Interesting conversation. I quite enjoyed it. Too bad the guy is a Catholic, which is Christianized paganism, IMHO. A nice guy and sincere, but he explained things from a Catholic perspective. The Catholic Church with its Pope, pomp and ceremony is completely unnecessary, John 4:19-24 (ESV).
Regarding the Law being nullified by Jesus. Matthew 5:18 "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." - Jesus
What Jesus did was start a new covenant between God and Man in which, by believing in Jesus, we are freed from the conviction of Moses' Law/covenant by God's Grace. Jesus, by His life, fulfilled the Law and He paid for all of our sins, for our transgressions against the Law which were revealed to us by the Law. The Law is still valid until everything passes away. We have just been freed from it by belief in Jesus. It still applies to everyone all the time.
Jung was a gnostic. You can't resort to Jung's interpretations of the Bible because they are thoroughly Gnostic. IMO, Jung was absolutely dead wrong regarding anything in the Bible and simply tried to interpret everything within a Gnostic paradigm to fit his occult-like worldview, which is very common. I used to do the same thing. Jung was brilliant, but dead wrong, deceived by the spirits behind Gnosticism, about the Bible, IMHO.
Future guest suggestions:
Too bad Michael Heiser passed away in Feb., 2023. He was so down to earth, level headed and brilliant in his approach to the Bible. Knew all the original languages. Would have been an incredible guest.
John Ramirez, an ex-satanist. An interesting fellow and a good story teller. I'm still undecided whether he is legit, or not, but he does seem to know a lot about sorcery, demons and the devil and seems to get respect from people who deal with such forces. He's a good story teller, whether what he says is true or not I do not know. Seems good humored. Might be a fun interview.
I have no idea if Heiser was vaccinated or not. His death was a huge loss for me though. On one of the podcasts in memoriam to him on his Naked Bible podcast channel the host said he and Heiser worked out that Heiser had enough researched material for 6 more books. That would have been incredible.
To me, it is a mistaken belief that "original insights" are the more intelligent choice to follow and believe over Biblical orthodoxy. For me, if an "original insight" leads one away from Jesus and into Hell, then what value does it have? How is it somehow "more intelligent", or "superior"? I would say it's the opposite, no matter how intelligent the one promoting it, like Jung, is.
I'll take Biblical orthodoxy that leads to Heaven every single day over original insights that lead to Hell. I'm not condemning or convicting anyone. I'm just calling it as I see it and explaining how I discern things like "original insights." Galatians 1:8. If it conflicts with the Bible I throw it out. This is my personal decision and my method of discernment. Everyone has the freewill to make their own choice as to what has value for them and how they discern that. That's what the Bible is all about, what has true(eternal) value?
If enlightenment ends in no self, who would still be there to be personally offended/convicted/condemned/hurt by anything? Of course, Jung considered the "Self" the King of all archetypes. He never got rid of it, nor did he want to.
Jung believed that those born in the west could only become enlightened through Christianity, because their psyches were hard wired, essentially shaped, by Christianity. Those in the east by Eastern belief systems due to that hard wiring. I personally believe everyone needs Jesus and they do not need enlightenment at all. Enlightenment seems to be a massive gnostic distraction from Jesus and His teachings.
bla bla, same and same again; your comments are so devoid of insight, including into the Bible and your own faith, besides that it leads to heaven by the mere act of slavish obedience, that you are unwittingly illustrating the very thing I am here to explore at this site (& providing fodder for the mill, as the next post will show).
You cherry pick the bits of the Bible that suit you to observe and that strengthen your sense of vanity & piety, & cherry pick the commenters who reaffirm your sense of being on the right path. Meanwhile, you steadfastly avoid looking at the countless contradictory passages in the Bible, and/or those that are either incomprehensible or reprehensible in their injunctions (in the OT; and don't ask for examples, you are the Christian here).
In short, you exemplify, to me, the very worst sort of Christian; admittedly you are here and engaging, but I still don't know why, after all these years, unless it be to wave your Bible and score points in your imaginary Heaven with your imaginary God.
Have you ever gained, consciously, any insights here? I don't recall you acknowledging it, if you have. You take refuge in faith and hide away from difficult questions, which suggests you do the same with difficult realities. This is the exact inverse of service to God.
You also lack humility, as evidenced by almost all of your comments (not counting your answers to the questionnaire, where you had nothing to push against), in which you show up only to condemn other points of view (always ad hominen: Jews, Satan, Gnostics; never by reasoned argument), and stress your own superiority and glib confidence that you are going to Heaven, why? - because you stick to musty old scripture, like a sleazy old man fondling his porn stash or caressing his whisky bottle.
Fear of the Lord makes for a poor & dishonest servant.
Before fully diving into the Bible, I recommend reading Edwin Johnson’s The Rise of English Culture (1904) and The Pauline Epistles (1894) first. I promise, it won’t be in vain.
The 100-page book from 1894 shows that:
- The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's
- The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's
- Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.
- The Gospels were written in the 1500's.
- No Cathedrals are ancient; they are from the early part of the modern period, such as 1400.
The explanation that I have given removes all difficulties and covers all cases, so far as I know. Here you have a knot of men, or round table, presided over in all probability by one or two or a few directors. They have plotted, and are executing a system of fiction. The method is to write down short sentences, to place them in imaginary mouths, to call them “testimonies,” to put dates to them, and then to quote them as if they were authoritative and external to themselves. The whole thing is perfectly transparent to the attentive student.
If my readers cannot at present follow me in my assertion of the late origin of Church literature, at least they will understand, if they follow me in these particulars, that the current and common theories of that literature are absurd, and must be abandoned.
My final as my first word must be: You cannot ascend, in the retrospect, above, or even so high, as the year 1500.
All the literature designed to illustrate the Bible — on the Jewish side, the Talmud, containing the writings of the "Fathers and Doctors" of the Synagogue; on the Christian side, the Patrology, containing the corresponding writings of the Church-men — slowly came to light during the sixteenth century. We shall not greatly err if we rest our minds on the year 1500 as that which roughly divides a published literature from a preceding secret literature.
I enjoyed these Jasun-versations as always, though they did stop short of the implications of God refusing to explain his shenanigans to Job, the millennia of Catholic kiddie-diddling, and the strange, anachronistic incoherency of the Bible across large swaths (though I acknowledge it's allure). The fact that embodied existence involves inordinate suffering (ex. almost 1B people died of diseases, war, famines, catastrophes in the prior century, most of it before 1980), and that we have so little time to pursue spiritual truths when our lives are so taken up with working/toiling for subsistence, sleep, running errands, distraction etc...this suggests to me the Gnostic possibility the creator may be autistic at best but possibly worse. Maybe Job helps make the case for a Demiurge + archons who are running a crappy materialistic asylum.
"you can prove it (Bible) came from outside of our universe"..- that's quite the stance.
Yes, I thought it politest to let that one pass.
Interesting conversation. I quite enjoyed it. Too bad the guy is a Catholic, which is Christianized paganism, IMHO. A nice guy and sincere, but he explained things from a Catholic perspective. The Catholic Church with its Pope, pomp and ceremony is completely unnecessary, John 4:19-24 (ESV).
Regarding the Law being nullified by Jesus. Matthew 5:18 "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." - Jesus
What Jesus did was start a new covenant between God and Man in which, by believing in Jesus, we are freed from the conviction of Moses' Law/covenant by God's Grace. Jesus, by His life, fulfilled the Law and He paid for all of our sins, for our transgressions against the Law which were revealed to us by the Law. The Law is still valid until everything passes away. We have just been freed from it by belief in Jesus. It still applies to everyone all the time.
Jung was a gnostic. You can't resort to Jung's interpretations of the Bible because they are thoroughly Gnostic. IMO, Jung was absolutely dead wrong regarding anything in the Bible and simply tried to interpret everything within a Gnostic paradigm to fit his occult-like worldview, which is very common. I used to do the same thing. Jung was brilliant, but dead wrong, deceived by the spirits behind Gnosticism, about the Bible, IMHO.
Future guest suggestions:
Too bad Michael Heiser passed away in Feb., 2023. He was so down to earth, level headed and brilliant in his approach to the Bible. Knew all the original languages. Would have been an incredible guest.
Nathan Wheeler, an ex-Toltec shaman, sorcerer and Truth seeker. Incredibly spiritually experienced. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-OlwZLCzrc&list=PLo_mmp5MyMvltkjx4rNjgM5at3tx4oE6Z
John Ramirez, an ex-satanist. An interesting fellow and a good story teller. I'm still undecided whether he is legit, or not, but he does seem to know a lot about sorcery, demons and the devil and seems to get respect from people who deal with such forces. He's a good story teller, whether what he says is true or not I do not know. Seems good humored. Might be a fun interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjBNQkZI92M
Timothy Alberino, quite an extensive body of research work, including UFOs and the antediluvian time period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNwLD03hTUw&list=PLd_tef6NoM4PyGpYI9saSEk72ozHUDYH6
Brian Godawa, filmmaker, author, Christian researcher. Has quite a good grasp on the Bible as a whole story, IMO.
https://www.youtube.com/@BrianGodawa/videos
At least Jung had original insights, rather than hiding behind a Bible at every perceived "heresy."
Thanks for the rec's. Heisner died young of cancer; could have been mRNA gene-hack-related.
I have no idea if Heiser was vaccinated or not. His death was a huge loss for me though. On one of the podcasts in memoriam to him on his Naked Bible podcast channel the host said he and Heiser worked out that Heiser had enough researched material for 6 more books. That would have been incredible.
To me, it is a mistaken belief that "original insights" are the more intelligent choice to follow and believe over Biblical orthodoxy. For me, if an "original insight" leads one away from Jesus and into Hell, then what value does it have? How is it somehow "more intelligent", or "superior"? I would say it's the opposite, no matter how intelligent the one promoting it, like Jung, is.
I'll take Biblical orthodoxy that leads to Heaven every single day over original insights that lead to Hell. I'm not condemning or convicting anyone. I'm just calling it as I see it and explaining how I discern things like "original insights." Galatians 1:8. If it conflicts with the Bible I throw it out. This is my personal decision and my method of discernment. Everyone has the freewill to make their own choice as to what has value for them and how they discern that. That's what the Bible is all about, what has true(eternal) value?
If enlightenment ends in no self, who would still be there to be personally offended/convicted/condemned/hurt by anything? Of course, Jung considered the "Self" the King of all archetypes. He never got rid of it, nor did he want to.
Jung believed that those born in the west could only become enlightened through Christianity, because their psyches were hard wired, essentially shaped, by Christianity. Those in the east by Eastern belief systems due to that hard wiring. I personally believe everyone needs Jesus and they do not need enlightenment at all. Enlightenment seems to be a massive gnostic distraction from Jesus and His teachings.
bla bla, same and same again; your comments are so devoid of insight, including into the Bible and your own faith, besides that it leads to heaven by the mere act of slavish obedience, that you are unwittingly illustrating the very thing I am here to explore at this site (& providing fodder for the mill, as the next post will show).
You cherry pick the bits of the Bible that suit you to observe and that strengthen your sense of vanity & piety, & cherry pick the commenters who reaffirm your sense of being on the right path. Meanwhile, you steadfastly avoid looking at the countless contradictory passages in the Bible, and/or those that are either incomprehensible or reprehensible in their injunctions (in the OT; and don't ask for examples, you are the Christian here).
In short, you exemplify, to me, the very worst sort of Christian; admittedly you are here and engaging, but I still don't know why, after all these years, unless it be to wave your Bible and score points in your imaginary Heaven with your imaginary God.
Have you ever gained, consciously, any insights here? I don't recall you acknowledging it, if you have. You take refuge in faith and hide away from difficult questions, which suggests you do the same with difficult realities. This is the exact inverse of service to God.
You also lack humility, as evidenced by almost all of your comments (not counting your answers to the questionnaire, where you had nothing to push against), in which you show up only to condemn other points of view (always ad hominen: Jews, Satan, Gnostics; never by reasoned argument), and stress your own superiority and glib confidence that you are going to Heaven, why? - because you stick to musty old scripture, like a sleazy old man fondling his porn stash or caressing his whisky bottle.
Fear of the Lord makes for a poor & dishonest servant.
Lol! It takes one to know one, bro. It'll probably take you years to recognize the projections you are casting on me though.
I'm not confident I am going to Heaven, but I believe in Jesus and I fear the Lord. That gives me hope.
All the best.
Bye.
Before fully diving into the Bible, I recommend reading Edwin Johnson’s The Rise of English Culture (1904) and The Pauline Epistles (1894) first. I promise, it won’t be in vain.
The 100-page book from 1894 shows that:
- The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's
- The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's
- Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.
- The Gospels were written in the 1500's.
- No Cathedrals are ancient; they are from the early part of the modern period, such as 1400.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110719074724/http://www.radikalkritik.de/PaulEpistles.pdf
The explanation that I have given removes all difficulties and covers all cases, so far as I know. Here you have a knot of men, or round table, presided over in all probability by one or two or a few directors. They have plotted, and are executing a system of fiction. The method is to write down short sentences, to place them in imaginary mouths, to call them “testimonies,” to put dates to them, and then to quote them as if they were authoritative and external to themselves. The whole thing is perfectly transparent to the attentive student.
If my readers cannot at present follow me in my assertion of the late origin of Church literature, at least they will understand, if they follow me in these particulars, that the current and common theories of that literature are absurd, and must be abandoned.
My final as my first word must be: You cannot ascend, in the retrospect, above, or even so high, as the year 1500.
https://archive.org/details/riseofenglishcul00johnrich/page/n5/mode/2up
All the literature designed to illustrate the Bible — on the Jewish side, the Talmud, containing the writings of the "Fathers and Doctors" of the Synagogue; on the Christian side, the Patrology, containing the corresponding writings of the Church-men — slowly came to light during the sixteenth century. We shall not greatly err if we rest our minds on the year 1500 as that which roughly divides a published literature from a preceding secret literature.
I enjoyed these Jasun-versations as always, though they did stop short of the implications of God refusing to explain his shenanigans to Job, the millennia of Catholic kiddie-diddling, and the strange, anachronistic incoherency of the Bible across large swaths (though I acknowledge it's allure). The fact that embodied existence involves inordinate suffering (ex. almost 1B people died of diseases, war, famines, catastrophes in the prior century, most of it before 1980), and that we have so little time to pursue spiritual truths when our lives are so taken up with working/toiling for subsistence, sleep, running errands, distraction etc...this suggests to me the Gnostic possibility the creator may be autistic at best but possibly worse. Maybe Job helps make the case for a Demiurge + archons who are running a crappy materialistic asylum.
Really enjoyed this (as a lapsed Catholic!:-) Thanks. x