I stumbled on Ammon Hillman a couple of months ago. A professor that teaches ancient Greek, with some controversial conclusions.
Poly, or ancient Greek, is the source language of the original texts.
Why not quell your preconceived beliefs and consider something else, from the perspective of (seemingly) unbiased translators?
We are not our beliefs.
nostr:note1zm982xsqxqy3swcyf5qmf7vqa43xr8spnn0zjus7hea8vt6z79dsht3ezt
Those two guys seem completely biased to me bro
Biased in what sense?
I said it seems to me dude
how about:
constant appeals to their own credentials and authority?
To me this is nothing more than understanding a language and being able to translate it without the fluff. I've spent a few hours listen to Ammon and many, many hours listening to Ken.
We all have our own biases and I don't agree with everything Ken says. However, I fail to see where they are incorrect and I am always happy to listen to people counter an argument in a calm and reasoned way.
One thing is clear to me - the interpretation of ancient texts has been skewed to steer people into having certain beliefs over the centuries, using mistranslated texts to shape a narrative. I don't know ancient Greek, but I do my best no to tie my beliefs to me or allow them to shape who I am.
I know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, a part of the divine master- the Trinity, Father, Son, and Ghost. I believe the Truth is passed down not only in the texts and often skewed translations, but also in the Spirit itself. So you can say that I am biased.
However, I imagine you also are wary of people who heavily use "credentialism"
-someone who references a lot of prior work records or history of their persona and apparent achievements to add a sense of authority or "you can trust me" to what they are saying in the present moment. -Usually is a sign of some kind of manipulation on their part. But to each his own.
On the identity stuff- I have to inquire,
Isn't your online persona here on nostr- anarchist, bitcoiner, etc at least a small reflection of your "actual self" ?
Wouldn't your life be different without these "beliefs" ? If instead you trusted everything the government and taken a bunch of vaccines for example.
It seems to me that "beliefs" are exactly what make us "who we are"
"What we do in life echoes in eternity" or something like that.
You believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I have no problem with that, I think it's certainly closer to the truth than placing belief in scientism; something rooted in atheism, which came about from Marxism, a front of Judaism, which was co-opted a long time ago by a deceitful people that appear to hate everyone but themselves.
But, those beliefs are based off of the same texts which appear to have been mistranslated over the years. How many versions of the Bible are there? Which version do you subscribe to? Why did you pick that one? Are you interested in truth, or holding onto the things you believe to be true, no matter what is presented in opposition to those beliefs?
If I trusted the government there is a good chance I would no longer be here. My point in saying that we are not are beliefs is that we should not become too attached to the things we have come to believe, especially because ego makes it difficult to let go. I keep an open mind and with enough discussion and reflection my beliefs change over time, because they are not who I am, they are merely a means of me navigating this life.
That is why I don't get upset if someone attacks my beliefs, or at least, I try to separate the two. Because someone challenging an idea doesn't mean that is an attack on me, and if I get 'offended', that is a bigger problem for me than it is for the things that I believe at the time. We all have our biases.
I don't think relying on experience is credentialism, and I don't see either of them engaging in fallacious reasoning. Neither of these guys are appealing to their credentials. If you can understand a language I can't, and you tell me something is mistranslated, I don't think you would be relying on credentialism to make that point.
I am by no means a religious or ancient text expert, but if you think they are wrong, perhaps you can show me some specific examples, such as challenging the original texts and translations, and I will listen.
On anarchism and Bitcoin; these are ideas that loosely but generally align with some of the things I have come to believe. These ideas evolve, and so do mine. I have been losing interest in the direction that Bitcoin has taken, and I am okay with admitting it. An asset that goes up in value forever but does nothing to 'free' people serves no purpose in my life.
Ah yes I see- not being offended by someone disagreeing with our beliefs is part of maturity- but I think beliefs do make us "who we are" in the sense of the life we live. We have free will to make decisions. We make decisions based on our beliefs. This might be only semantics...
I wouldn't give up on bitcoin just yet lol
It doesn't matter if people aren't using bitcoin the way we want them to.
They are using it and the network remains secure.
And on the videos, I would say the Word of God is shown to us through the Spirit, the English texts of today are decent enough for us to be inspired by the Ghost to meditate and determine the Truth of it ourselves. Let go of all pre-conceived notions or beliefs and consider the principles that are described, and see if any of it is helpful to you. If it is not, cast it aside.
For example Jesus told us that everything comes down to two rules:
Love God with all your heart
Love your neighbor as yourself (free market trade and peace)
This might sound totally opposite popular depictions of strict church life- but following his teachings only *helps* me with my life. It is not that I have to prevent myself from doing things that I want because I am a christian... The teachings help me *determine* what would be helpful and healthy for me to actually do.
So if something I read "in the text" would be unhealthy and unhelpful, then it is probably mistranslated.
I would encourage you to re-read the short book of Matthew in this headspace and see for yourself
I have thought of learning ancient poly for a while, due to Ken, but now it seems I begin haha would explain trains of Jordan maxwells commentary on religion/rome, for example "Seminaries" pertaining to semen, and the rampant sexual abuse in catholicism and most religious and societal power structures. Also makes me think of Terrance McKennas book "Food of the Gods".
I also think of the book "The Memoirs of Billy Shears" in which the actor who has been playing Paul McCartney since 1966 states that the Beatles were part of a movement to end Christianity, making me wonder about Ammons claims, especially given the Talmuds views on Yeshua.
That being said, I must look at the evidence rather than taking peoples words for anything. Ultimately who knows of Jesus was real, or a metaphor or a conflation of the two, or an outright lie, what does the fundamental text say and why was it written and why was it altered?
It would probably be a life-long undertaking learning Poly, but I am quite fascinated by the whole topic too. I think the evidence for the existence of Jesus is very strong, to me that is less questionable than the prevailing narratives surrounding him. Admittedly, I have a lot to learn on the topic and cannot say with absolute certainty who is correct, even though I'm leaning into what Ken and Ammon think about it all.
Dr. Ammon's teaching is in line with the scant bit of Ancient Religion teaching I received at University. That teacher, Dr. David Ulansey was also an expert on Greek and specialized in the Mithraic Cult.
Basically, it is my understanding that if one knows ancient Greek then one can understand what was really happening in these cults. If you rely on these shitty translations then you're just in a modern cult and you really don't anything.
This is my inclination. I understand it's uncomfortable for many, but I don't care how uncomfortable something is if it is true.
