothing

14:55

could exist, like atoms could

14:57

inform. And so your only options

15:00

are that those constants are so

15:02

tuned by pure coincidence, by chance.

15:04

There's one universe and it's just

15:07

chance. That seems unfathomably

15:09

unlikely. Or that there's some

15:11

necessity. There's some reason they

15:13

have to be that way. Or there's design.

15:16

And so if you think the answer is

15:18

chance, you end up in the multiverse.

15:20

Because it's so unlikely that there

15:22

just has to have been millions

15:24

of... universes and so that happens

15:27

to be one that the constants

15:29

are changed correctly that's chance necessity

15:31

means you're looking for some kind

15:33

of theory of everything some kind

15:35

of physical law which entails all of

15:37

these constants but also would kind of

15:39

have to be self-justifying or self-explain what

15:42

do you mean by that? Because even

15:44

if you found some single theory which

15:46

explained why gravity is the strength it

15:48

is, why the strong and weak nuclear

15:50

forces are the way they are, and

15:52

they all collapse into one law, you'd

15:54

still kind of have to explain that

15:56

law. Like why is that law the way it is? And

15:58

it depends on the nature. of the law,

16:00

but it might be some other

16:02

kind of constant. They might all

16:04

collapse into one constant. And it's

16:06

all encompassing in the sense that

16:08

if there's one chip within that

16:10

row of that law that falls,

16:12

it means the entire law falters.

16:14

The whole thing with the universe

16:17

couldn't exist. So then you just

16:19

push the problem back and have

16:21

to ask, well, why is that fundamental

16:23

law that way? And so it

16:25

would have to somehow be like

16:27

self-justifying, like the idea that... A proposition

16:29

can't be true and false at the same time. The law of non-contradiction,

16:32

all of our logical thinking rests upon that assumption.

16:35

But you can't prove that assumption. It's just something

16:37

that we just think is true. It's just self-evidently

16:39

true. If there's some kind of scientific equivalent of

16:41

that, at the basis of the universe, then okay,

16:43

maybe you've got necessity. So you've got chance, you've

16:46

got necessity. But the third option here is that

16:48

the constantsence of so finely tuned because so

16:50

finely tuned because they're designed so finely tuned

16:52

because they're designed so finely tuned because they're

16:54

designed that way, because they're designed that way,

16:56

because they're designed that way, Do

16:59

you ever sit up at night like

17:01

stressed about all these

17:03

things that you think about

17:05

because you are literally your

17:07

entire basis of philosophy all

17:09

comes back to the very meaning

17:12

of life itself? And like I

17:14

think about this stuff a lot

17:16

too, but I don't, you know, I

17:18

talk about a lot of different things

17:20

in here. You know, it's not all

17:23

looking at this, but do you

17:25

ever do ever sit up at night?

17:27

You know, not really. Not so

17:29

much, because I'm extremely interested

17:31

in this kind of stuff, but I

17:33

don't have the kind of existential

17:35

dread that a lot of people

17:37

report. And I think part of

17:39

the reason for that is because

17:41

of my violent agnosticism. Violent agnosticism.

17:44

Yeah, I mean, like, look, I've got

17:46

no idea if we live in a

17:49

multiverse or if there's a god and

17:51

that's why the consonants are so finely

17:53

tuned, or if there's something obvious that

17:56

we're just like totally missing. like I

17:58

just don't know and so It might

18:00

keep me up in the sense of wondering

18:02

about it, thinking that's kind of

18:04

interesting, but not in the sense of

18:07

dread, because I'm not confident enough in any

18:09

view to be anxious about it. Do you

18:11

know what I mean? Yeah, I understand that. So

18:13

I don't, I don't sort of have that,

18:15

have that fear. If anything, the thing that

18:17

keeps me up is like, interesting implications

18:20

of views that are just fascinating, more so

18:22

than like, man, what does it all mean

18:25

and stuff? It's like, oh, this is kind

18:27

of cool. Like this is kind of fascinating.

18:29

Like there's a, like the fine tuning

18:31

argument for the existence of God. People

18:33

use this all the time. Christopher Hitchen's

18:36

famous atheist journalist famously said in the

18:38

back of a car once that this

18:40

is the argument that gives him pause

18:42

for thought that everything is just perfectly

18:44

balanced. You know, why would it be

18:46

that way? And like, I've been really

18:49

interested recently in some of the non-canonical

18:51

Christian literature. So like Gnostic

18:53

Gospels, other stuff that sort

18:55

of isn't in the Bible

18:57

and alternate religious views, right?

18:59

And one of these alternate

19:01

views in the history of

19:03

Christianity is the idea that there are

19:06

kind of two gods in a way.

19:08

There's like an evil demiurge who

19:10

creates the material world and the

19:12

material world is evil and bad

19:15

and terrible. And there's the

19:17

spiritual realm, which is good. And

19:19

we're sort of trapped in the material

19:21

realm. And so, some of these

19:23

heretical views believe that, for example, the

19:25

God of the Old Testament is this

19:28

demiergic creator, evil or incompetent creator of

19:30

the material world. And Jesus comes from

19:32

the spiritual realm to come and help

19:34

us break free of our material conditions,

19:37

right? So that's a bit of a

19:39

weird, wacky, dualist view, right? Dualist view?

19:41

Well, dualist in the sense of there

19:43

being sort of two realities. Okay. It's

19:46

like the material world and the spiritual

19:48

world. Is that a British word? Dualist,

19:50

dualist, as in like dualism, so like

19:52

dual, like two. Okay, so no.

19:54

In different contexts, it means different

19:57

things. Okay. So in the philosophy

19:59

of. mind for example if you're

20:01

a dualist it means that you believe

20:03

that the mind is immaterial but you've

20:06

also got like a material brain so

20:08

it's like a physical thing and there's

20:10

also the mental thing and there's distinct

20:13

there's two of them it's called dualism

20:15

got it as opposed to monism like

20:17

mono one which means that either If

20:19

you think that all there is is

20:22

the brain and there's no immaterial mind,

20:24

you're a monist, because there's only one

20:26

thing, it's just the brain. Some people

20:29

think that there's only the spiritual and

20:31

that the material world is essentially either

20:33

an illusion or something. I thought you

20:35

were saying dualism, not dualism. Yeah. Sorry,

20:38

yeah. That's the second time Gary Harrington

20:40

did that too. It's an accent thing.

20:42

Yeah. So yeah, it's kind of, it's

20:44

kind of... Dual list got it in

20:47

that there are these two realms the

20:49

evil whatever that's that's besides the point

20:51

that the interesting thing is the fine-tuning

20:54

argument one question that comes to mind

20:56

is okay so Everything is super finely

20:58

balanced and if if something changed by

21:00

the smallest amount in the universe couldn't

21:03

exist you might want to ask like

21:05

why is it like set up that

21:07

way? Hmm like okay. So there's one

21:10

question as to how given that they

21:12

have to be finely tuned, they are

21:14

finely tuned, that's a mystery. But why

21:16

do they have to be finely tuned?

21:19

Why are there like meta conditions such

21:21

that it's seemingly incredibly difficult to create

21:23

a functional material world? And so a

21:26

friend of mine came along and said,

21:28

you know this this Gnostic idea, that

21:30

there's a good God, and that the

21:32

creation of the material world is some

21:35

evil or incompetent act of a demiergic

21:37

sort of bad creator. Could it be

21:39

the fact, could it be that the

21:42

true creator didn't want the material world

21:44

to exist because the material world is

21:46

evil? And so sets up the meta

21:48

conditions such that it's extremely improbable that

21:51

a material world would ever exist because

21:53

he doesn't want that. The whole world,

21:55

the whole material world is evil according

21:58

to... these Gnostics. To go on a

22:00

little tangent on that for a second

22:02

though, because I want to understand. Yeah.

22:04

We live in a world where there's

22:07

war, right? That's evil. Let's just stay

22:09

with that example. Within war, there's stories

22:11

of people though who save other people

22:13

at a cost of their own life.

22:16

That's good. Yeah, but it's only good

22:18

insofar as it comes over, like, overcomes

22:20

a bad thing, right? Yes. And that

22:23

like, like, and also what is it

22:25

that's good about doing about doing that

22:27

about doing that? You're

22:29

saving the life of another person

22:31

and putting it before your own.

22:33

Yeah, sure. So there are a

22:35

few ways that you can think

22:37

about this. Like, the first thing

22:39

is that all of the bad

22:41

stuff comes from the existence of

22:44

the material world. Because of the

22:46

material world, we have suffering. We

22:48

have bodies that can be put

22:50

in danger and can suffer. And

22:52

yeah, that does give you the

22:54

capability to save somebody to overcome

22:56

something. But you'd still rather have

22:58

none of that altogether. An analogy

23:00

might be that like... chemotherapy is

23:02

a really good thing, right? Chemotherapy

23:04

is wonderful, because it helps people

23:06

overcome cancer. I'll let you continue

23:08

with that. But if I said

23:10

like cancer is really bad and

23:12

we should get rid of it,

23:14

and you said, well hold on

23:16

a second, yeah, but it does

23:18

allow us to do this really

23:20

good thing of chemotherapy. Without there

23:22

being cancer, we couldn't have chemotherapy.

23:24

Yeah, chemotherapy is great, but only

23:26

because it overcomes something bad, and

23:28

we'd rather just not have the

23:31

bad thing altogether, right. Right. sacrificing

23:33

yourself, throwing yourself on a grenade

23:35

for somebody else is like a

23:37

good thing. But if you could

23:39

have no grenade and no need

23:41

for the sacrifice, that would be

23:43

better. Right, but then what about

23:45

lower scale good things that just

23:47

happened when people could do good

23:49

things just to do good things?

23:51

Like I, someone's 20 meters behind

23:53

and I see them coming to

23:55

the door I'm at and I

23:57

decide to wait and hold the

23:59

door for them. Yeah, but there

24:01

wasn't a bad thing that led

24:03

to that. techie about it like

24:05

yeah why is that a good

24:07

thing because it means they don't

24:09

have to push the door for

24:11

themselves anymore. Because it's a nice,

24:13

yeah, it's a nice thing to

24:16

do. Yes, it's nice to make

24:18

it such that they don't have

24:20

to push the door. Pushing the

24:22

door is a physical action that

24:24

causes some level of stress on

24:26

the joints or whatever. That's why

24:28

you do it, right? And so

24:30

that sounds really trivial. Yeah, no,

24:32

I agree. But it's also trivial.

24:34

Yes. problem with the material world,

24:36

which is that you have to

24:38

navigate it, you have to push

24:40

things, you have to effort to

24:42

move around and stuff. So for

24:44

Gnostics, the good thing about people,

24:46

about all of us, is the

24:48

spiritual stuff, is like the non-material

24:50

stuff that's inside of you. That's

24:52

what goodness is, you know. And

24:54

all of our ills come from

24:56

this material world, and we're constantly

24:58

in this battle between the material

25:00

world. and are like spiritual selves.

25:03

And if you think about the

25:05

fact that, you know, somebody wants

25:07

to have a loving relationship, but

25:09

they're addicted to pornography. It's like

25:11

the soul versus the material, like

25:13

body. You know, somebody wants to

25:15

be the best and most productive

25:17

person they can be, but they're

25:19

too lazy and they can't bother

25:21

to hit the gym or whatever.

25:23

And it's like a physical impairment

25:25

on the things that they want

25:27

to achieve. You know, and so...

25:29

All of the bad stuff comes

25:31

from the existence of the material

25:33

world. It's not just Gnostics who

25:35

think this, by the way. There

25:37

are all kinds of philosophical views

25:39

throughout history that sort of posit

25:41

the material and the spiritual as

25:43

kind of in battle with each

25:45

other. Or more broadly, maybe just

25:48

the good or in battle with

25:50

each other. Or more broadly, maybe

25:52

just the good and the bad.

25:54

They're like good forces and bad.

25:56

But broadly speaking, you could say

25:58

that you've got material world, bad.

26:00

spiritual world good and that we

26:02

have essentially as spiritual beings that's

26:04

what our soul is we have

26:06

been trapped in a material world

26:08

that material world has been created

26:10

by an evil or an incompetent,

26:12

like creative being, sometimes called the

26:14

demiurge, and the ultimate goal of

26:16

life is to escape from that

26:18

material trapping and regain our place

26:20

in the spiritual realm. So the

26:22

material world is where we're then

26:24

forced to experience pain suffering to

26:26

varying degrees that ends inevitably in

26:28

death. because we're in a place

26:30

that we spiritually should not be.

26:32

That's right. Yeah, and we shouldn't

26:35

be here at all. So phinostics,

26:37

the creation of the world is

26:39

essentially a cosmic disaster. Cosmic disaster.

26:41

Something when... wrong. And if you

26:43

read some of this Gnostic literature,

26:45

which we only really rediscovered in

26:47

the 20th century, like this is

26:49

new. Why do we rediscover it

26:51

in the 20th century? So we've

26:53

known for a long time. And

26:55

by the way, I'm talking in

26:57

the context of Christianity here, right?

26:59

So Gnosticism comes from the Greek

27:01

word Gnosis, which means knowledge. And

27:03

so in mainstream Christianity, the thing

27:05

that saves you is the sacrifice

27:07

of Jesus. Jesus dies on a

27:09

cross, and he resurrects, and he

27:11

resurrects why you're saved. for the

27:13

Gnostic Christians it's not really about

27:15

what Jesus did it's about having

27:17

the right knowledge. Jesus brought knowledge

27:20

and if you know the right

27:22

stuff that's what will save you.

27:24

Meaning you can you can access

27:26

that within you. Yeah so it's

27:28

very like inward-looking yes it's very

27:30

knowledge-based like some of these Gnostic

27:32

Gospels don't even mention the crucifixion

27:34

or the resurrection or they have

27:36

a different interpretation on what was

27:38

going on there and so within

27:40

the Christian tradition the Gnostics believe

27:42

that the thing that's important is

27:44

knowledge. And so they have their

27:46

own sort of scriptures and these

27:48

are like later than the books

27:50

we have in the New Testament

27:52

and they're condemned as heretical. So

27:54

the sort of early Christian church.

27:56

Which books are you talking about

27:58

to be specific? So in the

28:00

New Testament we have four Gospels,

28:02

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, right?

28:04

That's right. There do exist other

28:07

Gospels, the Gospel of Judas, the

28:09

Gospel of Thomas, Philip, the Gospel

28:11

of Philip, yes, and the Gospel

28:13

of Philip, yes, and also other

28:15

like Mary Magdalene. Yeah, and some

28:17

of them are much more tenuous

28:19

than others. There are some really

28:21

interesting, obvious forgeries forgeries, for example,

28:23

but you've... There's all these texts

28:25

that people are writing and at

28:27

some point in the early church

28:29

you've got these texts floating around

28:31

and you've also got people claiming

28:33

to be Paul the Apostle and

28:35

writing letters in his name and

28:37

they're not really written by him

28:39

and stuff and so at some

28:41

point people decide we should start

28:43

putting together at some kind of

28:45

scriptural canon. Interestingly the first person

28:47

to give this a go that

28:49

we know it is called Marcian.

28:52

Marsian yeah and Marsian decides God

28:54

you say everything's way cooler than

28:56

that so I'm like Martian Marsian

28:58

Martian yeah he uh it's fascinating

29:00

I mean he's he's cool and

29:02

Gnostic but it's a little unclear

29:04

as to exactly what his user

29:06

because he doesn't have this crazy

29:08

cosmic theology but the one thing

29:10

that he does have that's Gnostic

29:12

is he thinks like he reads

29:14

what we now call the Old

29:16

Testament so he reads like the

29:18

Hebrew scriptures and he reads about

29:20

it God who is like a

29:23

bastard. He's like committing genocide and slavery

29:25

and he's jealous and he's punishing people

29:27

and all of this kind of stuff.

29:29

And then he reads these these texts

29:31

that have begun to emerge which eventually

29:34

become the New Testament. These Gospels and

29:36

he's like this Jesus figure is is

29:38

is is kind and he's about love

29:40

and all of this kind of stuff.

29:42

So for Marcy and he decides I'm

29:44

going to put together a biblical canon.

29:46

The entire Old Testament is omitted. It's

29:49

not in there. Why did he make

29:51

that? Just because Jesus wasn't there at

29:53

the time? Because he reads the Gospels

29:55

and he's like, okay, Jesus is our

29:57

guy. Jesus is this God figure. this

29:59

spiritual being that we're all approximating. And

30:02

when he reads the Hebrew scriptures, he

30:04

doesn't recognize that God in those scriptures.

30:06

He thinks this God is evil. This

30:08

God looks to be a monster. And

30:10

so this cannot be the God that

30:12

I'm worshipping through Jesus. It has to

30:14

be something else. So Marcian thinks that

30:17

the God of the Old Testament is

30:19

this demiurge I mentioned earlier, this evil

30:21

creator of the material world. The material

30:23

world is bad. The God described in

30:25

the Old Testament is the Creator who

30:27

brought about the material world, evil guy.

30:30

So all of the Old Testament is

30:32

gone. And all that we have left

30:34

is like a slightly shortened version of

30:36

the Gospel of Luke. And I think

30:38

10 out of 13 of Paul's letters

30:40

that ended up in the New Testament.

30:42

So the first attempt at a Christian

30:45

Bible actually just excludes the Old Testament

30:47

on these grounds that the Old Testament

30:49

God is evil and incompetent. I never

30:51

heard that before. Yeah, it's fascinating. I

30:53

think, yeah, you've pulled it up there.

30:55

I'll probably say something about something about

30:57

something about... compiling the... Yeah, so he

31:00

considered himself a follower of... Marcian preached

31:02

that God had sent Jesus Christ, who

31:04

was distinct from the vengeful God, brackets

31:06

demiose, who had created the world. He

31:08

considered himself a follower of Paul the

31:10

Apostle, whom he believed to have been

31:13

the only apostle of Jesus Christ. His

31:15

doctrine is called Marcianism. He published the

31:17

earliest record of a canon of New

31:19

Testament books. And so his canon didn't

31:21

include the Old Testament, because as it

31:23

says there, he believed that this venge

31:25

this vengeful. God of the Old Testament

31:28

is an evil being. There's a text

31:30

that he wrote, I forget what it's,

31:32

I forget what it's called. There was

31:34

some text that he wrote, which we

31:36

don't actually have anymore, but it just

31:38

compared the Old Testament God and Jesus.

31:41

It just like lists out things that

31:43

the Old Testament God does and things

31:45

that Jesus does. We don't have it

31:47

anymore, meaning it got destroyed or lost.

31:49

For whatever reason we don't have been

31:51

destroyed, it might have been lost, but

31:53

we have it through the works of

31:56

his works of his enemies. So like

31:58

people were responding to him at the

32:00

time and so we know what's in

32:02

there because people were writing about it.

32:04

And so we know that Marcine is

32:06

compared. the Old Testament God with Jesus

32:09

and saying, this doesn't line up. This

32:11

doesn't line up at all. God is

32:13

saying an eye for an eye. Jesus

32:15

is like subverting that and saying turn

32:17

the other cheek. God is committing genocide.

32:19

Jesus is saying love your neighbor. All

32:21

of this kind of stuff. And so

32:24

yeah, he just concludes that this Old

32:26

Testament God is evil and bad and

32:28

terrible. So that's the earliest attempt at

32:30

a Christian canon that we get. But

32:32

like the early church that we know

32:34

today. takes a different view, believes that

32:37

the Hebrew scriptures are legitimate, and it

32:39

lands on these four Gospels, Matthew, Luke,

32:41

and John, as the four Gospels that

32:43

people should be reading. And the earliest

32:45

account we have of that is Athanasius,

32:47

who sort of, he writes this like

32:49

track saying only read these four books

32:52

and don't read the rest of them.

32:54

And this is like, I don't know,

32:56

you should look it up to be

32:58

sure, but I think we're looking at

33:00

like... third or fourth century. So around

33:02

the time of the Council of Nicea?

33:05

Yeah, so one big misconception is that

33:07

the Council of Nicea like set the

33:09

scriptural canon. That's not true. That might

33:11

be Da Vinci Code inspired, I think.

33:13

Yeah, well there's stuff in there that's

33:15

also fictional. They didn't, it's not, look

33:17

up Athanasius canon or something. Athanasius. Yeah,

33:21

unless he kills it on our channels

33:23

with titles and stuff that he's extremely

33:25

smart but like yeah, so I joke

33:27

behind the scene the one thing you

33:30

can't do is spell. He has some

33:32

interesting. I'm pretty bad at that too

33:34

actually. I'm really really bad at it.

33:37

At spelling. Especially doing it. Yeah, you

33:39

can see he's third and fourth century.

33:41

So it will have been in the

33:44

fourth century, like early fourth century, that

33:46

he writes this track. And it might

33:48

even say something there about it. I'm

33:51

not sure, but... And you're saying that...

33:53

at the Council of Nicea that was

33:55

not scripturally where they defined. No, Council

33:58

of Nicea was about determining like church

34:00

doctrine, specifically like relationship with the all

34:02

of this kind of stuff. What is

34:05

this Jesus stuff actually about? The canon

34:07

is a separate thing and it might

34:09

have been determined earlier or elsewhere, but

34:12

the earliest version that we have is

34:14

Athanasia saying only read these four texts.

34:16

And so after this, what probably happens

34:19

is some kind of. suppression or like

34:21

virtuous destroying like people might do it

34:23

with their own accord because they're not

34:26

supposed to be reading these other text

34:28

but these other text sort of fall

34:30

out of fashion they're not they're not

34:33

spread around they sort of exist in

34:35

different esoteric groups and there are some

34:37

like smaller groups that have cropped up

34:40

with their own scriptures and stuff some

34:42

which are more popular and travel around

34:44

but for whatever reason they end up

34:46

sort of getting like lost either they're

34:49

destroyed or people just forget about them.

34:51

But we know that they exist, because

34:53

in the fourth century, sorry, in the

34:56

first, in the second century, Irenaeus is

34:58

an early church father who writes a

35:00

text called Against Heresies. And this is

35:03

a huge, huge text, which basically argues

35:05

against every single Christian heresy, which he

35:07

knows exists, and sort of says, why

35:10

it's wrong, why you shouldn't believe this,

35:12

why you shouldn't believe that. And he's

35:14

writing about these other views. He's writing

35:17

about a gospel of Judas. And so

35:19

we have Irenaius' work, and we know

35:21

that he's writing about this gospel, but

35:24

we don't have the gospel. And so

35:26

for the longest time, all we knew

35:28

about these texts was through their enemies.

35:31

And you can learn a thing or

35:33

two, but obviously it's always going to

35:35

be skewed if you don't have the

35:38

original literature. Then in the 1940s, there

35:40

is a teenage farmer. in the desert

35:42

in Egypt near a place called Nakamadi.

35:45

And he's digging in the desert and

35:47

he comes across this jar. And he's

35:49

scared to open it at first because

35:52

he's scared it's got a gin in

35:54

it like a yeah devil. It's terrified

35:56

to open it. And eventually it gets

35:59

opened up and there's a bunch of

36:01

old like papyrus in there. And so

36:03

the story goes like he takes it

36:05

home and his mother uses some of

36:08

the papyrus to like feed the fire.

36:10

and eventually it's sort of it it's

36:12

realized that these are sort of worse

36:15

something so after after it's it's a

36:17

bit of an insane story actually I

36:19

don't know all of the details but

36:22

this is this is where a lot

36:24

of our Gnostic literature comes from and

36:26

so we've got there these like Coptic

36:29

translations Coptic is in Egyptian dialect and

36:31

There's coptic translations of Gnostic texts. So

36:33

the gospel of Thomas, for example, the

36:36

gospel of Judas actually isn't in this

36:38

text. The gospel of Thomas is, for

36:40

example, probably the most famous Gnostic gospel,

36:43

although it might not even be Gnostic.

36:45

And it's our only copy that we've

36:47

ever found of this gospel. And so

36:50

just by chance, this guy happens to...

36:52

find this child and now we have

36:54

and they didn't burn that one for

36:57

no that one was not burned interestingly

36:59

the gospel of Judas which was found

37:01

not as part of this collection but

37:04

but nearby oh yeah that that has

37:06

some burn marks yeah you can you

37:08

can you can see look at it

37:11

so look underneath see that one down

37:13

there that's the gospel of Judas right

37:15

so this is found in a different

37:17

I think it's found nearby but it's

37:20

not found in the Nakamada library and

37:22

the gospel of Judas This spends a

37:24

long time in private hands because people

37:27

are trying to sell it like people

37:29

really want to sell it And so

37:31

I can't remember when this is discovered

37:34

I think it's discovered maybe in like

37:36

the 70s or 80s or something and

37:38

It spends like decades. It might have

37:41

been slightly earlier than that Maybe you

37:43

can look that up actually to be

37:45

sure just if you click on the

37:48

gospel of Judas It spends decades traveling

37:50

around private sellers trying to sell it.

37:52

The thing about Egypt is it's got

37:55

the perfect climate for the preservation of

37:57

papyrus. That's why these things last for

37:59

so long. That's why we always find

38:02

them in Egypt because it just happens

38:04

to have the perfect air to make

38:06

sure that these things have the perfect

38:09

air to make sure that these things

38:11

don't disintegrate. Someone takes the gospel of

38:13

Judas and for example it spends about

38:16

16 years in a safety deposit box

38:18

in New York City. Because people are

38:20

moving around trying to sell it. Somebody's

38:23

trying to find a buyer because this

38:25

thing is absolutely like golden. Like this

38:27

is an unbelievable gospel, right? And it's

38:30

huge and it's going to change the

38:32

whole face of New Testament scholarship, right?

38:34

Eventually National Geographic buy it and publish

38:36

it. I think they publish it in

38:39

like 2006 or something like that. So

38:41

it's been kind of around for decades

38:43

and it's only like in the turn

38:46

of the millennium that finally... the gospel

38:48

of Judas is available for people to

38:50

read. But it's a crazy story. And

38:53

here's the really weird thing, man, is

38:55

that like, people think why, so the

38:57

Narkamadi Library, again, that's not where the

39:00

gospel of Judas is found, but if

39:02

you want to ask the question like,

39:04

why was it buried in the desert?

39:07

And so one popular suggestion was, well,

39:09

when Athanasia said only read these four

39:11

gospels, the rest of them are buried.

39:14

you know, either to hide them or

39:16

keep them secret or because they've been

39:18

condemned, you know, get rid of them,

39:21

put them in the desert. And that's

39:23

the theory for the longest time. Then

39:25

this whole weird story about how the

39:28

farmer boy mentions that there was like

39:30

a corpse and his older brother is

39:32

like, no, no, there's no corpse. I

39:35

don't know what he's talking about. And

39:37

so there is this suggestion that this

39:39

was actually a grave robbing. Because it

39:42

was quite common to bury... to bury

39:44

like papyrus like documents with people who

39:46

died and so there is an idea

39:49

that these guys were out there trying

39:51

to rob a grave and they happened

39:53

upon this this expensive set of papyrus

39:55

and so we have speculative and whose

39:58

grave it could have been? It's, I

40:00

don't think we have an idea of

40:02

whose grave it could have been, no,

40:05

because we don't know much of the

40:07

details. I don't even, I'm not even

40:09

sure if we know the exact location

40:12

where it was found, because it was

40:14

just, like I say, some teenage farmers

40:16

in the desert. But so, it's this

40:19

extremely strange and slightly shady story of

40:21

how it's all discovered, because it's like

40:23

a whole thing. Yeah, I mean the

40:26

story is really crazy, but so some

40:28

people have shifted from thinking, well they

40:30

were buried there because of Athanasius's declaration

40:33

and then it's like actually they were

40:35

buried with somebody as part of their

40:37

like burial properties is probably a word

40:40

for it. I forget what it's called,

40:42

but like ceremonial burying people with their

40:44

documents and that they were trying to

40:47

rob a grave and then they came

40:49

across them and it's all a bit

40:51

of a mess. But eventually we have

40:54

access to all of these ancient Gospels

40:56

and like I say we knew that

40:58

these existed. But now we have the

41:01

texts themselves. So the Gospel of Judas

41:03

is one of my favorites. You can,

41:05

when does it say it was, it

41:07

was discovered? Or were we discovered? That

41:10

has been carbonated to 28. So notice

41:12

it says, notice has given that it

41:14

includes late second century theology, it's widely

41:17

thought to have been composed in the

41:19

second century, brackets, prior to 180 ad.

41:21

So how do we know that it's

41:24

prior to 180 ad? Because

41:26

that's when Iran A.S. row against

41:28

heresies and he mentions the gospel

41:30

of Judas So we can carbonate

41:32

it to 280 AD plus or

41:34

minus 60 years and then use

41:36

the previously known information But we

41:38

know, but that's that's this copy

41:40

that we have right? Which is

41:42

a which is a Coptic translation

41:44

So when was the text originally

41:46

written? Well, it's been mentioned. So

41:48

there are multiple ways that we

41:50

can sort of date documents. But

41:52

the actual copies that we have,

41:54

like the Nakamadi library, is probably,

41:56

I think again, these particular scriptures

41:58

are dated. like maybe the third

42:00

to fifth century maybe fourth or

42:02

fifth I can't remember exactly but

42:04

one interesting question is well when

42:06

are these manuscripts from are they

42:08

from the fourth century that's cool

42:10

but when were the texts written

42:12

that's the most interesting question and

42:15

you know they weren't originally written

42:17

in Coptic what language were they

42:19

written in and when were they

42:21

written it's also this is another

42:23

like sticking point for me with

42:25

any of this like when we

42:27

think of our current history shit

42:29

ten years ago feels like a

42:31

long time yeah to an extent.

42:33

And then you start looking 60-70

42:35

years, that's like when your great-grandparents

42:37

were kids. Yes. When you start

42:39

looking at history, the farther away

42:41

it gets though, time kind of

42:43

has a wider lens and what

42:45

at least in how we approach

42:47

it, which means we hear years

42:49

like, I'm gonna throw out random

42:51

numbers, 140 AD and 210 AD

42:53

and associate it with... almost the

42:55

same about time yes but it's

42:57

fucking 70 years apart at a

42:59

time where they the record keeping

43:01

was you wrote something in the

43:03

fucking sand yeah yeah you know

43:05

not only that but it's important

43:07

to know especially when we're talking

43:09

about Gospels that for example most

43:11

scholars date the gospel of mark

43:13

which is our earliest canonical gospel

43:15

to around 70 80 there are

43:17

various reasons for doing that Matthew

43:19

and Luke are generally dated like

43:21

between like 75 to like probably

43:23

85 that kind of decade like

43:25

10 or 15 years after Mark

43:27

and they say Christ died in

43:29

like around 30 33 a. yeah

43:31

and so John's gospel is then

43:33

probably between like 90 and 100

43:35

a.d. Now compare that to like

43:37

suppose the the gospel of Thomas

43:39

suppose we just proved beyond reasonable

43:41

doubt that it was dated to

43:43

150 a.d and that's probably around

43:45

about when it was threatened sort

43:47

of second century. Some people think

43:49

it was dated earlier, but that's

43:52

controversial. I suppose it was 150

43:54

AD. You might think, okay, John's

43:56

Gospels were in a 90 AD

43:58

and the Gospels... Thomas is written

44:00

in 150 80s, so roughly about

44:02

the same time, right? So no

44:04

big difference between them. But in

44:06

this context, that could be the difference

44:08

between like an eyewitness to the events

44:10

of Jesus's life still being alive and

44:12

still being alive and still being dead.

44:15

Yes. Like if Margaret's in 70 AD,

44:17

that's still like 40 years after Jesus

44:19

dies. But 40 years is assured enough

44:21

time that people could still be alive.

44:23

It could have been written by someone

44:25

who knew an eyewitness. That extra few

44:28

decades is the difference between. Eyewitness testimony

44:30

being possible and being impossible. So it

44:32

does actually make a huge difference. Even

44:35

on that thread though, eyewitness testimony itself

44:37

also changes naturally without people like trying

44:39

to lie or stuff. You remember details

44:42

in a small way. Like the example

44:44

I always give is is the old

44:46

experiment. I forget what it's called where

44:48

you put 20 people in a circle.

44:51

You start with a cell phone game.

44:53

You whisper it in their ear and

44:55

go down the lane and it changed.

44:57

by 10% or something or 20% by

45:00

the end through no fault of people

45:02

other than just human error. And it's

45:04

like where, you know, it's not to

45:06

sit here and be a total skeptic

45:09

about everything, but it's like when you

45:11

take something as law or canonical law,

45:13

whatever you want to say, it's like,

45:15

this is what happened, 100% we have

45:18

the proof. It's like, all right, you

45:20

are relying on test, like. I'm

45:22

even talking about the ones where you

45:24

still have an eyewitness testimony person alive,

45:26

right? Forget the other ones you point

45:28

out where you don't. You are relying

45:30

on the word of flawed human beings,

45:32

which we all are, to assume that

45:34

everything that was said is how it

45:36

is, and we even see that some

45:38

of these people are coming up with

45:40

different versions of the same thing who

45:42

lived at the same time. Yeah. Yeah,

45:45

I mean, it's a common analogy that's given

45:47

is the telephone game, but Ermon

45:49

talks about this a lot. wholly

45:51

appropriate for something like the Gospels

45:53

because the point of the telephone

45:55

game is you only get to hear at once

45:57

and the fun is that you then have to hope

45:59

you hear it right and pass it on

46:02

and you're kind of trying to make

46:04

it go wrong because that's why it's

46:06

funny with important traditions you pass it

46:08

on and you check you've got it

46:10

right so you're going to tell me

46:12

something I'm going to say I'm going

46:14

to repeat it back to you you're

46:16

going to correct any misunderstandings I'm going

46:18

to make sure I haven't memorized and

46:20

then I'm going to pass it on

46:22

to my children for example and so

46:25

this the oral transmission of religious traditions

46:27

I think is a lot more reliable

46:29

then people often realize because like you

46:31

say this was the only way that

46:33

information is is transpired like imagine if

46:35

you're learning something important you're learning about

46:37

your family history or you're learning something

46:39

for class or whatever and you're not

46:41

allowed to write it down yeah and

46:43

it's not written in a book anywhere

46:45

else you would probably put a lot

46:47

more effort into remembering exactly what was

46:49

said that's true that's passed down a

46:52

lot better but I am suspicious for

46:54

example when people say we have the

46:56

so much of Christology, which is the

46:58

study of the nature of Jesus, relies

47:00

on his exact words. Like it says

47:02

in the Gospels that Jesus used this

47:04

phrase, and this is really important. Why

47:06

did he say that instead of this?

47:08

When it gets that specific, I get

47:10

highly suspicious. You're listening to me very

47:12

carefully right now, right? You're paying attention

47:14

to the words I'm saying? Of course.

47:16

Okay, excluding the sentence I just said.

47:19

Can you repeat my previous sentence to

47:21

me? Word for word? No. You can't

47:23

even come close. You probably couldn't even

47:25

really paraphrase it very well. Because you're

47:27

paying attention quite well. I am transcripting

47:29

the information you have and translating it

47:31

into understanding what you're saying versus the

47:33

exact words and lingo and prepositional phrases

47:35

you're using to land it there. Exactly.

47:37

And so you can't remember the words

47:39

that I spoke 20 seconds ago and

47:41

I'm expected to believe that the gospel

47:43

authors who were writing at best, decades

47:46

after the death of Jesus remembered that

47:48

he'd spoken. I'm not convinced of that

47:50

he'd There is an idea that people

47:52

had been traditionally like remembering the words

47:54

that he'd said and passing them on

47:56

to each other and sharing them and

47:58

authenticating them against different independent traditions and

48:00

that can be true. But when it's

48:02

as important as in this particular instance,

48:04

did Jesus call himself the son of

48:06

man or a son of man? And

48:08

that actually makes a big difference? Yes.

48:10

Then I think we need to be

48:13

a lot more suspicious. Hey guys, if

48:15

you haven't already subscribed, please hit that

48:17

subscribe button. It's a huge help. Thank

48:19

you. There are, in to play Devils

48:21

Advocate on some of that though, in

48:23

our own lives, forget even something as

48:25

serious as like Jesus or historical figure,

48:27

in our own lives. You

48:29

may listen to someone talking with you for

48:32

an hour, right? Yes. And you're talking about

48:34

something serious with them. And to your point,

48:36

I can't remember what they said 30 seconds

48:38

ago in the exact words, but at some

48:40

point, you know, the drama of the situation

48:43

lines up that they land the plane and

48:45

they say something that isn't, those words are

48:47

ingrained in your head forever. Yes. So there

48:49

could be some of that. And that's what

48:52

probably happens in a lot of these cases

48:54

with Jesus. really, really big Christological moments in

48:56

John's Gospel. Jesus appears in Chapter 8 to

48:58

like invoke the divine name. He says to

49:01

his Jewish opponents, before Abraham was, I am.

49:03

I am, Ego Amy in Greek. It's thought

49:05

by many to be a callback to the

49:07

name that God gives Moses as his own

49:10

name, Eesha in the Hebrew, which kind of

49:12

means, Ego Amy, which is what Jesus says.

49:14

And so if Jesus really did say something

49:16

like that, it is the kind of thing

49:19

that would stick in the mind. Yes. The

49:21

mystery then is why only John's Gospel reports

49:23

it and Matthew, Mark, and Luke have no

49:25

mention as such an event. So there are

49:27

other reasons to suspect the hystericity of that

49:30

event. But a lot of like reading into

49:32

the words of Jesus isn't just the big

49:34

headline obvious stuff like that. It's more specific

49:36

stuff. Like the Son of man stuff. Jesus

49:39

uses the title, the title of man to

49:41

himself, I think. and it's a bit of

49:43

a mystery what it means because son of

49:45

man in Aramaic which is the language Jesus

49:48

spoke is just a sort of slang term

49:50

that means human being. Bar Nash, it just

49:52

means human being. So you would say that

49:54

person is a son of man, just means

49:57

that they're a human being. You know, they

49:59

were born of a human being. Weirdly, the

50:01

Greek New Testament consistently has Jesus used the

50:03

definitive article, The Son of Man, which is

50:06

a really clunky Greek phrase. It's not something

50:08

that just sort of gets lost in translation.

50:10

It was very particularly, it was done on

50:12

purpose. It was done on a son of

50:14

man. So we've got this title, The Son

50:17

of Man, which we associate with Jesus, but

50:19

a lot of scholars think that the way

50:21

we should sort of think about this is

50:23

as if, because Son of Man just means

50:26

human being, it's as if someone was going

50:28

around calling himself the human being, or the

50:30

one, in like the matrix sense, which until

50:32

something like the matrix popularizes that, that usage

50:35

would be really clunky and strange, but it

50:37

seems like Jesus might have been doing something

50:39

like that, like I am the human one,

50:41

you know? It's extremely strange. But if there

50:44

were some instances where he was actually just

50:46

saying, I am a human, it would totally

50:48

change the interpretation of a verse. So for

50:50

example, have you ever heard the phrase, the

50:52

Sabbath was made for man, not man for

50:55

the Sabbath? Have you ever heard this before?

50:57

I don't think so. So the Sabbath is

50:59

supposed to be a day of rest, right?

51:01

It's the seventh day of the week, and

51:04

in Jewish law, you have to remember the

51:06

Sabbath and keep it wholly. You're not allowed

51:08

to work on the Sabbath. His Jewish opponents

51:10

come up to him and say you're working

51:13

on the Sabbath because they're trying to catch

51:15

him out They don't like him. They want

51:17

to they want to eventually crucify him So

51:19

they say you're working on the Sabbath and

51:22

Jesus goes have you not read what David

51:24

did and he says that King David does

51:26

the same thing He sort of works on

51:28

the Sabbath when he has to and then

51:31

he says That man is made that the

51:33

Sabbath is made for man not man for

51:35

the Sabbath. Hmm. Mm. So in other words

51:37

the reason that the Sabbath exists that the

51:39

Sabbath's exist is for humankind's sake you know,

51:42

you know, you know, you know, you know,

51:44

so that we get our day of rest.

51:46

Yes. And so the criticism he's making of

51:48

the Jews there is that they've become too

51:51

legalistic. They sort of forgot the whole reason.

51:53

and why the Sabbath exists in the first

51:55

place. It's not just there because God hates

51:57

it when you work on the Sabbath. So

52:00

therefore your sake, the Sabbath is made for

52:02

the Sabbath. Jesus then says, therefore, the son

52:04

of man is Lord of the Sabbath. I

52:06

mean, he gets to decide what happens that

52:09

day. Well, that's the thing, right? Who is

52:11

the Lord of the Sabbath? The Lord of

52:13

the Sabbath is God. God is the one

52:15

who... God is the one who institutes... Yeah,

52:18

yeah, he's the other son of man. In

52:20

the Gnostic Gospels that's, they associate, Ozzy Osbaw.

52:22

The person who institutes the law about the

52:24

Sabbath and the Ten Commandments is God. God

52:26

is the Lord of the Sabbath. But here's

52:29

Jesus saying, oh, the son of man is

52:31

Lord of the Sabbath. Me, I'm using the

52:33

Son of man, I'm the Lord of the

52:35

Lord of the Lord of the Lord of

52:38

the Sabbath. I'm, I'm the Lord of the

52:40

Lord of the Lord of the Lord of

52:42

the Lord of the Lord of the Lord

52:44

of the Lord of the Lord of the

52:47

Sabbath. I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm the

52:49

Lord of the Lord of the Lord of

52:51

the Lord of the Lord of the Lord

52:53

of the Lord of the Lord of the

52:56

Lord of the Lord of the Lord of

52:58

the Lord of the Lord of the Lord

53:00

of the Lord of the Lord of the

53:02

tradition that's been lost in translation and Jesus

53:05

actually said son of man just to mean

53:07

human beings. Over and over again though? Well

53:09

some some scholars like Morris Casey think that

53:11

that's what's happened. I think that's that's dubious.

53:13

I think that's dubious. I think that's dubious.

53:16

I think that seems like a stretch. The

53:18

use of the the definitive article is too

53:20

strong to think that Jesus wasn't sometimes using

53:22

it essentially as a kind of title, but

53:25

this instance for example. Check it. Mark is

53:27

our earliest is our earliest gospel. We also,

53:29

by the way, I haven't been saying this

53:31

this whole time, but a whole another rabbit

53:34

hole here is the translation of all these

53:36

Gospels. So much of that is. Where one

53:38

article can be here instead of for you

53:40

on that. I've got something for you on

53:43

that. So, go back and go to actual,

53:45

go to the actual, just type in Mark

53:47

II into that, where it's there, just type

53:49

Mark II, and hit enter. Okay, and then

53:52

scroll down. Until you get keep scrolling Jesus

53:54

Lord of the South so he said right

53:56

so they come up to him the Pharisees

53:58

say look what he's doing is unlawful on

54:00

the Sabbath Jesus answers have you never read

54:03

what David did? he and his companions were

54:05

hungry and in need, so they enter into

54:07

the temple and eat the bread that only

54:09

the high priest is supposed to eat. So

54:12

first thing to notice is Jesus is justifying

54:14

his breaking of the Sabbath by pointing to

54:16

another human being and saying, well, he did

54:18

the same thing. He then says, then he

54:21

said to them, the Sabbath was made for

54:23

man, not man for the Sabbath. So, and

54:25

the word does mean therefore, therefore, the son

54:27

of man is Lord. even of the Sabbath.

54:30

So, one, the traditional Christian interpretation of this

54:32

is Jesus is claiming to be God because

54:34

he claims to be the Lord of the

54:36

Sabbath, which is only God. But if this

54:39

has been lost in translation, which I suspect

54:41

of this first, and Jesus in this instance

54:43

meant son of man, in the Aramaic colloquial

54:45

sense of just meaning human being, all he's

54:47

saying is that human beings are Lord of

54:50

the Sabbath. In other words, humans are Lord

54:52

of the Sabbath. Sabbath isn't Lord of human

54:54

beings. which hold on a second is exactly

54:56

what he's just said in other words. So

54:59

my interpretation here that Jesus is just saying

55:01

that the son of man what he actually

55:03

said was like the son of man is

55:05

in human beings. Yes. Now reread the verse

55:08

with that interpretation in mind. They accuse him

55:10

of breaking the Sabbath. He says well David

55:12

did the same thing and then he says

55:14

look the Sabbath was made for man not

55:17

man for the Sabbath. Therefore human beings are

55:19

lord of the Sabbath. Because he's said that

55:21

the Sabbath was made for mankind. Is he

55:23

essentially saying that like instead of trying to

55:26

treat this like a law that you're dictating

55:28

your whole life around to feel like you're

55:30

doing the right thing, it's really supposed to

55:32

be a guideline as a method to how

55:34

to live your life in a good way?

55:37

In this instance, I don't know if I'd

55:39

phrase it in those terms. that it's just

55:41

like a guideline saying fuck no no no

55:43

because I think I think you're probably about

55:46

I think you're probably about right but I

55:48

think saying guidelines is too loose like it's

55:50

not it's not like well these are rules

55:52

but they're only guidelines so break them if

55:55

you want to it's more like understand what

55:57

the purpose of the law is the law

55:59

is there for your sake you know but

56:01

What I'm trying to bring out with this

56:04

particular verse is that I think that that

56:06

is the interpretation of what's actually happening here.

56:08

But the specific words here, the son of

56:10

man is lord even of the Sabbath. It's

56:13

a little bit weird and clunky because he's

56:15

just said that David broke the Sabbath and

56:17

that was fine. He's just said that the

56:19

Sabbath was made for mankind. And then suddenly

56:21

shifts to talking about himself, the son of

56:24

man is lord of the Sabbath. Because he's

56:26

not mankind. Why is he just spoken about

56:28

David breaking the Sabbath? Why is he just

56:30

said that the Sabbath was made for mankind?

56:33

And then suddenly he's talking about himself. Doesn't

56:35

it make more sense if he would say,

56:37

well David broke the Sabbath and the Sabbath

56:39

was made for mankind? Therefore, mankind is lord

56:42

of the Sabbath. I see

56:44

what you're saying. Therefore, I think when

56:46

he says here, the son of man

56:48

is Lord even of the Sabbath, I

56:50

think it's probably a, not a mistranslation

56:52

from the Greek, but the Greek itself

56:54

is probably a misreporting of what actually

56:56

happened here. And Jesus was just saying

56:58

that mankind is Lord of the Sabbath,

57:00

not the son of man as a

57:02

title. You know what I mean? I

57:04

could see that one both ways because

57:06

he's, and maybe this is a way

57:08

too simplistic way of looking at it.

57:10

he's looking at date, he's using David

57:12

as an example of a great man

57:15

among humankind, not to say like he's

57:17

above man or anything, and then relating

57:19

back to himself and saying, but you

57:21

know, by the way, like, I'm the

57:23

son of man, so I can actually

57:25

dictate. So that's another great interpretation, is

57:27

he saying like, well, David did it,

57:29

and I'm so much greater than David,

57:31

because I'm the son of man. So

57:33

of course I can do it too,

57:35

that's another interpretation. The key is that

57:37

it's not always obvious. And a lot

57:39

of it has to do this, the

57:41

reason I brought this example up is

57:43

because by the way I might be

57:45

wrong there, maybe this is an authentic

57:48

tradition and he really did say the

57:50

son of man, meaning himself, his lord

57:52

from Sabbath, that might be true. But

57:54

the important thing is here that there's

57:56

a lot more room in my view

57:58

in an instance like this for someone

58:00

to have slightly misremembered what he said.

58:02

Especially if Jesus had been going around

58:04

claiming himself. to be the son of

58:06

man. And he had been saying, like,

58:08

I am the son of man constantly.

58:10

And then in this instance, he used

58:12

the phrase son of man in the

58:14

non-titular sense. It would be so obvious,

58:16

it would be so easy for me

58:18

to imagine that somebody sort of misremembers.

58:20

And he sort of go, yeah, remember

58:23

when Jesus said the son of man

58:25

is Lord of the Sabbath and they

58:27

record it that way? So the whole,

58:29

why I said, can you remember my

58:31

sentence 20 seconds 20 seconds ago, is

58:33

to indicate that in some instances? I

58:35

think there is a lot more wiggle

58:37

room for just thinking that something has

58:39

been misremembered, whereas if Jesus were to

58:41

have said before Abraham was I am,

58:43

that's so specific that it's unlikely that

58:45

that would be remembered wrongly. So I

58:47

think it applies sometimes, but not other

58:49

times. I think that's very fair, because

58:51

like I said, there's different, you know,

58:53

for lack of a better way of

58:55

putting it, there's different levels of drama

58:58

that occur with the context of what

59:00

you're saying and we're saying and we're

59:02

saying. One of the reasons Alessi spoke

59:04

so highly of you is you've studied

59:06

this stuff inside and out. You're not

59:08

just someone who will argue about points

59:10

in the Bible without literally being able

59:12

to pull up, point in scripture, note,

59:14

and the whole bit. But like, you

59:16

know, in your time studying, let's say,

59:18

the New Testament and the character that

59:20

is Jesus, what do you make of

59:22

that? I mean, he was a historical

59:24

character. We know he existed, but who

59:26

do you think he was and do

59:28

you think... Do you think he was,

59:30

regardless of whether he was divine or

59:33

not, do you think he was a

59:35

force of good? To clarify, I'm very

59:37

much a student here and I'm fascinated

59:39

by the Gospels and I have read

59:41

a lot about them, but I would

59:43

be put to shame by a biblical

59:45

scholar, like in terms of knowledge, in

59:47

terms of interpretation, certainly like grasp of

59:49

Greek, I don't read New Testament, I

59:51

know some important terms and things like

59:53

that, but I'm very much... not even

59:55

approximating an expert here, which is important

59:57

to clarify because I'm sort of trying

59:59

to... out loud here when I share

1:00:01

these ideas with people even if I

1:00:03

say them kind of confidently like hey

1:00:05

this is what I think Jesus is

1:00:08

doing it's all in the spirit of

1:00:10

being like this is how I'm reading

1:00:12

it guys like am I missing something

1:00:14

and sometimes I am just missing something

1:00:16

and sometimes I am like just missing

1:00:18

something or someone brings something to my

1:00:20

attention I'm like actually you know what

1:00:22

you're totally right I need to totally

1:00:24

reevaluate my view that happens all the

1:00:26

time in my estimation that throat clearing

1:00:28

out of the way the historical of

1:00:30

the Baptist who was essentially trying to

1:00:32

adapt and continue the ministry of John

1:00:34

the Baptist. John the Baptist is my

1:00:36

favorite New Testament character. Why is he

1:00:38

your favorite? You know who John the

1:00:40

Baptist is? Yes. I ask people this

1:00:43

all the time and they say, yeah,

1:00:45

of course I do. Who's John the

1:00:47

Baptist? Jesus, his cousin? What did, like,

1:00:49

who is John the Baptist? What does

1:00:51

he, what does he do? Did the

1:00:53

baptizing? In this case, we're referring to

1:00:55

it in a Christian context and being

1:00:57

a part of what then became that

1:00:59

church. But Christianity didn't exist yet. It

1:01:01

didn't exist. So what was Jesus being

1:01:03

baptized into? I don't know who was

1:01:05

being baptized into officially, actually. And what

1:01:07

does baptism actually mean? You're getting met

1:01:09

it. It's like... Remember, I recorded for

1:01:11

five hours right before you got to

1:01:13

bear with it. I'm being a bit

1:01:16

unfair. I'm being a bit unfair. Because

1:01:18

the point is that people always, that

1:01:20

people always know who John the Baptistists

1:01:22

on the Baptist is. Because he's the

1:01:24

guy that baptized Jesus, it's like, what

1:01:26

does that mean? We don't know. The

1:01:28

first time the word baptism shows up

1:01:30

is in this report, which on the

1:01:32

Baptist. Like, who was he? What was

1:01:34

he doing? Why was Jesus being baptized?

1:01:36

This is really strange. Like, why is

1:01:38

it that Jesus, God himself, according to

1:01:40

orthodox Christianity, would need to be baptized?

1:01:42

Baptized into what? For what purpose? Now,

1:01:44

it's unlikely that the Gospel authors would

1:01:46

make up this story. If they're trying

1:01:48

to present Jesus as at least the

1:01:51

Son of God and possibly God himself,

1:01:53

they're not going to make up a

1:01:55

story about him being baptized by some

1:01:57

other preacher who is... Because it goes

1:01:59

against the narrative. Yeah, exactly. So the

1:02:01

fact that all of the Gospels report

1:02:03

about John the Baptist and his importance

1:02:05

mean that we can be pretty certain

1:02:07

that historically this is actually what happened,

1:02:09

that Jesus was baptized by John the

1:02:11

Baptist, right? Yeah. So why? Now the

1:02:13

Christian answers are plentiful. There are lots

1:02:15

of reasons why that could have happened,

1:02:17

but like historically I believe it's because

1:02:19

he was a follower of John the

1:02:21

Baptist. We have all kinds of indications

1:02:23

that this is the case, like at

1:02:26

one point Jesus is, who the greatest

1:02:28

person ever born of a woman was.

1:02:30

A people born of a woman, there

1:02:32

is none greater than John the Baptist.

1:02:34

He refers to John the Baptist as

1:02:36

the greatest person who ever lived. Person.

1:02:38

Yes. So some people think, well, okay,

1:02:40

he was excluding himself there. He might

1:02:42

have been. He also might not have

1:02:44

been. We don't really know. It's kind

1:02:46

of interesting. John the Baptist is a

1:02:48

hugely significant figure with his own ministry

1:02:50

as well. This is important to point

1:02:52

out. He's somebody who's got his own

1:02:54

following. Two of Jesus' disciples are John

1:02:56

the Baptist disciples, who essentially poaches from

1:02:58

them. And in the canonical... We poached

1:03:01

him. Well, in the canonical tradition, John

1:03:03

the Baptist basically is constantly saying, there

1:03:05

is coming one greater than I. Like,

1:03:07

you're all my followers, but I baptize

1:03:09

you with water, but there's one who's

1:03:11

going to come and baptize you with

1:03:13

spirit. So when you're a free agent,

1:03:15

you're signing with him. Yeah, right, right,

1:03:17

right, exactly. And so... Jesus comes along

1:03:19

and John the Baptist is like, here

1:03:21

he is, behold the Lamb of God

1:03:23

who takes away the sins of the

1:03:25

world, as John's Gospel has him say.

1:03:27

So instantly, John the Baptist is just

1:03:29

like, this is the dude. I'm unfit

1:03:31

to like, untie his sandal. It's a

1:03:33

really clunky sort of. specific phrase. Oh

1:03:36

he said that? Yeah well maybe it's

1:03:38

tie the sand or something like that.

1:03:40

He says like I'm unworthy. Pull it

1:03:42

up John John one. I guess that

1:03:44

was like the old school way saying

1:03:46

I'm unworthy of holding his jock strap.

1:03:48

Yeah but that's the thing so some

1:03:50

some people kind of think that was

1:03:52

this some kind of known colloquial saying?

1:03:54

Yeah. People say because it's weirdly specific

1:03:56

so the first person mentioned by name

1:03:58

is John. the Baptist. Hold on, scroll

1:04:00

up a bit. There we go. John

1:04:02

testified out concerning him. So the word

1:04:04

became flesh, famously in John's Gospel, the

1:04:06

word becomes flesh and dwells among us,

1:04:08

blah blah blah. John testified concerning him,

1:04:11

that's John the Baptist, saying, this is

1:04:13

the one I spoke about when I

1:04:15

said he who comes after me has

1:04:17

surpassed me because he was before me.

1:04:19

Out of his illness we have all

1:04:21

received grace in place of grace already

1:04:23

given, but the law was given through

1:04:25

Moses. grace and truth came through Jesus.

1:04:27

Yes, no one has ever seen God,

1:04:29

but the one and only son who

1:04:31

is himself God and is in close

1:04:33

his relationship with the Father has made

1:04:35

him known. So this is a very

1:04:37

high Christology. This is very like Jesus

1:04:39

is the God. And if you look

1:04:41

right underneath, John the Baptist denies being

1:04:43

the Messiah. They come up to him

1:04:46

and they say, who are you? Are

1:04:48

you the Messiah? Are you the Messiah?

1:04:50

He says, are you Elijah? He says,

1:04:52

no. He says, are you the prophet,

1:04:54

are you the prophet the prophet, the

1:04:56

prophet, the prophet, no. There was a

1:04:58

man, this is verse six, there was

1:05:00

a man sent from God whose name

1:05:02

was John. He's not called John the

1:05:04

Baptist in John's Gospel, but that's who

1:05:06

we're talking about. He came as a

1:05:08

witness to testify concerning that light so

1:05:10

that all may believe. He himself was

1:05:12

not the light, he came only as

1:05:14

a witness to the light, he came

1:05:16

only as a witness to the light.

1:05:19

John's gospel is particularly interested in reminding

1:05:21

us that John is not the Messiah.

1:05:23

He's not the Messiah. And

1:05:25

one indication, one interesting implication of

1:05:27

this, is that at the time

1:05:29

of the writing of John's Gospel,

1:05:31

which is probably around like 1890-100-a-d,

1:05:34

there were people who believed that

1:05:36

John the Baptist was the Messiah,

1:05:38

that John the Baptist was the

1:05:40

light, that John the Baptist was

1:05:42

the main guy. And that's why...

1:05:45

In John's Gospel, one idea is

1:05:47

that that's why in John's Gospel

1:05:49

we see such an emphasis on

1:05:51

diminishing the status of John the

1:05:53

Baptist. He's constantly saying, like, this

1:05:55

guy's better than me, he's coming,

1:05:58

I'm unworthy, like... This is the

1:06:00

guy, I'm not the Messiah, he's

1:06:02

the Messiah. Because we know that

1:06:04

John is held in high esteem.

1:06:06

Jesus calls from the greatest man

1:06:08

that's ever lived. When Herod

1:06:10

Antipas first hears rumors of

1:06:13

this Jesus chap, when people

1:06:15

start talking about Jesus, Herod

1:06:17

Antipas says, this is John the

1:06:19

Baptist resurrected. Jesus is causing

1:06:22

such a scene around, like throughout

1:06:24

his ministry. And when Herod Antipas,

1:06:26

the king hears. about this guy.

1:06:29

He says it's John the Baptist's

1:06:31

resurrection. What must John the Baptist

1:06:33

have been doing? If when this

1:06:35

guy hears about Jesus, he goes,

1:06:37

oh, it's another John the Baptist.

1:06:39

Well, John was pouring water, this

1:06:41

guy's walking on water. You just

1:06:43

do point out. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

1:06:45

Yeah, that's right. Water is actually

1:06:48

a... I'm going to hell. No,

1:06:50

but the emphasis on water is

1:06:52

really interesting too, because it's not

1:06:54

entirely clear what the water thing

1:06:56

is all about. Christemaker. It's a

1:06:58

great Christmaker. He's the one who

1:07:00

makes the price, right? And the

1:07:02

scholarly work he put out is

1:07:04

called John of History, Baptist of

1:07:06

Faith. And it's about the historical

1:07:09

John the Baptist of Faith. And

1:07:11

it's about the historical John the

1:07:13

Baptist, and some of it in

1:07:15

my view gets kind of speculative,

1:07:18

but I'd recommend people reading this

1:07:20

if they're interested, or read through

1:07:22

the Gospels with a view

1:07:24

towards John the Baptist being

1:07:26

incredibly. unless you count the word as

1:07:28

a name or God I suppose. And it's

1:07:31

like denying the Messiah ship and there's

1:07:33

this preoccupation with it. So what were

1:07:35

all the things you was doing though?

1:07:37

Because like as you pointed out at

1:07:39

the very beginning when you asked me

1:07:41

my base level knowledge on him it

1:07:43

is emphasis on base. Yeah right we're

1:07:46

not entirely sure but we know that

1:07:48

one thing he was doing is baptizing

1:07:50

people and he was doing what was

1:07:52

called a baptism of repentance for the

1:07:54

forgiveness of sins. That sounds

1:07:56

very familiar. Yeah, it doesn't it right?

1:07:59

Yeah, so that one at the altar

1:08:01

go to go to mark one so

1:08:03

i like i like looking at marks

1:08:05

gospel because it's our earliest gospel when

1:08:07

was marks gospel written again arguably around

1:08:09

70 a day there are there are

1:08:11

all kinds of debates about when the

1:08:13

gospels are written and it's kind of

1:08:15

a fascinating was that was this also

1:08:17

written on papyrus by the way yeah

1:08:19

so we have a thing is we

1:08:21

don't we don't have the original autographs

1:08:23

as and we don't have the original

1:08:25

We don't like have Mark's Gospel

1:08:27

written in 70 AD, but we

1:08:30

have our like early fragments

1:08:32

of copies or early codices,

1:08:34

and so we don't know

1:08:36

what the original autographs would

1:08:39

have looked like. And also, you

1:08:41

know, I'm no expert in manuscripts,

1:08:43

so there might be some way

1:08:45

we could know that without seeing

1:08:48

them like ourselves. The dating

1:08:50

of Mark's Gospel is not based

1:08:52

on finding a manuscript and like

1:08:54

dating the manuscript with carbon dating

1:08:57

or something. It's quite speculative. It's very

1:08:59

textual. So we do have like early

1:09:01

manuscripts. So we can put a top

1:09:03

end on these on these manuscripts. But

1:09:05

nailing it down to an exact point.

1:09:07

Yeah, we haven't got like a first

1:09:09

century fragment, right? And even if we

1:09:11

did it would be probably impossible

1:09:13

to like prove exactly when it

1:09:16

was when it was written. So

1:09:18

instead we... we're looking at other

1:09:20

factors. So Mark's Gospel seems to

1:09:22

be written in response to the

1:09:24

destruction of the temple in Jerusalem,

1:09:27

which happened in 70 AD. This

1:09:29

is like a key moment. Some

1:09:31

people think it was written before

1:09:33

70 AD. Some people think it

1:09:35

was written before 70 AD. Some

1:09:38

people think it was written in

1:09:40

like 40 80. It's just incredibly

1:09:42

speculative. In fact, in a new

1:09:44

tab, can you go to John

1:09:46

Chapter 5? Yeah. There are some scholars

1:09:49

who look at John and say,

1:09:51

take a look at verse two there.

1:09:53

Now there is in Jerusalem near the

1:09:55

sheep gate a pool. There is

1:09:57

in Jerusalem near the sheep gate.

1:09:59

pool. That pool would have been destroyed

1:10:02

by the Romans in 70 AD. So

1:10:04

the fact that pool, yeah, because it

1:10:06

was on the temple ground, so the

1:10:08

whole the whole area is just like

1:10:11

completely flattened. And so it

1:10:13

wouldn't exist anymore in other

1:10:16

words. Jerusalem was was like

1:10:18

ravaged. And so although John is

1:10:20

telling a story about what happened a

1:10:22

long time ago... At the beginning

1:10:25

of John's Gospel, he's writing as

1:10:27

an author. He's saying, he doesn't

1:10:29

say, now in that time, in

1:10:31

that time, there was a pool,

1:10:33

and this is what Jesus did

1:10:35

there. He says, now there is

1:10:37

a pool right now. And this

1:10:39

is what happened there. And this

1:10:42

is what happened there. And

1:10:44

so some scholars based on this

1:10:46

alone say that that means that

1:10:48

John must have been writing

1:10:50

his gospel was just saying.

1:10:53

There is, because he's sort of

1:10:55

writing as if he's in the

1:10:57

tense at the time. Yeah, or

1:10:59

he's playing chess, not checkers. Right.

1:11:01

But it is, it is a

1:11:04

little bit weird, right? It's like,

1:11:06

why is it speaking in the

1:11:08

present tense? So some people look

1:11:10

at that and go, oh, John

1:11:12

must be pre-70. So the point

1:11:14

I'm trying to make is that

1:11:17

dating is an incredibly speculative enterprise.

1:11:19

But it's generally assumed that Mark

1:11:21

is the earliest. yes you Christos

1:11:23

or something you know in the beginning of

1:11:25

the good news and good news is the same

1:11:27

word for gospel by the way you galleon so

1:11:30

when you hear about the Gospels it just means

1:11:32

the good news of Jesus Christ the son of

1:11:34

God son of God kind of should be in

1:11:36

brackets because it's not in some of our earliest

1:11:38

manuscripts so oftentimes in translations you'll see that in

1:11:40

fact I think if you see where it says

1:11:43

B the little B footnote Some manuscripts

1:11:45

do not have the Son of God. These

1:11:47

are fascinating. If you ever read the Bible

1:11:50

online, this is the NIV, yeah, like look

1:11:52

at the footnotes because it's always got these

1:11:54

really interesting little tidbits. But check it

1:11:56

out, you've got this interesting quote

1:11:58

of actually a few. different prophets,

1:12:00

but it mentions Isaiah. I will send

1:12:03

my messenger ahead of you who will

1:12:05

prepare the way, a voice calling in the

1:12:07

wilderness, a voice of one calling in

1:12:09

the wilderness, prepare the way for the

1:12:11

Lord, make straight paths for him. And

1:12:13

then John the Baptist appears in

1:12:15

the wilderness, and he's preparing the

1:12:17

way for Jesus. So Jesus in this

1:12:20

instance is the Lord. And in the

1:12:22

Old Testament passage, the Lord there is

1:12:24

Yahwe, the great God. So it seems

1:12:26

like Mark is presenting Jesus as Yahwe.

1:12:28

But notice again. The second person mentioned

1:12:31

by a name in John's Gospel, John

1:12:33

the Baptist, in the wilderness, preaching a

1:12:35

baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of

1:12:37

sins. What does that mean? I don't know.

1:12:40

No one really knows. But look, preaching

1:12:42

a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness

1:12:44

of sins. The whole Judean countryside and

1:12:46

all the people of Jerusalem went out

1:12:48

to him, confessing their sins, they were baptized

1:12:50

by him in the river. To get

1:12:52

forgiven. Yes, John was wearing clothing made

1:12:54

of camels, a leather belt around his

1:12:56

waist. He ate locusts and wild honey.

1:12:59

That sounds awful. And then there it

1:13:01

is again, and this was his message.

1:13:03

After me comes one more powerful than

1:13:05

I, the straps of whose sandals I

1:13:07

am not worthy to stoop down and

1:13:09

untie. I baptize you with water, but

1:13:11

he will baptize you with the Holy

1:13:13

Spirit. So from our earliest source, we've

1:13:15

got John the Baptist as... An incredibly

1:13:17

important person, the first person mentioned, who

1:13:20

prepares the way for Jesus, emphasises that

1:13:22

Jesus is more important than he is,

1:13:24

but also an emphasis on how big

1:13:26

John the Baptist was. Everyone's coming out

1:13:28

to him for the forgiveness of sins. Interestingly,

1:13:31

later in Jesus' ministry, Jesus says

1:13:33

things like, you know, the greatest student

1:13:35

will one day come to be as good as

1:13:37

their teacher and surpass their teacher. He also says

1:13:39

to his disciples at one point, you will

1:13:41

do even greater things than I. Which is a little

1:13:44

bit of a weird thing to say. So that's

1:13:46

the son of man. Again, like historically, I'm kind

1:13:48

of looking at this and thinking, and what's going

1:13:50

on here? I kind of see this as John the

1:13:52

Baptist, like passing on his ministry to

1:13:55

Jesus, Jesus is essentially his successor, and

1:13:57

then Jesus takes on this forgiveness of

1:13:59

sins. And this sort of embodiment

1:14:01

of what Christians will say only God

1:14:03

can forgive sins, and that's why Jesus

1:14:06

can forgive sins What the hell is

1:14:08

going on with John the Baptist then

1:14:10

and why is it that in John

1:14:12

if you go to John chapter 20

1:14:14

verse 21? So this is this is

1:14:17

a lot of them But he was

1:14:19

close to him and they were they

1:14:21

were related and so 22 and so

1:14:23

chap 20 is fine. Yeah, you can

1:14:25

scroll down hypothetically like I'm just This

1:14:27

is way more serious than it, but

1:14:30

I'm thinking about like good things to

1:14:32

come before great things, right? Like one

1:14:34

person walks so another can run. Yeah,

1:14:36

yeah, so this is a thing, right?

1:14:38

Like, historically, you're either looking at this

1:14:40

theologically and saying like, okay, well, John

1:14:43

the Baptist was an important preacher, a

1:14:45

prophet of God, who knew that Jesus

1:14:47

was God himself, he was incarnate, so

1:14:49

that's why he was there. Or you

1:14:51

could see it historically, as someone who's

1:14:53

just saying that like, like overtake my

1:14:56

ministry. Now historically if that is what

1:14:58

happened it probably doesn't make much sense

1:15:00

that John was saying that before Jesus

1:15:02

showed up. And so if we take

1:15:04

this view that Jesus is essentially a

1:15:07

disciple of John the Baptist who carries

1:15:09

on his ministry it's unlikely that John

1:15:11

the Baptist is already going around saying

1:15:13

there's one who's coming he's gonna be

1:15:15

greater than I am and then Jesus

1:15:17

appears and he goes that's him that's

1:15:20

the guy you know that's unlikely to

1:15:22

have happened. This is a really important,

1:15:24

Christological moment for me. If you scroll

1:15:26

down to like verse 21, about that,

1:15:28

yeah, okay. Yeah, this is indexed, man.

1:15:30

Jesus is talking to his disciples here

1:15:33

and he says, again, Jesus said, this

1:15:35

is him speaking to his disciples. And

1:15:37

he just, this is after the resurrection.

1:15:39

So Jesus died, he's resurrected and he

1:15:41

says, peace be with you. As the

1:15:43

Father has sent me, I am sending

1:15:46

you. The word as there is cathos,

1:15:48

which means in the same way as.

1:15:50

And with that he breathed on them

1:15:52

and said, receive the Holy Spirit. If

1:15:54

you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are

1:15:56

forgiven. If you do not forgive them,

1:15:59

they are not forgiven. So Jesus seems

1:16:01

to be giving his disciples the ab-

1:16:03

to forgive sins. So my image of

1:16:05

who Jesus is, is somebody who kind

1:16:07

of takes on the ministry of John

1:16:10

the Baptist, becomes extremely proficient, is an

1:16:12

incredibly talented healer, miracle worker, all of

1:16:14

this kind of stuff, and then has

1:16:16

a view constantly towards then passing that

1:16:18

on to his disciples. And this forgiveness

1:16:20

of sins is really important because it

1:16:23

shows up in John the Baptist. Jesus

1:16:25

takes it on and now he's giving

1:16:27

it to his disciples. I'm only really

1:16:29

thinking about this now, like this particular

1:16:31

point, but it says, how does he

1:16:33

give that power to his disciples? Receive

1:16:36

the Holy Spirit. He gives them the

1:16:38

Holy Spirit and now they can forgive

1:16:40

people's sins. Go back to Mark Chapter

1:16:42

1, top left tab. Let's look at

1:16:44

the actual baptism itself. Check this out.

1:16:46

I don't think it will word it

1:16:49

like this in Mark's Gospel. Hold on.

1:16:51

Yeah, okay, so it kind of does

1:16:53

here, right? So this is the actual

1:16:55

baptism. Just as Jesus was coming, yeah,

1:16:57

so Jesus is baptized by John and

1:16:59

the Jordan, just as Jesus was coming

1:17:02

up out of the water, he saw

1:17:04

heaven torn open and the spirit descending

1:17:06

on him like a dove. A voice

1:17:08

came out of heaven, you are my

1:17:10

son, with whom, whom I love. with

1:17:13

you I am very well pleased. Try

1:17:15

like Luke chapter 3 I think it

1:17:17

would be. Because the problem, the thing

1:17:19

about the Gospels is because we've got

1:17:21

four Gospels, the same stories are often

1:17:23

reported in multiple ways throughout all of

1:17:26

the Gospels. So look it's basically identical.

1:17:28

Versus like rap bars. It's basically identical,

1:17:30

right? It's basically, it's basically identical, right?

1:17:32

Like you can see it's the same

1:17:34

thing, same, same quote. Although it's slightly

1:17:36

changed. Scroll down a bit further. There

1:17:39

we go. Hold on. Look at that.

1:17:41

All right. When all the people were

1:17:43

being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And

1:17:45

as he was praying, heaven was open

1:17:47

and the Holy Spirit descended on him

1:17:49

and bodily form like a dove. and

1:17:52

a voice came from heaven you are

1:17:54

my son whom I love with you

1:17:56

I'm well please so this is really

1:17:58

important the holy spirit descends on him

1:18:00

in bodily form like a dove try

1:18:03

the same thing in Matthew's gospel it's

1:18:05

true do like Matthew baptism and see

1:18:07

what comes up the main thing that

1:18:09

I want you to take notice of

1:18:11

here is in every instance of the

1:18:13

baptism of Jesus the holy spirit comes

1:18:16

upon Jesus as a dove yes the

1:18:18

spirit of God descending on him like

1:18:20

a dove and elizing on him and

1:18:22

I think In at least one instance,

1:18:24

there's talk of like the the Holy

1:18:26

Spirit coming like into him. I'm not

1:18:29

sure I'm not sure if that's in

1:18:31

the Greek and the Synoptics or if

1:18:33

it's John's Gospel. The wording's also the

1:18:35

same on that quote. almost word for

1:18:37

word. Yeah, so the thing about the

1:18:39

synopt, so you know that the first

1:18:42

three Gospels are called the synoptic Gospels,

1:18:44

have you heard this before? Yeah, I

1:18:46

think Wes talked about that. Yeah, Matthew,

1:18:48

Mark and Luke share so much in

1:18:50

common that they seem to share similar

1:18:52

sources and rely upon each other, John's

1:18:55

Gospel is just like totally wacky and

1:18:57

out on its own. Maybe they were

1:18:59

cheating off each other's papers. That seems,

1:19:01

that's how I mean like 95% or

1:19:03

so of Mark's gospel. with like new

1:19:06

stuff added on. Only a couple of

1:19:08

things. How wild would that be if

1:19:10

they were just like sitting in some

1:19:12

room like inside a rock in Jerusalem

1:19:14

like yeah we're gonna write this out

1:19:16

and then it becomes those gospelists. That

1:19:19

is basically that is basically how it

1:19:21

yeah how it seems to be how

1:19:23

it seems to be changed the world.

1:19:25

We know that the author of Matthew

1:19:27

and Luke are using Mark which by

1:19:29

the way is one of the dating

1:19:32

the keys to dating here is that

1:19:34

like if we date Mark around 70

1:19:36

then because Matthew and Luke are obviously

1:19:38

using Mark as a source. We have

1:19:40

to date them like, you know, at

1:19:42

least sort of maybe five, ten years

1:19:45

after. And so there's a lot of

1:19:47

stuff going on there. At any rate,

1:19:49

the point is that at the baptism,

1:19:51

by John the Baptist, the spirit comes...

1:19:53

upon or into Jesus. At the end

1:19:55

of John's gospel, Jesus gives his, like

1:19:58

the authority to give sins to his

1:20:00

disciples by breathing and the spirit comes

1:20:02

upon them. So there seem to be

1:20:04

these interesting parallels between what Jesus gets

1:20:06

from John the Baptist and what the

1:20:09

disciples get from Jesus at the right

1:20:11

moment. Is Jesus getting that from John

1:20:13

the Baptist or is it a result

1:20:15

of just him? Like he's, John the

1:20:17

Baptist happens to be performing this act

1:20:19

on him, baptizing him, and then afterwards,

1:20:22

separately from John the Baptist, Jesus' father,

1:20:24

God sends the Holy Spirit upon him.

1:20:26

This is what the Bible says. It

1:20:28

happens, right? Because again, I'm trying to

1:20:30

offer like a plausible account of what

1:20:32

it would mean historically for Jesus to

1:20:35

have just been a follower of John

1:20:37

the Baptist, but as I clarified, this

1:20:39

is just one man's opinion. Sure. The

1:20:41

Bible paints are very differently and Christians

1:20:43

believe something very different. They believe that

1:20:45

John is doing some kind of baptism.

1:20:48

Jesus comes up to him and John's

1:20:50

like, I'm unworthy of this, but he

1:20:52

baptizes him at which point the heaven's

1:20:54

open and the Father says, the Heaven's

1:20:56

open and the Father says, this, this

1:20:58

is, the Father is the one who

1:21:01

puts the spirit into Jesus, the Father

1:21:03

is there, the Father is there, the

1:21:05

Trinity, which is a little bit strange,

1:21:07

and so... Christians are going to listen

1:21:09

to what I'm saying, saying, no, no,

1:21:12

it's totally, totally different. And also, it's

1:21:14

not that Jesus got this from John

1:21:16

the Baptist. He got it from the

1:21:18

Father, which is kind of interesting. Of

1:21:20

course, Jesus says in John chapter 20,

1:21:22

as the Father has sent me, I'm

1:21:25

sending you. So even if it was

1:21:27

the Father who sent Jesus. Jesus is

1:21:29

now sending his disciples in the same

1:21:31

way. So if that's where Jesus got

1:21:33

his ability to forgive sins from, for

1:21:35

example, then he's passing that on to

1:21:38

his disciples still. But I do find

1:21:40

a little bit suspicious that John is

1:21:42

teaching a baptism of repentance for the

1:21:44

forgiveness of sins. Like what does that

1:21:46

mean? Christians will say, well, John wasn't

1:21:48

forgiving people for the forgiv- of their

1:21:51

sins somehow or another. You know, it

1:21:53

wasn't like he didn't have the authority

1:21:55

to forgive their sins. He was kind

1:21:57

of just announcing the forgiveness of sins.

1:21:59

As priests often did. So priests would

1:22:02

announce that people's sins are forgiven, but

1:22:04

they would never claim to forgive sins

1:22:06

themselves, because that's what they would never

1:22:08

claim to forgive sins themselves, because that's

1:22:10

what God does. But they would never

1:22:12

claim to forgive sins themselves, and you

1:22:15

go to confession. And so Christians will

1:22:17

probably look at John and say, that's

1:22:19

what he was what he was what

1:22:21

he was going to forgive them God.

1:22:23

that's a bit dubious too because that's

1:22:25

that's also a little bit that's also

1:22:28

a little bit unclear as an episode

1:22:30

in in mark chapter two heard about

1:22:32

the paralytic being raised being sort of

1:22:34

sent through the roof to Jesus because

1:22:36

the crowds are so big and there's

1:22:38

a paralytic man who wants to be

1:22:41

healed and they lower him through the

1:22:43

roof and Jesus says to him take

1:22:45

heart your sins are forgiven. And the

1:22:47

scribes nearby, the Jewish authorities, their thinking,

1:22:49

hold on a second, like, who can

1:22:51

forgive sins but God alone? Only God

1:22:54

can forgive sins. But Jesus is announcing

1:22:56

this forgiveness of sins. What's he doing?

1:22:58

Jesus reads their mind, knows that they're

1:23:00

thinking this, and says, why are you

1:23:02

thinking these things? He says, because they

1:23:05

accuse them of blasphemy, like in their

1:23:07

hearts. And he says, why are you

1:23:09

saying this? I want you to know

1:23:11

that the son of man has the

1:23:13

authority to forgive sins on earth. And

1:23:15

he says, which is easier to say

1:23:18

to this man your sins are forgiven,

1:23:20

or to say take up your mat

1:23:22

and walk? So so that you know

1:23:24

that the son of man has authority

1:23:26

to forgive sins, I tell you, get

1:23:28

up and walk. And the paralytic man

1:23:31

gets up and walks, and he walks

1:23:33

out. So Jesus is saying, okay, you're

1:23:35

saying I can't forgive sins. Mike Trout.

1:23:37

It's even harder to raise a paralytic,

1:23:39

right, but watch this, so you know

1:23:41

that the son of man has authority

1:23:44

to forgive sins, forgive sins as well.

1:23:46

Now, this is a really important chapter,

1:23:48

because Christians look at this often and

1:23:50

they'll say, okay. So the describes say,

1:23:52

who can forgive sins but God alone?

1:23:54

And Jesus goes, well, watch this, I

1:23:57

can forgive sins. So he's claiming to

1:23:59

be God. Because only

1:24:01

God can forgive sins and Jesus is

1:24:03

saying that I have the authority to

1:24:05

forgive sins That's how Christians interpret it

1:24:07

But you don't think that's no another

1:24:09

interpretation is to say like it's just

1:24:12

hey Jesus says that actually can you

1:24:14

pull up Matthew's version of this? I

1:24:16

figure it's in but Matthew paralytic type

1:24:18

in and type in paralyzed guy. I

1:24:20

feel like that might come up faster.

1:24:22

Yeah But let's get Matthew's version. So

1:24:24

Matthew's version is slightly different. This is

1:24:26

really interesting. A lot of Christians might

1:24:29

not be aware of this too, because

1:24:31

by the way, this comes up all

1:24:33

the time as an apologetics tool. In

1:24:35

popular apologetics, people like the connectlies and

1:24:37

West Huff and people, I think they

1:24:39

use this kind of argument all the

1:24:41

time and they point to Mark Chapter

1:24:43

2. Jesus forgives, therefore he is claiming

1:24:46

to be God. Some interesting things when

1:24:48

we get to Matthew's Gospel. I want

1:24:50

you to know that the son of

1:24:52

man has the authority to forgive sins.

1:24:54

Even if because he's got that from

1:24:56

the father, even if God has given

1:24:58

him that authority, I think he's trying

1:25:00

to say, actually, I have the authority

1:25:03

to do that too, and I'll prove

1:25:05

it. Watch this. And some interesting clues

1:25:07

to this and Matthew's gospel include, check

1:25:09

it out, verse three. This, some of

1:25:11

the teachers the law said to themselves.

1:25:13

Said to themselves, yeah. So he's reading,

1:25:15

knowing their thoughts, see, it's pretty creepy.

1:25:17

It's pretty creepy. Mark's version says this

1:25:19

fellow is blaspheming who can forgive sins

1:25:22

but God alone. Interestingly, Matthew, by the

1:25:24

way, remember I said a moment ago

1:25:26

that Matthew takes almost all of Mark's

1:25:28

gospel. 95% of what's in Mark's gospel,

1:25:30

Matthew has in Mark's gospel, Matthew has

1:25:32

in his gospel almost verbatim. Yeah. Interestingly,

1:25:34

one of the few changes that Matthew

1:25:36

makes is here. In Mark's gospel, it

1:25:39

says this fellow is blaspheming who can

1:25:41

forgive sins but God alone. Matthew removes

1:25:43

the reference to only God being able

1:25:45

being able to be able to be

1:25:47

able to be able to be able

1:25:49

to be able to be able to

1:25:51

be able to be able to be

1:25:53

able to be able to be given

1:25:56

since. which is kind of interesting, not

1:25:58

entirely sure why he did that, but

1:26:00

the implication is still there because they

1:26:02

say he's blaspheming. How else could he

1:26:04

be blaspheming except somehow, you know, invoking...

1:26:06

something that only God can do. So

1:26:08

I don't think that Matthew's trying to

1:26:10

remove that implication, but it is interesting

1:26:13

that he just chose to remove that

1:26:15

statement. That's kind of weird, right? But

1:26:17

then, check it out. And keep these

1:26:19

two interpretations in mind. Either Jesus is

1:26:21

saying, yes, you're right, and I am

1:26:23

God, so I'm going to forgive sins.

1:26:25

Or he's saying, no, you're wrong, I

1:26:27

can forgive sins as well, even though

1:26:30

I'm not God. So Matthew reports this

1:26:32

story. Which is easier to say, your

1:26:34

sense of a given, or to say,

1:26:36

get up and walk. But I want

1:26:38

you to know that the son of

1:26:40

man has authority to forgive sins. So

1:26:42

he says to the paralyzed man, get

1:26:44

up, take your mat, and go home.

1:26:47

The man got up and went home.

1:26:49

When the crowd saw this, they were

1:26:51

filled with awe. They praised God who

1:26:53

had given such authority to a man.

1:26:55

A man. A man. That is unique

1:26:57

to matter of authority to man. To

1:26:59

man. Yeah, as in to mankind. Yes.

1:27:01

So at least the author of Matthew

1:27:04

here is painting the interpretation of the

1:27:06

crowds as thinking that God has given

1:27:08

the authority to give sins to a

1:27:10

man. Well, to play devil's advocate here

1:27:12

because he is in the appearance of

1:27:14

a man. Well, he is in the

1:27:16

appearance of a man walking among them.

1:27:18

So Christians will read this and say,

1:27:21

well, yeah, that's because they were like,

1:27:23

because they hadn't clocked it yet. Yeah.

1:27:25

They were sort of like, hold on,

1:27:27

why would God give this authority to

1:27:29

a authority to a man? But my

1:27:31

reading of this story is at least

1:27:33

consistent, right? Like, as in my view,

1:27:35

what Jesus is doing here is saying,

1:27:38

by the way, I mean, one of

1:27:40

the themes of the Gospels is that

1:27:42

scribes, Pharisees, sagencies, they come to Jesus

1:27:44

and they say, you're blaspheming, and they

1:27:46

say, you're blaspheming, they come to Jesus,

1:27:48

and they say, you're blaspheming, and they're

1:27:50

like, no, that's, that's not what I'm

1:27:52

doing a few occasions, a few occasions.

1:27:54

In Mark's Gospel, in the subject, so

1:27:57

Mark's Gospel happens quite early, they, this

1:27:59

is, there's so much in here man.

1:28:01

The, they say, they say, type in,

1:28:03

I can't. I don't remember which chapter

1:28:05

this is. It might be Mark 3,

1:28:07

but type in Mark blasphemy, holy spirit.

1:28:09

So you know Jesus' whole thing is

1:28:11

about forgiveness, right? It doesn't matter what

1:28:14

you do, it doesn't matter where you

1:28:16

come from. If you throw yourself in

1:28:18

Christ and you accept and you repent

1:28:20

and you'll be forgiven of your sins,

1:28:22

check this out. So the scribes come

1:28:24

to Jerusalem and they say he's possessed

1:28:26

by Beelzebub. And by the prince of

1:28:28

demons he cast out demons. So Jesus

1:28:31

is exercising people, exosizing, casting out demons.

1:28:33

And the Jewish scribes say, well he's

1:28:35

doing that because he's a demon himself.

1:28:37

That's how he's communicating with him. That's

1:28:39

how he's communicating with these demons, you

1:28:41

know. And so Jesus has this whole

1:28:43

thing where he says, how can Satan

1:28:45

cast out Satan, if a kingdom is

1:28:48

divided against itself, the kingdom can't stand,

1:28:50

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So he's

1:28:52

the strong man. So you have to

1:28:54

bind the demon to win over the

1:28:56

demon so he can't be a demon

1:28:58

himself. And then he says, truly I

1:29:00

say to you all sins will be

1:29:02

forgiven the children of man and whatever

1:29:05

blasphemies they utter. But whoever blasphems against

1:29:07

the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness but

1:29:09

it's guilty of an eternal sin. Yeah.

1:29:11

So you can't ever get... Yeah. For

1:29:13

that, for just that. So mean you

1:29:15

can blast him against him you can

1:29:17

blast him against him you can blast

1:29:19

him against God? Bloss him against God

1:29:22

or the father this holy spirit But

1:29:24

if you blast him against the holy

1:29:26

spirit you will not be forgiven Right

1:29:28

what the hell does that mean once

1:29:30

again I'm gonna surprise you here? Nobody

1:29:32

really knows. Nobody knows for sure what

1:29:34

Jesus meant by those words You can't

1:29:36

know everything. But so it's kind of

1:29:39

interesting that this happens in the context

1:29:41

of him being accused of having a

1:29:43

demon within him Yeah, so it seems

1:29:45

so some people say well this is

1:29:47

because specifically The scribes saw the evidence

1:29:49

right in front of them and they

1:29:51

called God himself a demon And that

1:29:53

is the kind of thing that simply

1:29:56

can't be forgiven, or something like that.

1:29:58

Some people say that to blasphemy the

1:30:00

Holy Spirit is to sort of know

1:30:02

that it's true, but still reject it,

1:30:04

because you're like rejecting the spirit. But

1:30:06

the fact that it says it will

1:30:08

never be forgiven is what keeps me

1:30:10

up at night. Because whatever interpretation you

1:30:13

give, and I've spoken to Christians about

1:30:15

this, left right and center, and I've

1:30:17

never had a satisfying answer. That's not

1:30:19

say there isn't one, but I haven't

1:30:21

spoken about it like, like, like, Maybe

1:30:23

with the right people. But they'll have

1:30:25

some line on this. They'll say, like

1:30:27

when I spoke to the connectlies about

1:30:30

it, they say, look, this is because

1:30:32

somebody who blasphems the Holy Spirit means

1:30:34

that they've hardened their heart against the

1:30:36

truth. And they've done that to such

1:30:38

an extent that even when the truth

1:30:40

is there and it's in them, they

1:30:42

still just won't hear it. And that

1:30:44

is the kind of, if you don't

1:30:46

have a heart that's open. to forgiveness,

1:30:49

then you can never be forgiven. But

1:30:51

what if I'm like, what if I'm

1:30:53

just kind of living a shit life,

1:30:55

right? Let's paint a scenario here. And

1:30:57

one day, you know, for whatever reason,

1:30:59

I don't know why this would come

1:31:01

up, but this comes up and you're

1:31:03

like, oh, you know, fuck that or

1:31:06

whatever. And then... five years later, you're

1:31:08

a good guy with a life and

1:31:10

a kid and you change your life

1:31:12

and like you know some other guys

1:31:14

out there killing someone and saying sorry

1:31:16

God and he's good but you're not

1:31:18

like that doesn't make any sense. So

1:31:20

this is the thing right like whatever

1:31:23

line you have on what laughs me

1:31:25

the Holy Spirit means because it says

1:31:27

it will never be forgiven you have

1:31:29

to imagine that no matter what your

1:31:31

line is there if tomorrow I change

1:31:33

my mind about that I cannot be

1:31:35

forgiven. So the connectly said that... The

1:31:37

reason that's the case is because the

1:31:40

person who's so hard in their heart

1:31:42

has made it such that they just

1:31:44

would never will change their mind That's

1:31:46

what it means. I think that's a

1:31:48

bullshit answer. I think so too with

1:31:50

all due respect to them It's still

1:31:52

right is that right? Cliff and Cliff

1:31:54

and Stuart that's right you know and

1:31:57

we had a great conversation with like

1:31:59

three hours on this and because it's

1:32:01

a podcast format and not a debate

1:32:03

I can't press this too hard But

1:32:05

I really was trying to say to

1:32:07

them, like, I don't think you're hearing

1:32:09