Podcasts about Empedocles

En este episodio veremos las diferentes miradas sobre el misterio del amor.

In this fourth installment on the Problem of Evil, Dr. Jacobs explores the complex relationship between divine providence and human freedom. What does it mean that God delegates subsovereignce to creation? And how does divine foreknowledge interact with human self-determination? Tune in as we examine biblical figures like Abraham, Job, and Saul alongside the desecration of goodness and the atheist's problem with evil. This episode lays crucial groundwork for understanding the synergistic nature of providence before our final exploration of theodicy.All the links: X: https://x.com/NathanJacobsPodSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0hSskUtCwDT40uFbqTk3QSApple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-nathan-jacobs-podcastInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/thenathanjacobspodcastSubstack: https://nathanajacobs.substack.com/Website: https://www.nathanajacobs.com/Academia: https://vanderbilt.academia.edu/NathanAJacobs 00:00:00 Intro 00:02:13 The rational ordering principle00:13:17 What is the individual? 00:32:05 Divine foreknowledge 00:40:08 Abraham, Job, & Saul 00:52:06 Providence: blueprint or synergy? 01:01:29 The desecration of goodness01:08:28 The atheist's evil problem 01:18:51 So why doesn't God intervene? 01:34:30 God delegates subsovereignce  01:46:06 A critical feature of providence 01:49:51 What DOES God do? 01:56:49 The divine energies 02:16:40 The synergistic nature of providence 02:27:17 Engaging in self-determinationOther words for the algorithm… Leibniz, A defense of God, Epicurus, David Hume, Heraclitus, The Problem of Pain, The Problem of Divine Hiddenness, Christianity, Eastern Christianity, Orthodox Christian, Christianity, Evangelical, Protestant, Catholicism, Catholics, pantheism, Empedocles, body-soul dualism, metaphysical dualism, Manichaeism, Augustine of Hippo, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Nicene Creed, The Arian Dispute, Christology, Seven Ecumenical Councils, Jonathan Pageau, Fr. Josiah Trenham, Jordan Peterson, Pints With Aquinas, Christian apologetics, theology, Alex O'Connor, John of Damascus, Alvin Plantinga, modal logic, Scholastics, the consequent will of God, Origen, complex goods, Theism, philosophy of religion, natural theology, moral philosophy, ontological argument, teleological argument, cosmological argument, ancient philosophy, patristics, church fathers, suffering, existentialism, free will, determinism, sovereignty, divine attributes, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, theological ethics, moral evil, natural evil, comparative religion, religious epistemology, divine justice, meaning of suffering, spiritual formation, rationalism, empiricism, atheism, agnosticism, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Bishop Barron, apologetics debate, philosophical theology, Thomas Aquinas, divine providence, spiritual warfare, eschatology, redemptive suffering, qualified omnipotence

Send us a textEach year I treat myself to a tarot reading from my friend, Karen Rontowski as a birthday present to myself. It's the perfect way to look back, be present, and look to the year ahead. This year was no different, because as the months have unfolded, her insights continue to resonate.One key bit explained my sense of never fitting in with anything my entire life, is when the cards, and Karen said, "You are a bridge." She explained, I am a bridge between all things. Life and death. Political parties. Between elements. Light and dark. Day and night.She that I can see all sides, literally feel them all, and yet I stand apart and create a bridge of understanding between the two factions or things or ways of being. NO wonder I've never felt like I fit in.The last months of 2024 an into 2025, I am understanding that being a bridge is to lead with empathy, it's to feel into the place where two extremes intersect, and now more than ever, the collective needs to harness the magic in that in between space, lean on that healing, that peace, and let that love power factory jet us to a better tomorrow.This isn't fake toxic positivity I'm speaking of here. This is finding common ground and reminding us that we have more in common than we don't when the outlets with the widest reach scream at us that we don't.The Bridge is something I speak of in my show intro, it's the soul of this podcast - to look at where science and supernatural collide, to stare into the space where a soul and a human form join together to create something greater than one plus one is two. So, for the coming weeks, I'm diving headfirst into those spaces. From life and death, good and bad, angels and demons, earth, air, fire and water, and every other duality, they are coming under the microscope so we can all understand the magic.Let's get into it!Want to learn more? Read/watch/listen to this NEXT!The Story of the Four Elements, Moonletter, Ben BelinskyEmpedocles and the Four Classic Elements, OwlcationA World History of Classical Elementals and Their Correspondences (or relationships with one another), Cassie Uhl's BlogRelated EpisodesWater MagickNature IS Medicine   Have you tried the GoodPods app yet? It's free and a fun way to share podcasts with friends and family! Curious Cat Podcast is there, and is sitting pretty in the Top 20 in Supernatural! Curious Cat Crew on Socials:Curious Cat on Twitter (X)Curious Cat on InstagramCurious Cat on TikTokArt Director, Nora, has a handmade, ethically-sourced jewelry company!

No man ever steps in the same river twice for it's not the same river and it's not the same man." - Heraclitus In this episode, Ana Melikian takes us on a philosophical journey through the concept of change and how it shapes our mindsets and our world. Celebrating the 10-year anniversary of the MINDSET ZONE, Ana delves into ancient Greek philosophy to explore varying perspectives on change. Is change an illusion, as some philosophers argue, or is it a constant flow, as suggested by others? Ana introduces us to fascinating philosophical debates involving figures like Perimenides and Heraclitus—the former believing nothing truly changes and the latter asserting that everything is in constant flux. However, Ana doesn't stop there. She highlights the intriguing middle ground proposed by philosopher Empedocles, who suggested that both perspectives are valid. Drawing from this idea, Ana inspires listeners to transcend seeming contradictions in their own lives. By creatively mixing our strengths and weaknesses like an artist blends colors, we can transform our mindsets and achieve our desired outcomes. Gain fresh insights into the nature of change and discover practical ways to apply these age-old philosophies to your modern life. It's a thought-provoking episode that promises to expand what's possible for you. Let's dive in! This week on the MINDSET ZONE podcast: 00:00 Introduction 01:15 The Philosophy of Change 02:32 Ancient Philosophers on Change 04:54 Heraclitus and the Concept of Constant Change 07:30 Empedocles' Third Option 09:49 Applying Philosophical Ideas to Personal Change 11:34 Conclusion and Resources Meet Your Host: Ana Melikian, Ph.D., advises leaders on how to amplify impact while avoiding burnout. She is passionate about teaching others how to unlock their human potential using simple and powerful approaches such as her P.I.E. method.

Links For The Occult Rejects and The Spiritual Gangsters https://linktr.ee/occultrejectsandfriendsOccult Research Institutehttps://www.occultresearchinstitute.org/Links For The Spiritual Gangstershttps://linktr.ee/thespiritualgangsterspodcastCash Apphttps://cash.app/$theoccultrejectsVenmo@TheOccultRejectsBuy Me A Coffeebuymeacoffee.com/TheOccultRejectsPatreonhttps://www.patreon.com/TheOccultRejects

On this Friday the 13th, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. (Templar Memorial Day) The Hermetic Hour's host Poke Runyon will lead a discussion on Hermetic Philosophy, from ancient Alexandria through the Renaissance, and into the modern era. We will look at the early work of Empedocles and Pythagoras, the Pomander and the Asclepius, the Emerald Tablet, and the Chaldean Oracles. We will consider the Gnostic connection, and how the kabbalah arose from Greek, Assyrian, and Gnostic roots, and how it joined with Hermeticism in the Renaissance. We will establish why astrology is so important in the magical art. Most importantly we will look for The Great Secret of Hermetic-kabbalistic philosophy. This is the "Why" of Magick. This is the Holy Grail that we search for. This is the reason we dedicate our lives to an art that destroys the fools, and makes the wise immortal. I doubt that you have ever heard anything like this before. Tune in and we will open the pathway to enlightenment. Nosce te Ipsum -- Tu es Deus. Remember: this week we are on Friday evening, not Thursday. Please call in "on the topic."

Welcome to Episode 247 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where we have a thread to discuss this and all of our podcast episodes.Today we are continuing to review Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," which began with the Epicurean spokesman Velleius defending the Epicurean point of view. This week will continue into Section 32 as Cotta, the Academic Skeptic, continues to insist that gods are supernatural and not at all similar to humans. XXXII. ...Nor can I conceive why Epicurus should rather say the Gods are like men than that men are like the Gods. You ask what is the difference; for, say you, if this is like that, that is like this. I grant it; but this I assert, that the Gods could not take their form from men; for the Gods always existed, and never had a beginning, if they are to exist eternally; but men had a beginning: therefore that form, of which the immortal Gods are, must have had existence before mankind; consequently, the Gods should not be said to be of human form, but our form should be called divine. However, let this be as you will. I now inquire how this extraordinary good fortune came about; for you deny that reason had any share in the formation of things. But still, what was this extraordinary fortune? Whence proceeded that happy concourse of atoms which gave so sudden a rise to men in the form of Gods? Are we to suppose the divine seed fell from heaven upon earth, and that men sprung up in the likeness of their celestial sires? I wish you would assert it; for I should not be unwilling to acknowledge my relation to the Gods. But you say nothing like it; no, our resemblance to the Gods, it seems, was by chance. Must I now seek for arguments to refute this doctrine seriously? I wish I could as easily discover what is true as I can overthrow what is false.XXXIII. You have enumerated with so ready a memory, and so copiously, the opinions of philosophers, from Thales the Milesian, concerning the nature of the Gods, that I am surprised to see so much learning in a Roman. But do you think they were all madmen who thought that a Deity could by some possibility exist without hands and feet?Does not even this consideration have weight with you when you consider what is the use and advantage of limbs in men, and lead you to admit that the Gods have no need of them? What necessity can there be of feet, without walking; or of hands, if there is nothing to be grasped? The same may be asked of the other parts of the body, in which nothing is vain, nothing useless, nothing superfluous; therefore we may infer that no art can imitate the skill of nature. Shall the Deity, then, have a tongue, and not speak—teeth, palate, and jaws, though he will have no use for them? Shall the members which nature has given to the body for the sake of generation be useless to the Deity? Nor would the internal parts be less superfluous than the external. What comeliness is there in the heart, the lungs, the liver, and the rest of them, abstracted from their use? I mention these because you place them in the Deity on account of the beauty of the human form.Depending on these dreams, not only Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermachus declaimed against Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, but that little harlot Leontium presumed to write against Theophrastus: indeed, she had a neat Attic style; but yet, to think of her arguing against Theophrastus! So much did the garden of Epicurus abound with these liberties, and, indeed, you are always complaining against them. Zeno wrangled. Why need I mention Albutius? Nothing could be more elegant or humane than Phædrus; yet a sharp expression would disgust the old man. Epicurus treated Aristotle with great contumely. He foully slandered Phædo, the disciple of Socrates. He pelted Timocrates, the brother of his companion Metrodorus, with whole volumes, because he disagreed with him in some trifling point of philosophy. He was ungrateful even to Democritus, whose follower he was; and his master Nausiphanes, from whom he learned nothing, had no better treatment from him.XXXIV. Zeno gave abusive language not only to those who were then living, as Apollodorus, Syllus, and the rest, but he called Socrates, who was the father of philosophy, the Attic buffoon, using the Latin word Scurra. He never called Chrysippus by any name but Chesippus. And you yourself a little before, when you were numbering up a senate, as we may call them, of philosophers, scrupled not to say that the most eminent men talked like foolish, visionary dotards.Certainly, therefore, if they have all erred in regard to the nature of the Gods, it is to be feared there are no such beings. What you deliver on that head are all whimsical notions, and not worthy the consideration even of old women. For you do not seem to be in the least aware what a task you draw on yourselves, if you should prevail on us to grant that the same form is common to Gods and men. The Deity would then require the same trouble in dressing, and the same care of the body, that mankind does. He must walk, run, lie down, lean, sit, hold, speak, and discourse. You need not be told the consequence of making the Gods male and female.Therefore I cannot sufficiently wonder how this chief of yours came to entertain these strange opinions. But you constantly insist on the certainty of this tenet, that the Deity is both happy and immortal. Supposing he is so, would his happiness be less perfect if he had not two feet? Or cannot that blessedness or beatitude—call it which you will (they are both harsh terms, but we must mollify them by use)—can it not, I say, exist in that sun, or in this world, or in some eternal mind that has not human shape or limbs? All you say against it is, that you never saw any happiness in the sun or the world. What, then? Did you ever see any world but this? No, you will say. Why, therefore, do you presume to assert that there are not only six hundred thousand worlds, but that they are innumerable? Reason tells you so. Will not reason tell you likewise that as, in our inquiries into the most excellent nature, we find none but the divine nature can be happy and eternal, so the same divine nature surpasses us in excellence of mind; and as in mind, so in body? Why, therefore, as we are inferior in all other respects, should we be equal in form? For human virtue approaches nearer to the divinity than human form.

Today's poem demonstrates that, unlike Arnold's sideburns, loving the Bard never goes out of style. Although remembered now for his elegantly argued critical essays, Matthew Arnold, born in Laleham, Middlesex, on December 24, 1822, began his career as a poet, winning early recognition as a student at the Rugby School where his father, Thomas Arnold, had earned national acclaim as a strict and innovative headmaster. Arnold also studied at Balliol College, Oxford University. In 1844, after completing his undergraduate degree at Oxford, he returned to Rugby as a teacher of classics.After marrying in 1851, Arnold began work as a government school inspector, a grueling position which nonetheless afforded him the opportunity to travel throughout England and the Continent. Throughout his thirty-five years in this position Arnold developed an interest in education, an interest which fed into both his critical works and his poetry. Empedocles on Etna (1852) and Poems (1853) established Arnold's reputation as a poet and, in 1857, he was offered a position, which he accepted and held until 1867, as Professor of Poetry at Oxford. Arnold became the first professor to lecture in English rather than Latin. During this time Arnold wrote the bulk of his most famous critical works, Essays in Criticism (1865) and Culture and Anarchy (1869), in which he sets forth ideas that greatly reflect the predominant values of the Victorian era.Meditative and rhetorical, Arnold's poetry often wrestles with problems of psychological isolation. In “To Marguerite—Continued,” for example, Arnold revises John Donne's assertion that “No man is an island,” suggesting that we “mortals” are indeed “in the sea of life enisled.” Other well-known poems, such as “Dover Beach,” link the problem of isolation with what Arnold saw as the dwindling faith of his time. Despite his own religious doubts, a source of great anxiety for him, in several essays Arnold sought to establish the essential truth of Christianity. His most influential essays, however, were those on literary topics. In “The Function of Criticism” (1865) and “The Study of Poetry” (1880) Arnold called for a new epic poetry: a poetry that would address the moral needs of his readers, “to animate and ennoble them.” Arnold's arguments, for a renewed religious faith and an adoption of classical aesthetics and morals, are particularly representative of mainstream Victorian intellectual concerns. His approach—his gentlemanly and subtle style—to these issues, however, established criticism as an art form, and has influenced almost every major English critic since, including T. S. Eliot, Lionel Trilling, and Harold Bloom. Though perhaps less obvious, the tremendous influence of his poetry, which addresses the poet's most innermost feelings with complete transparency, can easily be seen in writers as different from each other as W. B. Yeats, James Wright, Sylvia Plath, and Sharon Olds. Late in life, in 1883 and 1886, Arnold made two lecturing tours of the United States.Matthew Arnold died in Liverpool on April 15, 1888.-bio via Academy of American Poets Get full access to The Daily Poem Podcast at dailypoempod.substack.com/subscribe

This week we are taking our faces off to reveal a tinier fiery face while we discuss “Empedocles”! We're talking Reyes' girl potential, comfy Scully, how dangerous it is to put two believers on one case, Jeb!, how much we enjoy how much Doggett and Mulder hate each other, and think it's suspicious that Skinner didn't show up to Scully's hospital room. We do a lot of bad Batman voices (sorry in advance), wonder whether Mulder might actually be a ghost, try to stop Doggett from looming over Scully and having creepy visions, wonder whether Johnica could be a thing, debate the importance of an Evil Vaccine, and support Scully while she demands that Mulder be nice to Doggett, her only other friend. Also, this is serious business this week, because this is a case with some phenomena. What kind of phenomena? You'll have to listen to find out.Send us an email at scullynationpod@gmail.com or follow us on Twitter and Instagram!

Please hit subscribe/follow and leave a positive comment. Click here to go to our Patreon Page. Click here to go to Jens Postmark Closet. Click here to go to Ilona's YouTube Chanel. Click here to go to our website.   In a small city in the Czechia republic sits a restaurant with some strange activities In todays episode we talk about the strange things happening without exclamation. The phenomenon is called Apport.   In parapsychology and Spiritualism, an apport is the alleged paranormal transference of an article from one place to another, or an appearance of an article from an unknown source that is often associated with poltergeist activity or séances. Apports reported during séances have been found to be the result of deliberate fraud.  No medium or psychic has demonstrated the manifestation of an apport under scientifically controlled conditions. History A famous apport fraud is attributed to Charles Bailey (1870–1947). During a séance, Bailey produced two live birds seemingly out of thin air, but was undone when the dealer who sold him the birds appeared in the crowd. Common objects that are produced are stones, flowers, perfumes, and animals. These objects are said to be "gifts" from the spirit(s). In March 1902 in Berlin, police officers interrupted a séance of the apport medium Frau Anna Rothe. Her hands were grabbed and she was wrestled to the ground. A female police assistant physically examined Rothe and discovered 157 flowers as well as oranges and lemons hidden in her petticoat. She was arrested and charged with fraud.[4] After a trial lasting six days she was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. In 1926, Heinrich Melzer was exposed as a fraud as he was caught in the séance room with small stones attached to the back of his ears by flesh coloured tape. According to neurologist Terence Hines "Some female mediums went so far as to conceal in their vagina or anus objects to be 'apported' during the seance and gauzy fabric that would become 'ectoplasm' during the seance. These were places that Victorian gentlemen, no matter how skeptical, were highly unlikely to ask to search." There are many cases where apports have been smuggled into the séance room. Other apport mediums that were exposed as frauds were Lajos Pap and Maria Silbert.[ Victims of such incidents think they merely forgot where they had placed the objects, and dismiss these experiences from their minds. But sometimes, what is lost is something of value and never appears again. Such is the case of a man who lives alone in the same condo where I hold office. He told me that $100 to $500 disappear from his wallet every now and then. Since he lives alone, the money could not have been stolen from him, this is probably the work of elementals, which are often mischievous or naughty and make life miserable for some people. Elementals are also called “nature spirits.” They correspond to the four elements of matter identified by the ancient Greek philosopher Empedocles (495-435 BC) and later by the 15th-century Swiss physician, alchemist and astrologer Paracelsus (1493-1541). He classified these invisible creatures or nature spirits into four categories: gnomes (earth), undines (water), sylphs (air) and salamanders (fire). They help preserve the balance of nature. Most elementals, however, are harmless and should not be feared, but their presence can be annoying because they are capable of doing mischief, like hiding or making personal objects disappear. Most of the time, however, they return such objects, but in another place in the house or office. Two weeks ago, one heavy book I was reading disappeared from my desk at home and I could not find it. After three days, the book suddenly appeared under my bed in my library at home. It was found by my housekeeper when she cleaned the library. How it got there, nobody knew, of course. I was just thankful it was returned to me. The only thing I can suggest when such things happen to you is to try to talk to such creatures, even if you feel foolish for doing so, and plead to them to return your missing items. If you can find a clairvoyant or psychic who can see and talk to them, so much the better.

In this episode, Daniel and Nathan dive into the lives and philosophies of Empedocles and Anaxagoras, who serve as stepping stones to understanding Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. They explore Empedocles' idea that all things are composed of four elements and two forces, love and strife. Meanwhile, Anaxagoras introduces the concept of 'mind' as a guiding force over matter, sparking deeper philosophical questions.The discussion ends by discussing why Socrates and Aristotle were excited but then disappointed in the answers Empedocles and Anaxagoras gave.00:00 Introduction and Overview00:46 Empedocles: The Four Elements05:35 Empedocles' Life and Legends13:30 Anaxagoras: Mind Over Matter18:09 Anaxagoras' Contributions and Critiques24:57 Conclusion and Next Episode Preview

This lecture discusses key ideas from the ancient philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero's work, On The Nature Of The Gods, which critically examines Epicurean, Stoic, and Skeptic perspectives on matters of theology and cosmology Specifically it the Epicurean Velleius' criticisms of various ancient philosophers viewpoints on the divine. These include a number of pre-Socratics, such as: Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Alcmæo of Croton, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Parmenides, Empedocles, Protagoras, Democritus, and Diogenes of Apollonia. He also criticises the views of post-Socratics like Plato, Xenophon, Antisthenes, Speusippus, Aristotle, Xenocrates, Heraclides of Pontus, and Theophrastus To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,000 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Cicero's On The Nature Of Gods - https://amzn.to/3JITSZc

Check out our links below! OUR MERCH STORE: https://teespring.com/stores/ufo-party-podcast OUR PATREON IS FREE NOW! : https://www.patreon.com/ufopartypod BUY US A COFFEE! https://ko-fi.com/ufopartypod FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/ufopartypod  FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: https://twitter.com/ufopartypod EMAIL US YOUR STORIES: ufopartypod@gmail.com Thank you so much for showing support so we can spread love to the only good feds in the universe.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/ufopartypodcast/support

Welcome to Episode 231 of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the most complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world.Each week we walk you through the Epicurean texts, and we discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.comToday we are continuing to review the Epicurean sections of Cicero's "On the Nature of The Gods," as presented by the Epicurean spokesman Velleius, beginning at the end of Section 10.For the main text we are using primarily the Yonge translation, available here. The text which we include in these posts is the Yonge version, the full version of which is here at Epicureanfriends. We will also refer to the public domain version of the Loeb series, which contains both Latin and English, as translated by H. Rackham.Additional versions can be found here:Frances Brooks 1896 translation at Online Library of LibertyLacus Curtius Edition (Rackham)PDF Of Loeb Edition at Archive.org by RackhamGutenberg.org version by CD Yonge Today's TextXII. Empedocles, who erred in many things, is most grossly mistaken in his notion of the Gods. He lays down four natures as divine, from which he thinks that all things were made. Yet it is evident that they have a beginning, that they decay, and that they are void of all sense.Protagoras did not seem to have any idea of the real nature of the Gods; for he acknowledged that he was altogether ignorant whether there are or are not any, or what they are.What shall I say of Democritus, who classes our images of objects, and their orbs, in the number of the Gods; as he does that principle through which those images appear and have their influence? He deifies likewise our knowledge and understanding. Is he not involved in a very great error? And because nothing continues always in the same state, he denies that anything is everlasting, does he not thereby entirely destroy the Deity, and make it impossible to form any opinion of him?

Remnants of Humanity: Journey Throughout Our Sacred Earth to Restore Balance Held Within the Feminine Dimension by Christine Van Camp ZeccaThe twenty-first century is facing worldwide disintegration. The spiritual systems are falling apart, revealing the lack of all that used to sustain humanity as notions of separation prevail. However, inclusion is essential for survival. Profound love is more powerful than hate, but those in power amplify/ hate, destroying humanity in the process. After the collapse of Western civilization in North America, survivors grounded in healing love flee south. Seven millennia later, an isolated outpost of women wants to share its hard-earned wisdom. These earth-based shamans are losing the energy to continue, unless they can connect with the Underworld of Dreaming Nature to find suitable males to join them. Their quest attracts other “remnants” that also wish to regenerate the planet and return joy to the world. Paradigm shifts are required to reinvigorate the inevitable toxic collapse of a corrupted society, hope rests in the hands of feminine energy and hard-earned wisdom.  She works with creativity and the imaginal realm integrating her background of 30 years of Jungian studies and analysis, DreamTending, and other forms of embodied dream work. She completed BodySoul Rhythms Leadership Training with Marion Woodman that integrates Jung's work with experiential modalities of dream, imaginal work, voice & body expressions with the intention of bringing deeper levels of awareness into our conscious being. Her own practices include painting (since she was 2), Tai Chi (50 years), yoga (20 years), QiGong (6 years), 5Rhythms practice (12 years), Authentic Movement (4 years), Continuum (3 years), Incubation practice rediscovered by Peter Kingsley from Ancient Pre-Socratic philosophers Empedocles & Parmenides (recent) & is currently studying / experiencing Shamanic Trainings:‘The World in Balance' or Katasee (1 year), Visionseeker Trainings and Continuum Private Trainings with Hank Wesselman and Jill Kuykendal: 4 years, completed both one year of VisionSeeker and two years of Advanced Continuum Trainings on two separate occasions. Sandra Ingerman's: Soul Retrieval and 2 Year Teacher Training (completed). Most recent Christine completed Alberto Villoldo's Four Winds Training in Joshua Tree, CA. Now she does illuminations as well.   https://www.amazon.com/Remnants-Humanity-Throughout-Feminine-Dimension/dp/B0BZCPKRCM/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.rUmRoy3-lob9Lu9a_zwNFg.cd4MFXoPy2G5CB40eBDvsKJ1JGVOx1WcHqC-14tbgac&dib_tag=se&keywords=Remnants+of+Humanity%3A+Journey+Throughout+Our+Sacred+Earth+to+Restore+Balance+Held+Within+the+Feminine+Dimension&qid=1710288289&sr=8-1https://www.christinezecca.com/www.WritersBranding.com  http://www.bluefunkbroadcasting.com/root/twia/5924cvcz.mp3   

In this episode, we continue our discussion of the Pre-Platonics, and cover the ideas of Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus. The episode begins with a brief recap of the previous philosophers and the dialogue up to this point. After considering the remaining Pre-Platonics, I have some brief concluding remarks in which I attempt to make sense of the entire picture as Nietzsche lays it out in this unfinished essay.

This week's review is of a self-contained excerpt from a larger film, called Escape Game by  @CrisUberman . This part of the film is the final chapter of the story, Danser Encore, voiced by  @lionelmazari1990 with a song by  @hksaltimbank . We delve into the inspiration for the themes in the film, which draws on the philosophy of Empedocles and Rosset, although we perhaps lower the tone a little with reference to Oscar Wilde! 1:25 Intro to this week's film pick: an excerpt from Escape Game by Cris Uberman 2:14 The first machinima music video 3:20 Complementary game and music, creating a happy hip-hop scene 5:00 GTA5 is like Roman comedy in theatre 6:03 Cris Uberman's ouvre in GTA5, photography and real life 7:41 About Empedocles – a pre-Soctratic scholar whose work is the inspiration for the film 9:06 Louis is the central character, narrated by Lionel Mazari 9:58 Exploring the relationship between the virtual and the physical self, quoting Clement Rosset – the nature of reality and its double 12:31 Analagous to the Picture of Dorian Gray? 14:32 HK and the Saltimbanks an inspired choice for the music accompaniment 15:20 This is a type of machinima we have rarely seen 16:16 Deep dive into the meaning of a work vs just watching or reading it – we discuss pros and cons of each Credits -Speakers: Ricky Grove, Tracy Harwood, Damien ValentineProducer: Tracy HarwoodEditor: Phil RiceMusic: Amino Domini Beats

In this episode we read the surviving fragments of the philosophy of Empedocles and explore the shamanistic and mystical foundations of Western thought. Empedocles carries on the Orphic and Pythagorean tradition in his quest for Ultimate Reality, for which Aristotle grants him the title of 'Natural Philosopher'. But a strange kind of natural philosopher indeed! He speaks of the union of opposites, of the thing that is paradoxically One and Many; he understands it to be eternal and uncreated; the source of the cosmos, the gods and men. And where did this information come from? From logic, rationality, deduction? Not a bit. It came directly from the divine, from the Great Goddess herself. Enjoy ;)

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

“The first thing, then, is to inquire what death, which seems to be so well understood, really is.For some imagine death to be the departure of the soul from the body.Others think that there is no such departure, but that soul and body perish together, and that the soul is extinguished with the body. …There is great dispute even what the soul is, where it is, and whence it is derived. …Empedocles imagines the blood, which is suffused over the heart, to be the soul; to others, a certain part of the brain seems to be the throne of the soul. …Dicaearchus, in that discourse of some learned disputants held at Corinth … asserts that there is in fact no such thing at all as a soul, but that it is a name without a meaning; and that it is idle to use the expression ‘animated beings.'That neither men nor beasts have minds or souls, but that all that power by which we act or perceive is equally infused into every living creature, and is inseparable from the body, for if it were not, it would be nothing.Nor is there anything whatever really existing except body, which is a single and simple thing, so fashioned as to live and have its sensations in consequence of the regulations of nature.” (Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, I.9-10)Figs in Winter: Stoicism and beyond is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit figsinwinter.substack.com/subscribe

Jess and Dini travel back to April 22, 2001! Snuggle up with your creepiest doll, grab a slice of your favorite pizza, and join us as we discuss our top 5 favorite moments from S8 EP11, Empedocles! Scully is rushed to the hospital, Reyes has a vision, and Doggett wants to kick Mulder's ass. Called to New Orleans to investigate a suspected satanic ritual murder, Reyes has a paranormal experience that may be connected to the tragic death of Doggett's son, Luke. Tensions run high when Doggett discovers Reyes has enlisted Mulder's help on the case. Meanwhile, Scully has a medical emergency related to her unborn baby. This episode was written by Greg Walker and directed by Barry K. Thomas. Do you have any X-Files related theories, stories, key points or podcast feedback? Please email us at TheXFilesChatRoomPodcast@gmail.com We'd love to hear from you. Please tell us how we can improve!You can find us on:Twitter @TXFChatRoomPodInstagram @TXFChatRoomPodResources: X-Files WikiIMDBhttps://native-land.ca/

Around 2500 years ago in Ancient Greece, Empedocles contemplated the essential questions of the universe, including the role of love and strife. Empedocles is known as a pre-Socratic philosopher, although he was primarily a poet. In his surviving works, On Nature and Purifications, Empedocles posits that the cosmic powers of Love and Strife govern the four indestructible elements of the universe. Love unifies the elements with each other and draws like to like. Since then, philosophers, poets, and thinkers have contemplated what love is and how it impacts human existence and the function of the universe. From the Platonic dialogues to 20th century literature, thinkers have chronicled their thoughts on love.  So why are philosophers so concerned with love? Is love that important that it commands centuries of attention from nearly every philosophical thinker? In many ways, love is what binds us together as humans and gives motivation to our lives. Today, we will explore love and its role in human life. Open Door Philosophy on Twitter @d_parsonage or @opendoorphilOpen Door Philosophy on Instagram @opendoorphilosophyOpen Door Philosophy website at opendoorphilosophy.comContact us via email at contact@opendoorphilosophy.com

In this episode I look at Richard McKirahan's study of the presocratics in Philosophy Before Socrates, with a focus on Empedocles, Homer and Pindar.

In this symposium, we discuss the intellectual developments in the ancient Greek world that led to the development of the notion of the Logos. We start with mentioning several meanings of the notion of the logos, as well as a discussion of the intellectual transition from the Homeric paradigm to the paradigm of the early Presocratics. Then, we focus on several fragments of Heraclitus where he talks about the Logos. We proceed to discuss the metaphysics of Empedocles and his theory of cosmic cycles. We end the symposium with a brief mention of Polybius, his theory of the anacyclosis of political constitutions, and how it can be seen as influenced by the Presocratics.

We are so busy. We think we're supposed to be. We think that's how we get better. We think that moving is the only way to move forward.You might think that Marcus Aurelius could relate. Yet when he speaks most beautifully it's of moments of quiet and calm. "If you can cut free of impressions that cling to the mind," he said, "free of the future and the past—can make yourself, as Empedocles says, 'a sphere rejoicing in its perfect stillness.'" Have you ever had a moment like that?---And in today's Daily Stoic excerpt reading, Ryan discusses his perspective on focusing on the internal more than the external by examining the quote from Epictetus's Discourses, “These things don't go together. You must be a unified human being, either good or bad. You must diligently work either on your own reasoning or on things out of your control—take great care with the inside and not what's outside, which is to say, stand with the philosopher, or else with the mob!”✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

De laatste aflevering over de natuurfilosofen of presocratici. Ter sprake komen opgewekte filosofen als Xenophanes en Democritus. IJdele snoeshanen als Empedocles en nog meer grote denkers, die verbluffende ideeën hebben ontwikkeld.

Stephen Wolfram answers general questions from his viewers about science and technology as part of an unscripted livestream series, also available on YouTube here: https://wolfr.am/youtube-sw-qa Questions include: Is 10 a special number in any way? Why is scientific notation (or the digit system) in base 10? Is it just because we have 5×2 fingers? -Lots of flowers have five-fold symmetry. - ​Empedocles believed arms, fingers and legs just roamed around as creatures of their own, eventually merging into all kinds of creatures, and only the five-fingered, four-limbed animals won out. It's like an ancient Greek natural selection. - Why are some animals cold-blooded? - Can the Wolfram Physics Project be used to simulate models of new medications for diseases? #WolframPharma. - Will we ever successfully be able to use cryogenics to freeze humans? Won't the ice crystals rupture our cells, like a banana left in the freezer and then thawing it out? - Is it true that cats domesticated themselves compared to other animals that humans domesticated for a purpose?

In today's episode we continue to discuss the first article of the Creed I believe "in God." Particular mention is made of the work of philosophers that discovered truths about God that belong to "Natural Theology." (e.g. Xenophanes, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)

Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 696, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln 1: (Alex walks the stage of Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C.) Illustrating the difference in memories, some people said that Booth shouted this Latin phrase right from here, center stage; others said, "No, it was from the box"; Booth himself wrote that he spoke the words before shooting Lincoln; perhaps he said these words more than once. Sic semper tyrannis. 2: (Alex walks the stage of Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C.) President Lincoln arrived late at Ford's Theatre; the show was already under way, but when he was spotted walking down the stairs toward the presidential box, everything here stopped; then the orchestra struck up "Hail To The Chief", the audience gave him a thunderous round of applause, the president waved and bowed, and then the performance of this play continued. Our American Cousin. 3: (Alex stands on the stage of Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C.) Police work in those days could be a little bit shoddy: hours after the murder, a man named William Kent came back to the presidential box looking for his keys; what he found was the murder weapon, the small .44-caliber single-shot pistol bearing the name of this Philadelphia gunsmith who invented it. Henry Deringer. 4: (Alex reports from the Petersen House in Washington, D.C.) While Mrs. Lincoln and her friends sat vigil here in the front parlor, in the back parlor, this energetic Secretary of War took charge of the investigation and worked tirelessly through the night, coordinating the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth and his accomplices. Edwin Stanton. 5: (Alex reports from the Petersen House in Washington, D.C.) At 7:22 on the morning of April 15, 1865, President Lincoln died in this small bedroom; a prayer was said, and then, according to tradition, Edwin Stanton uttered these six famous words. "Now he belongs to the ages". Round 2. Category: Science Timeline 1: Around 480 B.C.:Anaxagoras explains the cause of these events, one of which darkened Greece in 478 B.C.. eclipses. 2: 1600:William Gilbert concludes that the Earth is a huge lodestone that acts as a bar one of these. a magnet. 3: 1608:Hans Lippershey applies for a patent for this, which he calls a "looker"; Galileo is all eyes. a telescope. 4: Around 450 B.C.:Empedocles posits that all matter is made of these 4 classical elements. earth, fire, air and water. 5: 1842:This Austrian physicist relates the observed frequency of a wave to the motion of its source. Doppler. Round 3. Category: Metal 1: Psalm 135 describes the idols of the heathen as not of God and merely made from these 2 metals. silver and gold. 2: The so-called tinfoil you buy at the supermarket is probably made from this metal. aluminum. 3: Legend says that the metal used to make these highest British military awards came from cannons captured in the Crimean War. the Victoria Cross. 4: Noted for its natural magnetism, magnetite is an important ore of this metal. iron. 5: In 1252 in Kamakura, Japan, all 93 tons of the Daibutsu, or Great Buddha, was cast in this alloy. bronze. Round 4. Category: The Steaks 1: This steak sauce was created in the 1820s by the chef to England's King George IV. A.1.. 2: Sometimes wrapped in bacon, this choice cut of boneless steak with a French name is from the end of the loin. filet mignon. 3: Found in the bottom sirloin and on the Sizzler's menu is this cut whose name comes from its geometry. tri-tip.

Hello Interactors,Today is part one of a two-part exploration. I was curious as to why conventional economics continues to rely so heavily on deterministic mathematical models that assume perfect conditions even though they know such inert situations don't exist in nature. It may tie back to the Enlightenment and the popular beliefs of Newton and Descartes who merged Christian beliefs with mathematic certainty – despite viable alternative theories they helped squelch.  As interactors, you're special individuals self-selected to be a part of an evolutionary journey. You're also members of an attentive community so I welcome your participation.Please leave your comments below or email me directly.Now let's go…THE SPERMISTSIsaac Newton and René Descartes were spermists. They believed they entered this world through preformation. This theory states every future organism is wrapped up in a seed or sperm as a preformed miniature version of itself. This was the dominant belief among Europe's most respected Enlightenment thinkers. They believed not only did a Christian god create all the plants and animals, including humans, but all the future ones too. Intercourse, they surmised, is a magical act that initiates the growth of microscopic animacules which then grow until they are fully formed. It's easy to brush this off as a point in time lack of knowledge and excuse these brilliant minds. We might say, “They just didn't know any better.” But it turns out there were other brilliant minds at the time who thought they were crazy.But powerful people are not easily persuaded. They, along with the church, continued to push the idea that preformation is as elementary to evolution as mathematical axioms are to theorems. A mathematical certainty that one day seduced many scientists, and later economists, into similar deterministic expressions.One of the early preformation influencers was the Dutch philosopher, mathematician, and theologian, Bernard Nieuwentyt (1654-1718). Three years before his death, he published a soon to be popular book, The Religious Philosopher: Or, The Right Use of Contemplating the Works of the Creator. In it he writes,“This however is sure enough…that all living Creatures whatever proceed from a Stamin or Principle, in which the Limbs and Members of the Body are folded and wound as it were in a Ball of Thread; which by the Operation of adventitious Matter and Humours are filled up and unfolded, till the Structure of all the Parts have the Magnitude of a full grown Body.”His book was translated into English in 1724 and its influence spread. In 1802, the English clergyman and philosopher, William Paley (1743-1805), expanded on the ‘Ball of Thread' analogy with his infamous watchmaker analogy. Using examples of mechanistic functions of the human body like joints and muscles, he expanded the popular notion that this is the work of a supreme designer – their Christian god. He writes, “Contemplating an animal body in its collective capacity, we cannot forget to notice, what a number of instruments are brought together, and often within how small a compass. It is a cluster of contrivances.”But Paley wasn't alone, nor was he the first. Both Descartes and Newton had already remarked as much. Newton once wrote, “like a watchmaker, God was forced to intervene in the universe and tinker with the mechanism from time to time to ensure that it continued operating in good working order."The confidence of spermists was buoyed when spermatozoa was discovered by the Dutch microscopist Antoine van Leeuwenhoek in 1677. But the seed of the idea dates all the way back to Pythagoras. He believed male semen is fluid that collects and stores different elements from the body like the bone and brain. He said, “semen is a drop of the brain.” The woman provided a host and nourishment so the male semen could unfold inside her body.Another Greek philosopher, Empedocles, refuted the Pythagorean claim 100 years later noting offspring often inherit characteristics of the mother. He proposed there was a blending of male and female root reproductive elements in plants and animals that has the potential to produce blended varieties as their offspring. Empedocles was on to something, but his theory was overshadowed by a more popular theory and powerful name, Aristotle.THE OVISTSAristotle believed both men and women provided different forms of reproductive purified blood in the form of semen and menstrual fluids. Because semen appeared more pure than menstrual fluids, he surmised it must have the advantage. Therefore, the male provided the instructions, design, or blueprint for formation and the woman provided the material. The ‘blood' metaphor is alive today despite our knowledge of genetics. J.K Rowling did her part in her Harry Potter series to perpetuate and popularize the blood metaphor with ‘pure-bloods' and ‘half-bloods' or the derogatory ‘mud-bloods'.Aristotle's ideas were brought to life in the 17th and 18th century by the spermists nemesis, the ovists. Ovists were rallying behind the discoveries of William Harvey (1578-1657) and Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723) of female eggs in female bodies, the union of the sperm and egg, and the formation of an embryo which in turn unleashed the production of various parts of the body. Harvey called this cellular formation of individual parts in plants and animals epigenesis. An idea Aristotle also suggested.But one Dutch spermist, Jan Swammerdam (1637-1680), used this to further the preformation theory, but with a twist. Evidence of the union of egg and sperm, he suggested, must mean the future organism is embedded inside the head of the sperm in miniature form waiting to become whole with the help of the egg. A century later, this prompted a Swiss scientist, Charles Bonnet (1720-1793), to offer a counter ovist preformation theory. He suggested a Christian god planted future generations not inside the sperm, but inside the egg – like nested eggs within eggs.Meanwhile, a group of naturalist scientists opposed these Cartesian and Pythagorean, mechanistic preformation theories. The French naturalist, mathematician, and philosopher, Pierre Louise Maupertuis (1698-1759), further rejected theological explanations and believed both the male and female possess particles that come together to form unique characteristics in their offspring. He is credited with being the first to observe evolutionary hereditarian changes in organisms over time suggesting some characteristics are dominant while others are recessive.The German physiologist Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1733-1794) expanded on this work and revived Harvey's theory of epigenesis. By observing chick embryos, he discovered a supernatural action occurs once the sperm is implanted in the egg. This sparks what he called a vital action “vis essentialis” that culminates over the period of gestation creating a fully formed body. This is the origins of what we now call embryology.Those in the mechanistic and theological Cartesian camp weren't having it. They, like the church, rejected talk of indescribable, supernatural, and immaterial ‘vital actions.' It was not only heretical, but suggested science was going backwards to embrace medieval miracles of the occult. Either way, if there were forces at work on matter, the preformation mechanists believed it too would have been preordained by a Christian god. The co-inventor of differential calculus, German polymath and theologian, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), reasoned like this, “But if in truth an intelligible explanation is to be sought in the nature of the thing it will come from what is clearly apprehended in the thing…for the success of the whole system is due to divine preformation.”THE NATURALISTSToward the middle of the 18th century the French naturalist and mathematician, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788), began publishing his work on natural history, Histoire Naturelle – an opus that amassed 36 volumes that continued to be amended even after his death. By looking at the history and evolution of the natural world, Buffon was the first to articulate patterns of ecological succession – the successive structural change of species over time. He rejected Christian Creationism and theories of the preordained mechanistic unfolding of nature and provided vivid and expertly rendered illustrations to the contrary.He took elements of Aristotle's blood theories, qualitative approaches to inquiry, and aspects of both spermists and ovists to merge them with empirical evidence and compelling writing to make convincing arguments for unexplainable actions vital to the creation and evolution of the natural world.As the late professor of history and Director of Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Studies at UCLA, Peter Hanns Reill, wrote, Buffon “emphasized the primacy of living over inanimate matter, asserted the existence of inner, active forces as central agents in nature, envisioned a world of new creation and leaps in nature, and proclaimed the ineffable quality of individuality and the manifold variety of nature.”Through “comparison”, “resemblance”, “affinity”, and “analogical reasoning” he “revitalized and historicized nature without denying the existence of a comprehensible order.” This provided a path for science to embrace qualitative reasoning without foregoing the rigor, language, and quantitative aspects of mathematics embraced by mechanists like Newton and Descartes.It wasn't only ecological communities that could be explained this way. Society and politics could too. This admission further worried mechanists and theologians. They feared any acknowledgement that mysterious random events, be it at a particle or societal level, that could lead to a ‘vital action' creating unforeseen mutations accuses the Christian god of not understanding his own creations. It would reject both ‘divine preformation' and ‘God's will'.This came at a time of social revolutions, debates, and contestations over human rights, freedoms of religion, and ‘we the people.' Mechanists married the certainty of mathematics with the certainty of their Christian god to explain the world. If nature and society lacked the linear precession of clocks, compasses, and mathematical calculations, they feared such uncertainty would unravel societal order and unleash chaos.Naturalists continued to point to ‘internal' vital forces that created perceptible ‘external' microscopic and macroscopic evolutions that countered the dominant inert, deterministic, and mechanical philosophies and beliefs. But the seduction of certainty remains with us to this day, even when we know it not to be true.The Scottish philosopher and historian, Adam Ferguson (1723-1816), suggested as much writing, “Our notion of order in civil society is frequently false: it is taken from the analogy of subjects inanimate and dead; we consider commotion and action as contrary to its nature; we think it consistent only with obedience, secrecy, and the silent passing of affairs through the hands of a few.”Ferguson goes on to use a brick wall as an analogy. He continues,“The good order of stones in a wall, is their being properly fixed in places for which they are hewn; were they to stir the building must fall: but the order of men in society, is their being placed where they are properly qualified to act. The first is a fabric made of dead and inanimate parts, the second is made of living and active members. When we seek in society for the order of mere inaction and tranquility, we forget the nature of our subject, and find the order of slaves, not of free men.”  Buffon's new modes of inquiry transformed fields formally beholden to mechanistic dogma like medicine, physiology, and chemistry. But it seems economics remain seduced by the determinism of linear, mechanistic, mathematical approaches despite it being a branch of the social sciences. While it may have dropped religion, it has yet to fully embrace the “notion of order in civil society is frequently false.” It's time conventional economics acknowledge there are mysterious ‘vital forces' internal to nature and society resulting in external perturbations that propagate indeterminant permutations.  Tune in next week as I explore what that might look like.Thank you for reading Interplace. This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Welcome to Episode One Hundred Forty-Two of Lucretius Today. This is a podcast dedicated to the poet Lucretius, who wrote "On The Nature of Things," the only complete presentation of Epicurean philosophy left to us from the ancient world. I am your host Cassius, and together with our panelists from the EpicureanFriends.com forum, we'll walk you through the ancient Epicurean texts, and we'll discuss how Epicurean philosophy can apply to you today. We encourage you to study Epicurus for yourself, and we suggest the best place to start is the book "Epicurus and His Philosophy" by Canadian professor Norman DeWitt. If you find the Epicurean worldview attractive, we invite you to join us in the study of Epicurus at EpicureanFriends.com, where you will find a discussion thread for each of our podcast episodes and many other topics.This week we return to Diogenes of Oinanda and we examine fragments relating to the nature of reality, and Epicurus' difference of opinion with Democritus on the subject. Now let's read today's text, fragments 5, 6, and 7 as translated by Martin Ferguson Smith:Fr. 5[Others do not] explicitly [stigmatise] natural science as unnecessary, being ashamed to acknowledge [this], but use another means of discarding it. For, when they assert that things are inapprehensible, what else are they saying than that there is no need for us to pursue natural science? After all, who will choose to seek what he can never find? Now Aristotle and those who hold the same Peripatetic views as Aristotle say that nothing is scientifically knowable, because things are continually in flux and, on account of the rapidity of the flux, evade our apprehension. We on the other hand acknowledge their flux, but not its being so rapid that the nature of each thing [is] at no time apprehensible by sense-perception. And indeed [in no way would the upholders of] the view under discussion have been able to say (and this is just what they do [maintain] that [at one time] this is [white] and this black, while [at another time] neither this is [white nor] that black, [if] they had not had [previous] knowledge of the nature of both white and black.Fr. 6 [As for the first bodies, also] called elements, which on the one hand have subsisted from the beginning [and] are indestructible, and [on the other hand] generate things, we shall explain what [they are] after we have demolished the theories of others. Well, Heraclitus of Ephesus identified fire as elemental, Thales of Miletus water, Diogenes of Apollonia and Anaximenes air, Empedocles of Acragas fire and air and water and earth, Anaxagoras of Clazomenae the homoeomeries of each thing, and the Stoics matter and God. As for Democritus of Abdera, he did well to identify atoms as elemental, but since his conception of them was in some respects mistaken, he will be considered in the exposition of our theories. Now we shall bring charges against the said men, not out of contentiousness towards them, but because we wish the truth to be safeguarded; and we shall deal with Heraclitus first, since he has been placed first on our list. You are mistaken, Heraclitus, in saying that fire is elemental, for neither is it indestructible, since we observe it being destroyed, nor can it generate things...Fr. 7 Even Democritus erred in a manner unworthy of himself when he said that atoms alone among existing things have true reality, while everything else exists by convention. For, according to your account, Democritus, it will be impossible for us even to live, let alone discover the truth, since we shall be unable to protect ourselves from either fire or slaughter or [any other force].

8x17 'Empedocles'- Episode Analysis Our coverage of Season 8 continues as host Sarah Blair is joined by recurring guest Cortlan Waters Bartley and X-Files comic artist x-traordinaire J.J. Lendl to discuss the seventeenth episode of season eight, 'Empedocles', and discuss your feedback...Host / EditorSarah BlairGuestsCortlan Waters Bartley / J. J. LendlExecutive ProducerTony BlackShow ProducersCarl Sweeney / Kurt North / Sarah BlairSupport The X-Cast on Patreon:www.patreon.com/thexcastFollow X-Cast on social media:Twitter: @TheX_CastFacebook/Instagram: The X-CastSupport the We Made This podcast network on Patreon:www.patreon.com/wemadethisTwitter: @we_madethisFacebook/Instagram: We Made Thiswemadethisnetwork.comWith thanks to our Patrons:Michelle Milbauer, Calla Dreams, Cathy Glinski, Nicole Baker, Jenn Ferguson, Marlene Stemme, Deana Ferreri, Katie Doe, Simon Hodgson, Cortlan Waters Bartley, Martha Payne, Delta 51, Clarissa de Becker, Sarah Devicomte, Daniela Marlitsis, Justin Bernstein, Karen McKenna, Adam Chamberlain, Luke Winch, Caleb Burnett, Annie Flowers, Kathryn Shellman, Gillian Collins, Wayne Arndt, Elinor Butler, Jessica Miskelly, Christopher Pilbeam, Kathy Wait, Nikole Wilson-Ripsom, Jonas Wilstrup, Jamie Russell, Catherine Toussaint, Lisa Bishop, moi, Cori Sebesta, Ferdinando Bianchini, Russell Hugo, Kelsey L Mayer, Sarah Ford, Charnette Soto, Nina, Caredwen Foley.

8x17 'Empedocles'- Episode Analysis Our coverage of Season 8 continues as host Sarah Blair is joined by recurring guest Cortlan Waters Bartley and X-Files comic artist x-traordinaire J.J. Lendl to discuss the seventeenth episode of season eight, 'Empedocles', and discuss your feedback... Host / Editor Sarah Blair Guests Cortlan Waters Bartley / J. J. Lendl Executive Producer Tony Black Show Producers Carl Sweeney / Kurt North / Sarah Blair Support The X-Cast on Patreon: www.patreon.com/thexcast Follow X-Cast on social media: Twitter: @TheX_Cast Facebook/Instagram: The X-Cast Support the We Made This podcast network on Patreon: www.patreon.com/wemadethis Twitter: @we_madethis Facebook/Instagram: We Made This wemadethisnetwork.com With thanks to our Patrons: Michelle Milbauer, Calla Dreams, Cathy Glinski, Nicole Baker, Jenn Ferguson, Marlene Stemme, Deana Ferreri, Katie Doe, Simon Hodgson, Cortlan Waters Bartley, Martha Payne, Delta 51, Clarissa de Becker, Sarah Devicomte, Daniela Marlitsis, Justin Bernstein, Karen McKenna, Adam Chamberlain, Luke Winch, Caleb Burnett, Annie Flowers, Kathryn Shellman, Gillian Collins, Wayne Arndt, Elinor Butler, Jessica Miskelly, Christopher Pilbeam, Kathy Wait, Nikole Wilson-Ripsom, Jonas Wilstrup, Jamie Russell, Catherine Toussaint, Lisa Bishop, moi, Cori Sebesta, Ferdinando Bianchini, Russell Hugo, Kelsey L Mayer, Sarah Ford, Charnette Soto, Nina, Caredwen Foley.

In this episode, we revisit the Pre-Platonic lecture series given by Nietzsche at Basel, the notes for which were assembled and translated by Gregory Whitlock. These lectures detail Nietzsche's views on the first philosophers of Ancient Greece, and how they demonstrated that the spirit of scientific investigation is a manifestation of will to power: to bound the boundless within the understanding of reason, by appeal to as few possible starting principles. Nietzsche believes that the Pre-Platonic philosophers - Thales, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus and others - represented the descent from an understanding of the world as controlled by a personified heaven, into something explained by natural forces. The end result is materialism: matter as explained by matter itself and its properties or laws. This is powerful and dangerous as an innovation. Materialism offers the greatest utility, but precedes a slide into nihilism. Many of Nietzsche's insights in his interpretation were influenced by the philosopher of science, Friedrich Albert Lange. In this episode, we examine the relation of Nietzsche to Lange, their view of the Pre-Platonics, and then analyze each figure individually to see how each fits in to Nietzsche's narrative of the unfolding of scientific thought in Greece. Rather than a mere historical curiosity, Nietzsche finds the Greeks to express the same driving tendency that underlies science in our own time.

Subscribe to Quotomania on Simplecast or search for Quotomania on your favorite podcast app!Friedrich Hölderlin, (born March 20, 1770, Lauffen am Neckar, Württemberg—died June 7, 1843, Tübingen), was a German poet. He qualified for ordination but found himself more drawn to Greek mythology than to Christian dogma. In 1793 he was befriended by Friedrich Schiller, who helped him publish his early poetry. He produced works of passionate, expressive intensity, including his only novel, Hyperion (1797–99), the unfinished tragedy The Death of Empedocles, and a number of odes, elegies, and verse translations. In these works he naturalized the forms of Classical Greek verse in German and lamented the loss of an idealized Classical Greek world. His behavior became erratic, and in 1805 he succumbed irretrievably to schizophrenia; he spent his last 36 years in a carpenter's house under the shadow of insanity. Little recognized in his lifetime, he was forgotten until the 20th century, when he came to be ranked among the finest of German lyric poets.From https://www.britannica.com/summary/Friedrich-Holderlin. For more information about Friedrich Hölderlin:Hyperion: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/234465/hyperion-by-friedrich-holderlin/“Friedrich Hölderlin”: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/friedrich-holderlin“The Riddle of Hölderlin”: ​​https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1970/11/19/the-riddle-of-holderlin/

Two philosophers, Leucippus and Democritus, attempted to synthesize the monist theories of the earlier natural philosophers with the pluralist theories of Empedocles and Anaxagoras. To do this, they proposed a revolutionary idea — that all matter is made of atoms.

Welcome to the first episode of our new series where we take a look at the relationship between science and the occult through the ages. In this episode we take a look at the Classical Era, contemplating the words and ideas of many influential philosophers such as Thales, Anaximenes, Aristotle, Pythagorus, and Empedocles, and many more! We touch upon fundamental theories of how the world works such as the elemental theory, the cosmic cycle of Empedocles, and the humors, which played a key role in the development of medicine (by arguably doing most things wrong).There are no resources for this episode as everything we talk about is publicly available, but we encourage you to do further research on a philosopher or theory that catches your interest!Come join our discord! https://discord.gg/kJthJyxTBc

This episode is about Empedocles, who tried to solve the Parmenidean problem in a different way than his near contemporaries - the atomists. Empedocles launched the ancient Greek theory of the four classical elements (earth, air, fire, and water).

In our first Avatar: The Last Airbender episode we discuss the four classical elements in Buddhist, Persian, and Greek antiquity. Content warning: repeated use of the word “moist.” . Resources: Hammerstrom, E. (2015) The Science of Chinese Buddhism. Cho, F. (2014) “Buddhist Mind and Matter.” Habashi, F. (2000) “Zoroaster and the Theory of Four Elements.” O'Connor, J. (2000) “Empedocles of Acragas.” Curd, P. (2020) “Presocratic Philosophy.” Music: "Dance Robot ACTIVATE" by Loyalty Freak Music. [All views expressed are our own and do not represent the opinions of any entity with which we are affiliated.]

The Over The Rainbow team discuss the colour yellow. Yellow Ochre was one of the earliest pigments used by mankind. Orpiment was also widely used in antiquity despite it being based on arsenic and being poisonous. Yellow has also long been an important colour culturally. The Greeks - starting from Empedocles - believed that the world consisted of four elements; each of the elements was associated with a colour. Yellow (or a yellow-green colour) was associated with earth; white with air, black with water and red with fire. This tetradic thinking about 4 special colours continued until the 14th or 15th Century; the idea of three special colours is a relatively recent idea. Yellow is probably the least favourite colour and invokes quite different reactions in different people. It is, perhaps, the marmite of colours.

Mark is convinced of Adam's beliefs on God's knowledge and humanity's free will! Well, part of it, anyway. And Adam doesn't convince him. St. Augustine does. But it's still a victory! In this episode, Ancient ideas on Soul and Mind are broken down, from Pythagoras to Plato to St. Augustine. The soul's immortality and human free will are also major topics, as well as a story of Mark being chased by a dog and being laughed at by a group of people. 

در ادامه‌ی معرفی فیلسوفان پیشاسقراطی در این بخش از سوفیا، شاهین نجفی و وریا امیری ابتدا فیثاغورس و مکتب او و پیروانش را توضیح می‌دهند و سپس هراکلیتوس و امپدوکلس را معرفی می‌کنند این برنامه را می‌توانید در یوتیوب ببینید: https://youtu.be/c_J3p_KvH6g ................................................ Sophia is wisdom and who has Sophia is Sophist. Sophia is collection of discussions between Shahin Najafi and experts in various majors. These discussions are conceptual encounters with different topics from sport and art to the history of philosophy and politic. Sophia, produce and broadcast by DYALOGE MEDIA. https://www.dyaloge.com https://www.instagram.com/dyaloge/?hl=en https://twitter.com/dyalogemedia https://soundcloud.com/dyalogemedia --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/dyalogemedia/support

In this episode, Mark and Adam break down the first chapter of Anthony Kenney's "A New History of Western Philosophy." From the founding father of Greek philosophy, Thales of Miletus, to the ego of Heraclitus and the convoluted mess of Plato's "Republic," the beginnings of Greek philosophy are broken down in great detail. As expected, there are more references to Tolkien and linguistics!

En Ivoox puedes encontrar sólo algunos de los audios de Mindalia. Para escuchar las más de 4 grabaciones diarias que publicamos entra en https://www.mindaliatelevision.com. Si deseas ver el vídeo perteneciente a este audio, pincha aquí: https://youtu.be/7mUGSO6BAbg Todos tenemos la posibilidad de vivir alguna de cuatro dualidades que nos llevan a tener comportamientos y actitudes inconscientes, pasando por la IGNORANCIA, la SOBERBIA, la IMPACIENCIA o la ESCLAVITUD. Comprender estas dualidades nos permite comenzar a ver a nuestro entorno con compasión y construir paz interior. Ernesto A. Murillo Gestor de comportamientos y competencias, consultor y asesor personal, familiar y organizacional en el desarrollo de relaciones estratégicas. Ernesto ha logrado integrar la Administración de empresas, el coaching, los principios sistémicos, las teorías de temperamentos de Hipócrates y Empedocles para crear una brújula comportamental que le permite a los individuos ver sus comportamientos de sombra y luz que se relacionan con los motivadores y miedos que están ligados al temperamento que elegimos de manera inconsciente al momento de nacer. -----------INFORMACIÓN SOBRE MINDALIA---------- Mindalia.com es una ONG internacional sin ánimo de lucro. Nuestra misión es la difusión universal de contenidos para la mejora de la consciencia espiritual, mental y física. -Apóyanos con tu donación mediante Paypal https://www.mindaliatelevision.com/ha... -Colabora con el mundo suscribiéndote a este canal, dejándonos un comentario de energía positiva en nuestros vídeos y compartiéndolos. De esta forma, este conocimiento llegará a mucha más gente. - Sitio web: https://www.mindalia.com - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mindalia.ayuda/ - Twitter: http://twitter.com/mindaliacom - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mindalia_com/ - Periscope: https://www.pscp.tv/mindaliacom - Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/mindaliacom - Vaughn: https://vaughn.live/mindalia - VK: https://vk.com/mindalia *Mindalia.com no se hace responsable de las opiniones vertidas en este vídeo, ni necesariamente participa de ellas. *Mindalia.com no se responsabiliza de la fiabilidad de las informaciones de este vídeo, cualquiera sea su origen. *Este vídeo es exclusivamente informativo.

Exploring a scarcely known tradition of philosopher-magicians, this episode puts magic and truth at the center of ancient philosophy. 

Join Courtney and Alison as they recap S08E17 of The X-Files – "Empedocles" – and learn about amazing unsolved mysteries such what God's doing in that dang rose, a suspect geography lesson, and how we managed to talk about this episode for 40 minutes straight -- It's a Christmas miracle! 

On Thursday May 22nd, 2014 the Hermetic Hour with host Poke Runyon will present a review on a very important recent book on the Hermetic Tradition by Dutch author Jacob Slavenburg titled: "The Hermetic Link." Reviewing this book will be a team effort between the host and our esteemed guest Frater Ophis (Freeman Presson) who beat us to the punch and reviewed Slavenburg's book on his website two years ago. How did we miss it? No excuse because it should not have been missed. Certainly there have been other surveys of the Hermetic Tradition, usually combined with other related elements such as Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, magick, etc. but this is the best and most complete tracing of the great Hermetic Gnosis from ancient Egypt, through Alexandria, Harran, the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the so-called "Enlightenment" and the present modern age. Slavenburg takes us from Zosimus to the Kybalion in a sympathetic, very thoughtful and comfortably philosophical style. He quotes Peter Kingsley ("Reality") frequently and does as good a job as Kingsley in getting across the deepest meaning of the Hermetic Mystery (the Great I AM) - perhaps he does it better in that he uses excerpts from Hermes to reveal the treasure we ardent Hermetic devotees hold so dear, whereas Kingsley in Reality depended on pre-Hermetic Parmenides and Empedocles. If all this is Greek to you, it shouldn't be and Slavenburg goes a long way toward establishing the true and enduring magnificence of our venerable Tradition. Tune in and get yourself Hermetically sealed. (Preserved for the next incarnation.)  

On Thursday February 27th, 2014 the Hermetic Hour with host Poke Runyon will present a purposefully cryptic lecture on the Hermetic conception of immortality and the concept of "The Great I AM," in Qabalah, astrology, alchemy, magick and Kalachakra. This profound and ultimate mystery can be explained briefly in fairly simple terms, but whenever someone tries to do this they are either laughed at, locked up, or put to death. The concept is so feared and reviled that it is demonized by psychologists and marginalized by modern philosophers, although the great pre-Socratean thinkers Parmenides, Empedocles and Heraclitus considered it primary: the starting point from which the science of logic and reason arise.The Great Secret is obviously not for everybody even though Jesus tried to get the common man to understand it in mythic rather than philosophic terms. And even though he mythologized it, he still got himself killed! So, we can't come right out and cast our pearls before swine, lest they "turn and rend us." But we can at least point to the philosophy and the science behind our mystery -- and encourage those who have "the mind" as well as "the speech" to find the center point and "the prize for the souls." So tune in and peek behind the veil.  

On this Thursday The Hermetic Hour's host Poke Runyon will lead a discussion on Hermetic Philosophy, from ancient Alexandria through the Renaissance, and into the modern era. We will look at the early work of Empedocles and Pythagoras, the Pomander and the Asclepius, the Emerald Tablet, and the Chaldean Oracles. We will consider the Gnostic connection, and how the kabbalah arose from Greek, Assyrian, and Gnostic roots, and how it joined with Hermeticism in the Renaissance. We will establish why astrology is so important in the magical art. Most importantly we will look for The Great Secret of Hermetic-kabbalistic philosophy. This is the "Why" of Magick. This is the Holy Grail that we search for. This is the reason we dedicate our lives to an art that destroys the fools, and makes the wise immortal. I doubt that you have ever heard anything like this before. Tune in and we will open the pathway to enlightenment. Nosce te Ipsum -- Tu es Deus.