Against The Christians | Ancient Greece Revisited
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 12. 2020
- In 1867, an ancient manuscript was discovered in Athens containing a polemic, perhaps the last of its kind, against the rising faith in Christianity. The identity of its pagan author is still contested, but a certain consensus seems to point to a philosopher named Porphyrios (Porphyry), who wrote during the twilight years when the Roman Empire was fading into the coming Middle Ages. It was called "Against the Christians" and was written on the dying breath of a culture... the Greek Culture.
#ancientgreecerevisited #agr #religion #christianity
- Support us on Patreon:
/ ancientgreecerevisited
- Suport us by becoming a CZcams member
- Subscribe to the channel:
www.youtube.com/@AncientGreec...
Writer and Presenter - Michalis Michailidis
Director and Editor - Adam Petritsis
Cinematographer - Konstantinos Kritikos
Original Music Score - Penny Biniari
I binge watched all your videos in one day! Thirsty for more!moving back to Greece I started searching about new promising Greek people and projects. makes me a little more hopeful for my future here. Let's revisit Greece once again..
Thank you for your generous comments. As someone who's lived abroad for a decade, I can fully understand your hopes and anxieties about (modern) Greece.
Words can’t even begin to describe just how high quality this channel is.
Hahaha, thank you thank you very much!
agreed, amazing...dont stop
Just discovered you from Unregistered. Great content! As a Christian mystic myself (numerous supernatural experiences and transformations of my brain and mind) I must say that the message presented here - and the defense given to Christianity and the 'veritas' of the faith - is superb, and I thank you. Pax et bonum.
I think of myself as a Christian mystic too, or a heretic for a dogmatic Christian. By that I mean I reject dogma completely. Hermes Trismegistus, among many others, teaches that everything is in motion, all but the One (Monade, God). I believe everything that is attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is Truth. But the doctrine is filled with notions that are based on fear, and therefore incompatible with what I consider to be true Christianity. Such as the notion of hell, which does not exist. Not as explained by the church. I am not saying I don't believe in it. I am saying I know it doesn't exist, unless we refer to a state that we ourselves create for us. Purgatory is an interesting concept, and I think it is a sort of dimension where our Souls are purified, when they've suffered excessively or have diverged from the path too much. And I am quite certain, close to knowing, that reincarnation is a real mechanism. I do not believe it is a trap as certain people seem to think, but rather a choice that allows our Souls to learn and grow. So, since I don't know anyone personally who has any interest in these matters, except maybe one friend, could you tell me what your thoughts are on these topics? Just simple answers. I would just like to see if your perception is completely different than mine, or if you share some of these insights or thoughts.
There’s a great book called ‘Christians as the Romans Saw Them’ that discusses him and others in detail. Highly recommend it.
Great one, your videos always leave me wondering more questions than answers. Great work, I didn't know about that Porfyrios dude. It's weird if you think about how many things might be so different that we think they were from our modern understanding and consensus.
Man I love this channel. Great work guys!
Thank you very much!!!
Every video you create is outstanding! Thank you!
Thank you too!
Great video. My congratulations to the team behind it ,continue the great work
Thank you for the nice words!
Great content! As always!
Much appreciated!
this deserves way more views. Very nice.
Thanks!
Hey, great channel!!!
Greetings from Bolivia
Gracias! :)
Great as always so we expect nothing less. Is there any way that we can contribute to your channel?
Well, you can help us spread the word, that's for sure! (Thanks for asking)
bravo! what are some of the written sources of your videos? i hope these ideas and understandings of yours can spread.
Send us an email at micheal@agr-series.com and we'll provide you with the transcript for this episode full of citations.
Excellent and informative video, many thanks! I did not expect that you would not put Porphyry on a pedestal, pointing out the degradation that was creeping into philosophical thinking at this time. A slap in the face of my stupidity, thanks again! Subscribed.
Great comment! Keep them coming …
best of the best, congratulations my friend
Συγχαρητήρια. Και ευχαριστώ των Graham που με έφερε εδώ. Η Ισορροπία είναι ίσως κάτι που δεν μπορεί να επιτευχθεί, όμως αξίζει να την κυνηγάμε. Με αυτή την παρουσίαση, έχω την αίσθηση πως φτάσατε κοντά στο να την αγγίξετε. Και πάλι συγχαρητήρια και ευχαριστούμε!
Grear video and great channel
Thank you!
Interesting video and subbed to your channel! What are your thoughts on the YSEE and Vlassis G. Rassias(RIP)?
I am not aware of him, or his work. Perhaps you could link something here.
PS. Thank you for subscribing!
I remember reading Porphyry, him pointing out contradictions in the texts and that the Bible texts didn't have eyewitnesses to the story of Jesus, etc. It's quite fascinating, to see Bart Ehrman argue similar points in modern-day Biblical scholarship. Ave Porphyry!
You mean you read "of him" right ?
Like very much the channel 👌
Thank you very much :-)
You bring us light!!! May the Gods protect you....
Gods are not real
Glory be to Olympus
Subscribed!
Thank you!
Love it!!!!!
Κάνεις πολύ καλή δουλειά φίλε συνέχισε έτσι💪
💪🎉
τέλειο!!!!!
💪
Nice ! 👏
Thanks 🔥
Thanks for this video! From Porphyry's statement that he found the Christians' Jesus as not one character but many stitched together reminds me of one school of modern day mythicism that Jesus wasn't historically one man, but a composite of several figures.
Somehow, it's what I always believed intuitively since a very young age. I don't know exactly why, but it made sense. (This did not go down very well with my religious school!)
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Yes, it looks very much to be the case, I think you're right, and I think it's because the Christians wanted the historical Jesus erased, whoever he was. They definitely succeeded too, imo.
Do you know about Gemistus Pletho? He was a highly influential and esteemed pagan Greek scholar who died in the 15th Century and kept his pagan beliefs secret, revealing them to his entrusted successor upon inheriting his secret manuscripts. Unfortunately Bessarion his Christian protégé, burnt the only copy of his pagan works, but fragmentary summaries from his correspondence survive.
Yes, Pletho is one interesting fellow! We are planning of doing an episode with him. So stay tuned ... ;-)
One correction: It wasn't Bessarion that burnt the copy, but Gennadius Scholarius!!!
@@jimakisspd
*cue shocking soap Opera reveal music*
Dun dun DUNNN!!!
“Scholarius you betray me!!!”
“You betray yourself Pletho! Christ is lord!!”
*burns pages*
“Noooooooooooo”
Woof man I gotta get a job. I’m just out here makin myself laugh in these comments.
Ofc the Christian burned his works thus robbing us from being able to learn more about history and our ancestors
Perhaps the hope for Western Civilization lies in rediscovering its true roots in ancient Athens. ❤
That’s what we espouse here in AGR!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I'm with you👍🙂
Εξαιρετικό βίντεο με παρουσίαση υψηλής ποιότητας. Πάτησα ταχύτατα το κουμπί της εγγραφής με το που το είδα. Το γεγονός ότι το κανάλι αυτό είναι δημιουργημένο από Έλληνες, με χαροποιεί ιδιαίτερα. Θα ήθελα να μοιραστώ μαζί σας μερικές σκέψεις που μου γέννησε το περιεχόμενο του βίντεο. Για χάρη της προαγωγής του ανοιχτού δημόσιου διαλόγου, θα εκφράσω τις σκέψεις μου στα αγγλικά.
I have just started to venture into the world of platonism, therefore, I wanted to ask you whether there is a place for hyper-rational experiences into the thinking framework of classical platonism. I already know for a fact, that neoplatonists, such as Iamblichus, was initiated into rites designed to induce the mind into extra-ordinary states of cosnciousness. If one adheres to classical platonism, does this mean that all esoteric experiences, are considered a priori, as irrelevant to the conquest of attaining truth? Aren't many instances in human history where leaps in development were achieved through hyperlogical means, such as through dreaming, psychedelic experiences, mindfulness meditation and active imagination? That being said, I can understand of course that the use of non-logical means in attaining the truth does not always lead to the awareness of hyper-rational realities, but it may also lead into falsities and the disintegration of the individual and civilisation.
Also, although I don't want to take the role of a christian apologist, I think that it is noteworthy to mention, that the concept of faith (Πίστης) in proto-christian circles, did not have the meaning of "blind trust", as it is often presented in many christian denominations of the modern age. It had rather the meaning of "rational trust" into the personhood of Christ, who (according to christians) has proven to be worthy of trust. Consequently the Πίστης of the proto-christians, is more akin to the faith that one has that when the flashlight on the street is red, the drivers will stop in order for the pedestrians to cross the street with safety.
I am excited to have found your chanel. I wish you the best of luck in it's development.
There is no problem with anyone writing in Greek or English. But I appreciate you trying the latter because of the language of this channel. Your English is very good indeed, by the way. Now, as to your question, what you are pointing to is the problem of Reason vs. Revelation. Revelation can be Christian, mystical, psychedelic, etc. It is not bound with any specific religion, and I do believe that minds like Plato's had encountered it many times in their lives. The mysteries of Eleusis were open to everyone, let's not forget, independent of class, and there are many references of them in Plato's writings. So it's not a matter of Plato acknowledging the existence of such experiences, but their validity. Take the dialogue "Ion" for instance. It's a typical case of "everyday mysticism", where the poet is considered to be in a state of "mania", or ecstasy. There is no question in Socrates' mind that Ion, the young poet of the dialogue, is in some kind of divine experience while reciting the poems of Homer, yet - and that is the jist of the whole dialogue - he question whether this can be considered... knowledge!
If you want to investigate the subject further, I would suggest you read some works by Leo Strauss, who is an inspiration to this channel:
1. www.jstor.org/stable/1408931 (an introduction to the topic)
2. www.jstor.org/stable/2126765 (Strauss' own work)
A Roman-era Pagan philosopher by the name of... Porphyros? Named after the sacred purple stone of Byzantine Bhaseloi?
Interesting thought.
I was actually thinking about this as I was adding the subtitles. Porphyra was a "sacred" color back in ancient Greece as well, as many gods were imagined dressed with a "porphyro" cloak.
@@mastortechnon4157 Ευχαριστούμε. Η αλήθεια είναι ότι αυτή την εβδομάδα το ψάχναμε για ένα πιθανό γύρισμα!
Ένας Θεός, μια αλήθεια, ένα καθεστώς. Η δημοκρατία εν αναμονή για αιώνες!
Μπράβο!
💪
Great video guys, the amount of effort your team put on those videos is superb.
I'm a Christian myself and understood your points through the video. Given that, I would say that, to Christians, the "death of God" is actually part of their story, given that by Christian belief death precedes resurrection. So, by that point of view, specially in Medieval Christianity, what happened to the cultures of Rome, ancient Greece and other of the Pagan world was a "death" that made it possible for their culture to be "reborn" into that new worldview.
(Curiosity: That's why in some medieval churches Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Virgil were represented on the entrance, the "narthex")
And also, why and how pagan rituals and stories were "converted" or given a new meaning, creating a medieval universality or unity of the Christian worldview, like in Christmas, Carnival, the respect to Classical literature such as Aristotle's and the registration of Germanic mythological accounts under the Eddas.
The philosophers you mention are also in Dante's Limbo, but that does not change the fact that in their proper world (the world of ancient Greece), Limbo was all there was in the afterlife. What we try and do is to recover the life-experience of a people who believed that everyone, regardless of their life here on earth, goes to Limbo forever.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Thanks for the answer!! Great point. Truly I understand that for the point of view of an ancient Greek, afterlife was basically just that Hades, which is kind of the same as Limbo, which is also portrayed in the "harrowing of Hades" story.
(By the way: Deeply appreciating your work in other videos as well. Subscribed.)
Vedic❤Sramanic❤Hellenic
I enjoyed this video, but I'm not convinced that the mysticism found in Plotinus and Porphyry is absent from Plato and Socrates. For example, the dialogue Phaedo is devoted to explaining and illuminating the reality of rebirth and at the end takes flight into mythic dimensions. And in the Symposium, early in the dialogue, Socrates is found in a kind of trance, standing on the porch of someone's house, lost in contemplation. These kinds of episodes and experiences are frequent in Plato's writings; so I feel that when Plotinus and Porphyry also refer to such experiences they are in step with their predecessors rather than deviating from them. // Thanks for your insights.
We have to be subtle here. It’s not a question of whether Plato was a mystic. That’s undisputed in my opinion. It’s rather, where you put the emphasis. In Plato’s own texts, all the aforementioned references that you presented had something “imminent” about them. They referred to a presence that was experienced by the interlocutors. In the Symposium for example, the beginning has Socrates talking about a seemingly irrelevant subject, the connection between Tragedy and Comedy. The subject of the Dialogue itself is Love, Eros, and we know (or told) Socrates’ love was for Alcibiades. At the end of the dialogue he appears, in a manner reminiscent of the god Dionysus, god of madness. So, it’s very intricate and has to be grasped all at once, if it is to be understood at all. The great Zen philosopher Alan Watts talked about how the “crying” and “laughing” interpretations of life are but two ends of a connected spectrum, with the figure of a “Jester” holding the middle. The aging Socrates talking about Tragedy and Comedy as if they are one genre, both ruled by Dionysus, god of madness, and after a long discussion on the madness that is love, he, Dionysus, appears, as if invoked by the truth of that revelation. It’s a mystical experience that is “right here, right now,” in the everyday things being lifted towards the divine during a moment of understanding. It’s Aristotle’s “noesis noeseos.” What we tried to show in our video, is that all this subtlety is gradually being lost during the Hellenistic times, and the divine becomes distant, absolute, just like it’s being lost today, the “New-New Age” movements of psychedelics and transcendental meditation. Hope I am making myself understood.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Thanks for your reply. Very subtle and informative.
Well, Michalis..you made me go deep in myself again. :-)
And a question appears to me quite strongly:
== Is 'the truth' ever experienced..through a motive? ==
Is the highest form we grave to be conscious of, constructed by a motive?
A motive of culture, a motive of groups or clubs,
a motive of study or just one out of political sides?
And, does not the motive of me being a winner, set aside all love for others I meet?
for the Romans to take over the Greeks they had a motive, but could that bring us something good?
Motives stride inside ourselves, like at the Olympics presenting a winner,
as to which we then follow suit.., becoming the looser.
was not the Eleusian Mystery mend for thát?
I mean, Loosing those silly personal motives, build up by our slavery lives??
Does beauty appear to us..by motives?
Beauty being part of 'the truth' itself..experienced as Agape?
Thanks for this wonderful video to us!
keep safe, all of you :-)
That the late Platonists were part of the decline is a view that disregards the primary work of late Platonism, which was synthesising. Faith must have a place in a well-ordered metaphysical system; they simply couldn't leave the faith question unanswered. This does not mean that faith had a role in Platonism comparable to its central role within Christianity.
The question is an open one. Even among Academics. Someone like Leo Strauss for example definitely saw a decline, while others saw more of a continuity. We took the former stance because our task here in AGR is - like we keep repeating - try and find the "inceptual" idea behind ancient Greece. So in our work, Homer burns the brightest, and their is a descent (if not a decline) after that. It's trying to capture the culture as it was being formed....
I understand. That is a absolutely an outsider's view, and it's not surprising that things would look like that from the outside. Hence "Revisited", as opposed to "Always been there", no? I don't know who it is that first posits a break in Hellenic civilisation (I'll say Nietzsche because he's the one I'm familiar with), but it's certainly a modern. When it comes to the ancients themselves, we can clearly see that they could see no breaks. From within Platonism, Homer himself is seen as an enlightened sage, more a mystic of perennialism than a poet of vitalism who merely extols the virtues of warriors, who nonetheless bears the signs of decline, because his age was one of decline. The Roman era represents a further step towards decline. Christianity is seen as the next step in the decline, and the most dramatic for those who lived through it. So it's not a matter of continuity in the end, it is a matter of conceptualising decline in materialistic (modern) or idealistic (ancient/Platonic) terms. For example, atomic theory and the Democritean view of nature is a clear sign of decline. That people like Xenophanes start to pop up is proof that Hellenic society is on the way down. Platonism/Pythagoreanism is a raft to preserve what is worth preserving through the storm.
@@sheevmainas > Hence "Revisited", as opposed to "Always been there", no?
I'm not sure what you mean by this (although I have a feeling). Please explain.
> I don't know who it is that first posits a break in Hellenic civilization
If you mean through history, it's way before Nietzsche. Even in the works of Descartes there is a clear break with the co called "pagan authors" who (in his words) "had built with their works a palace, marvelous, yet one built on nothing but mud." The break with the ancient world appears to happen in all fronts: epistemological/ontological = Descartes, political = Machiavelli, scientific = Galileo etc.
> That people like Xenophanes start to pop up is proof that Hellenic society is on the way down.
Yes, that is a sure-sign of decline.
> Platonism/Pythagoreanism is a raft to preserve what is worth preserving through the storm.
Well, our premise in this episode is that it did, but in a certain way the battle was already lost from within, and those involved had not even noticed.
> I'm not sure what you mean by this (although I have a feeling). Please explain.
I meant that you have to take a step back to look at something if you seek to find the inceptual idea behind it. From entirely within the Platonic tradition, which, in late antiquity, quite simply became Hellenism, things look rather different -- they look more relativistic and more monolithic at the same time. If your feeling is that I meant it as some sort of slight or anything like that, I assure you I didn't.
> The break with the ancient world appears to happen in all fronts: epistemological/ontological = Descartes, political = Machiavelli, scientific = Galileo etc.
The break between the ancient world and modernity is one thing. Seeing a break within Hellenic civilisation itself in terms other than a steady decline is something that came with modernity. That's why I mentioned Nietzsche, because the idiotic idea of "oh, before Socrates things were TOTALLY different" can be fairly blamed on him. I see no break in Hellenic civilisation because my viewpoint is essentially Late Antique, but between that and viewpoints like Nietzsche's or Descartes's, there is still gradation, I'd reckon.
@@sheevmainas Ok, now I understand. Perhaps Nietzsche was the first to blame Socrates in such a manner. And I myself do not see a break in Hellenic culture. But there is a very big difference between the inceptual view of Homer, where death was final and ugly, and that of Orphism/Pythagoreanism etc. Late Antiquity chose the latter, which is perhaps why it could transition to Christianity. Here in AGR we are more interested in the former (although the video we just shot was on Hermes Trismegistus).
How cool would it be if we still erected ancient style temples? Not necessarily believing 100%, just keeping the tradition and art alive.
Well, there are living pagan traditions still. India is a good example. They feature an unbroken line of perhaps 5,000 years!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Indians suffered their fair share of "burning the libraries and books". Books/the gods we belive in helps us perhaps.
Κατα Ναζωραιον λογος of the great emperor Julianus is a realy an important script against Christanity, unfotantly Julianus was killed in a moment of a grait victory against the Sassanids.
Yes, Julianus was the last pagan emperor. But in a way, that is what we tried to convey in this episode. That the times had already changed. The mass psychology of the Late Roman Era was ready for (at least something like) Christianity.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited Yes Christanity won but ithink that the Greek-Roman knowledge was still alive. If you read Alexias you see that Homer was still the basis of the education other wise should not be used by Anna Komnene so often. The end of the Greek-Roman wordl came on 13 April 1204. The only that remains is the Dimotkiki musicand some customs in East Macedonia
The Nous is not to be understood as the wish of the monotheistic God, also the Platonic god is a god of the many, not the only god as Christians will later assert. A person in statis with their Nous is perfectly capable of free will and making their own choices. The Nous is more like Socrates' personal daimon that guided him and steered him away from danger but let him make his own decisions.
The Nous is not "non-Monotheistic" either. It's a big departure from belief in the 12 gods, and it's an obvious link between them and the one god of the Bible, at least psychologically.
Yes, the Nous is a monotheistic concept but it was a path to God in the Platonic tradition. Christianity has a distinctly different path towards God. When Porphyry refers to the Nous he is implicitly rejecting Christianity.
@@biff-6603 But that is what I'm treating. The fact that one can reject all they like, but if a certain changed has happened in the psyche, the path is inevitable, whatever you call it, and as many differences as your rational mind can find between what you believe and what others believe.
it always seemed obvious to me that pilato wasn't really asking what truth was, but that he was performing a faucaultian move, saying something like "truth is subjective", and the answer of Jesus seemed pretty obvious too, because he had done similar things before, he was rejecting pilatos rebellion, only for those who'd come humbly would he give them anything.
I think I see your point. But there is deeper - and more fascinating - aspect that connects Plato to Christianity. You will find it when reading The Republic. In there, Socrates (who speaks out Plato's ideas) is effectively rejecting paganism for a religion that bears a lot of similarities with Christianity. If you look even deeper you'll see that what he (Plato) is doing there is redefining Being itself... as Good. That was Plato's biggest invention, which has since been neglected.
I will tell you a funny story. I have a friend, a real Greek pagan! A follower of Dionysus, with all that implies hahaha... He is a well read man, and he concluded that Christianity was a "conspiracy theory of the Roman empire." That, in fact, the Roman elites, seeing how their culture was in decline during the 2nd and 3rd century AD, decided on a bold plan: to supplant the very core of that culture - paganism - with a new religion, Christianity. Just to give you a modern equivalent, that would be like the Deep State of the United States deciding that since Christianity is on the decline, they need to turn the States into a Muslim Caliphate... and actually succeeding! For the Romans, that would have been Byzantium, which continued for another 1,000 years.
Now, I am not convinced about the truth of all this, but it makes a weird kind of sense having read Plato. Because those Roman elites would be well versed in the philosopher's works, and knowing that he once proposed a religions of an Eternal, Undivided, Unchanging "God of Good," pre-packed with a Heaven and Hell for an afterlife, it's not out of the question that this played at least a role in their eventual adoption of Christianity.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I dunno why plato got into the chat, but I find that your friend's theory a strange one, because it looks like it just changes the frame, since Constantine was an emperor, saint Augustine was very high up, Paul was a citizen, etc. and the first Christians were either slaves or elites, so it doesn't seem too far from what happened, just that it changes the framing, as if bad religions don't lead their followers to disintegration. also from what I've heard the roman elites were completely oblivious to the decline, until it was too late.
also, rome was done for by the time of cesar, it's a miracle it lasted that long, that's what's really strange.
@@acuerdoxPlato got into the discussion by accident, I mis-read Pilatos for Plato! The rest of the answer stands ;-)
As to my friend's theory, are you saying that is IS or that it's NOT a strange one? Because from what you are saying next, it's almost like you are agreeing. Constantine was a member of the Roman elite, which, according to my friend, willfully changed the religion to save Rome from cultural death. The fact that the Christians themselves were slaves does not change anything, as - again, according to my friend - the new Emperors wanted to appeal to a new "base" as they forged their new Empire to the East. The fact that "most" Roman elites were oblivious does not mean that all Roman elites were so. Again, it's a very far-fetched theory, and, in my opinion, it's strength lies not in its historical accuracy but what it reveals about the nature of Christianity as applying to the falling Rome. Perhaps it reveals something about the nature of both.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited yes, in a way I am agreeing with your friend, I don't apreciate the framing thou, this idea that christianity was the downfall of rome is nonesene, it was done for by the time of cesar, if anything it saved rome.
what I think it's funny about it is that it's a covert dizzing, it's implying that christianity ascended by no virtue of their own, roman elites tried to create cults, support other cults, just like your friend describes, and yet those didn't fare as well.
And the very method he describes IS the consequence of the actions of christians, in other words, it was christ that made constantine pick christianity, the victory goes to him, not to the roman elites, they were but tools of this greater spirit.
by the time of constantine christians were a huge group in the empire, there were all kinds of weird cults popping up at that time, because there was a spiritual dought in the empire (which was the consequence of the very conquests they pursued, wining wars destroyed the romans, following mars turns out to be a bad idea) and all of them kept failing, but christianity did not.
@@acuerdox Well, my friend speaks from the view-point of an "anti-Christian," so yes, he cannot believe that Christianity ascended by "it's own virtue" as you correctly point out.
The comparison with Islam, however, is an interesting one (and that goes beyond what my friend said). You point out that demographics also played a big role in the adoption of Christianity as the State-Religion of sorts, but does this not apply to Islam in Europe and the US?
Good video. But homie. That quote is well known. It’s quoted often and throughout history
Guess no one taught me that at Catholic School.
Thank you for sharing, Michael. In what way does human reason not coincide, for Socrates, with the problem of "the salvation of the soul"? Your reference to sculptures' eyes could be turned in favor of monotheism: the proclamation/revelation of the unity of the divine (intimated by Plato) may be understood as an unprecedented call to return, against the grain of all vulgar "sophism," to the "interiority" (hiddenness) of the problem of truth (no question of "imposition," all abuses notwithstanding, but of apologia of the rootedness of the human in the divine). Now, you speak of John18.38 as "mostly forgotten," and Socratic "dialectic" as "infamous". Is the biblical passage not crucial to most Christians? As for the phrasing τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια, we have a question here, not an imposition, inviting the suggestion that Christianity is (essentially) a defense of the hiddenness of the question at the core of man's life. "What is truth?": in terms of what does the divine show itself? Or even: what is the truth about God? And, of course, the "what," the τί is the anthropos, the zoon politikon. Is this not in full agreement with Socrates and Plato? On the other hand, is Socrates's dialectic not generally admired, even by critics of Plato? vale- Marco
Thank you for your comment. The problem with giving a definitive answer is that Plato's philosophy was in constant evolution until then end. One finds a radically different Socrates in the Early, and then in the Late dialogues. The first of the two, as found in the Euthyphro, stood not just in contrast to Divine Revelation but went as far as to "rationalise" the gods - not by proving or disproving their existence, but proving they could only do what is pious, binding them, through the chains of reason... to the Good. This first Socrates was the man who "knew nothing." But the one found in Pheado had a complete system of metaphysics which included the Theory of Forms and the Transmigration of Souls!
What this represents for me is a miniature version of the entire Greek worldview, as it moved from the terse Homeric world into the "Orphic" - read proto-Christian - one. We cannot say for certain when and how these changes happened, but taken to their "extremes" of early Socrates and Plotinus, I think can justify what I proposed in this video.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited The modern "evolutionist" reading of the Platonic corpus seems to assume that the early Plato was not aware of where he was going.
@@satyricusm True, but can we suppose anything else while keeping Plato... a human?!
@@AncientGreeceRevisited sure, if you are not a modernist (esp. Hegelian).
@@satyricusm The Hegelian would give more importance to what comes "after" - as closer the Truth. But the ancient worldview is that time is a "falling away" from Truth. Heidegger revised this in his philosophy as a moving away from Being.
To give justice to the Greeks - which is our purpose - rather than moderns, this last understanding of falling away is closer to how they might have though of Time in relation to Truth. Let's not forget that Plato (in Timaeus) said that Time is an imitation (by which the ancients would understand "cheap" imitation) of Eternity. I don't think the Greeks could have conceived anything like a "revelation" exactly because it pre-supposes that Truth is not accessible from all places in time, and the philosopher would therefore be made secondary as even he would have to await for that special moment when Truth is finally revealed.
Perception is reality... that is the TRUTH
Jesus remain in silence, because the answer was in the question (anagram): Quid est veritas? Est vir qui adest. (Jo 14:6)
That's what we say in 10:50:00 (minus the anagram that is...)
I see several loopholes but the biggest catch was this one:
"Why didn't Jesus teach his oppressors?"
- Oh I don't know, maybe because if he had then they would have stopped and wouldn't have crucified him? His mission was to get crucified not to be Scorates 2.0 ...
Nice lighting effects but still all I see is excessive drama and the cheering of a man who was Biblically illiterate.
Well, perhaps he was Biblically illiterate, but perhaps the composers of the New Testament were likewise philosophically illiterate. In other words, one viewpoint does not cancel the other. We are confronted with two very different worlds here, the last remains of the Geeks world and the newly rising Christian world. If I have shown the differences between the two, then I have done my job .. ;-)
@@AncientGreeceRevisited First off what makes you think the Gospel writers had to know Greek Philosophy in order to convey their witness testimonies? Exactly, they didn't have to. The rising Christian world is also the same world as the Greek one because Christianity spread by conversion and not by immigration/conquest like islam did, since you mentioned it. Those Christians that you so seem to dislike, they left Paganism behind voluntarily so if a world system has flaws then the Greeks judged it was the philosophical one. Lastly Porphyry makes statements that demonstrate he doesn't even know what he's talking about so if by two worlds you mean the world of Porphyry and the world of the Gospel writers I will choose the world of the Gospel writers every day over that of Porphyry because unlike the latter, the former knows what it is talking about because it was there to see it.
@@orestislazanakis4960 great points
@@orestislazanakis4960 any forms of discourses on matters of Truth is Philosophy
A philosophical illiterate can be a philosophers if he can think and discern the world appropriately, like with the case of Jakob Boehme who simply observes the world and read Scriptures to find out for himself the reality of God, to find reconciliation in the life of faith and Christ.
Jesus didn't respond to the question on what's the Truth, for truly what Pilate was asking is for the True Reality of God, who can answer that?
Jesus can, but are there any ears that can hear and minds that can perceive that which is naturally Ineffable?
When Jesus speaks the Trinity, we could not barely make any declaration of it, any proper wordints
And when we did via Divine Revelation itself in the Nicean Council, we still could not and could never understand the Holy Trinity, we simply say it as such
Ofc, the lack of answer itself can also mean beyond what is being said here
But that goes to show that there is philosophy to be thought of here
And though Porphyry may be wrong, he is still on the right path, we simply need to correct him
The channel is trying to portray an objective view on the matter, presenting the case for Porphyry as such and nothing more
Again, I stress, we are then to refute the claims and not be quaking (like you did) for Christ is with us
No need to be condescending
The Christian world and the Greek world is different, you seem to not grasp hyperbolic statement
The world view is different, for theirs is the God of spiritual awakening and self-revelation
But ours, the God is the One who chooses and it is He who reveals, even if beyond Logic
Is there not a difference already?
Crucified on a torture-stake with a transom and also a male member. A most painful and shameful death. The Romans knew what they were doing when they invented the method!
Rich people are supposed to give a lot in charity.
Supposed to...
Are you afraid to actually read his words to us?? Curious!
Whose words?
John 17:20-26 has Jesus tell us the point of his message: to come to the one such that there is complete unity...
This is the henosis of philosophy, do not pretend the Christian tradition relied on Jesus alone...
Indeed, Ephesians 2:11-22 says his death is about bringing Jewish and Greek traditions together...
By making Christianity entirely separate oneness itself has been rejected...
The result is necessarily not of the Good, and history shows this.
"his death is about bringing Jewish and Greek traditions together"
The first part is true, and there were a couple of moments when early Christianity stopped being a "Jewish cult" to become international. But the "Greeks" mentioned were NOT the Greeks of the City-states that produced Socrates. They were the cosmopolitan Greeks of Hellenistic Near East. What they had retained from the light of 5th century Athens, was the mysticism of the Neo-platonists, which is already "Christian" in some regards (actually both are quite Gnostic).
Our show is very much about promoting what we call the "inceptual" Greek culture that was born in the 8th century BC and first portrayed by Homer.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited For me that ceases to actually be Greek, it doesn't even make sense to call it that because there was no unified state in the period you're suggesting... the most important contribution of the Greeks is this understanding that every religion contained the same truth, and for me Christianity is just another example of them trying to consolidate everything into a cohesive whole... that is what I'm primarily interested in, these convergences that resulted in syncretism... to the extent that for me nothing is more ignorant of truth than insisting on dividing them against each other.
The pagan word is thrown around, but is not accurate in most cases. Religion is pagan. Jesus did not scoff at Greek spirituality. Jesus is like the number 0 that connected Greek geometry. The concept of 0 was imported, but once realized shows proof of their intelligence. Apolion appeared to me in my defense. Does that make me pagan? I never praised him a day in my life. I knew he was falsely misinterpreted as being evil, but I stayed praising Yahweh, Jah Rastafari, Holy Immanuel, or simply the truth. I give thanks to all the angels and our beautiful Creator. Who gave I sense to maneuver through the maze of misinformation.
For all your knowledge, you have got many things backwards Michael. Look closer.
I think that storyes about greeks gods came from North...
The stories themselves did not, but the basic patterns might have. There is a whole area of research concerning Indo-European poetics that has found a lot of similarities between the epics of Greece, India, Iran etc. These are not similarities in terms of characters and story-plots, but basic themes and ideas. (see: g.co/kgs/J1Dhjc)
Pagans to describe the Hellenes.
The pagans were originally the Christian’s named as such by the Romans.
Look up the true meaning of the word you will understand.
I know that pagan means “country dweller,” or country bumpkin we might say. And yes, I do understand that this is a very limited conception of paganism.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited the limited conception is what came after Hellenism.
Start with Werner Jaegers Paideia.
Lol, his works were refuted by Christian philosopher's of his time 🤭 like St.Augustine.
Were they? Not really...
@@xiuhcoatl4830 well they were xD
@@johnnybrave7443 no, not really. None of the church fathers actually engaged in actual debates with late pagan philosophers, they were just shut down and their schools closed, didn't matter if their ideas actually refuted christianity or not.
@@xiuhcoatl4830 hmm, no, Christian polaemics addressed pagan works, like say the pagan's works were refuted by St.agustine's works and several others
@@johnnybrave7443 No they didn't, they just wrote stuff and left it there. No discussion, no debating, nothing. Just an example, in City of god Agustine appeals to mythical literalism to explain why the old Gods can't exist, which is a basic fallacy
Hail Porphery. He for seen the coming atrocities of Christianity.
He had. But I do believe that apart from this fact, the purely philosophical aspect of Christianity could have never satisfied a mind of the breadth and depth of Porphyry.
How I wish I could live to see the day when Christianity fades from the rear view mirror of human history. That will be true salvation
Every religion holds a society together in a unique way. Before on of these spindles is taken out, a new one has to be invented. The problem today is that no such spindle can exist as we live in an age of militant atheism. There are believers, for sure, and perhaps their number is even growing (for the moment), but the metaphysical assumptions of our modern era, namely the materialism of modern science, forbids any other understanding that points to the divine. There are more dangers of what you wish for than perhaps you realize.
@@AncientGreeceRevisited I doubt it. I've seen and suffered hostility fueled by Judeo Christian ideology. That just my experience. Look at the terrorism committed throughout history in the name of Christ
@@phillipjordan1010 Sure, but imagine the terrorism by atheists. It can be much worse.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (vedic yogi):
How the small brain experiences Infinity
czcams.com/video/1IMGjsx4ODs/video.html
Hail Porphery. He for seen the coming atrocities of Christianity.