Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
L'ANTICA STORIA DI GESÙ | Mauro Biglino | Mauro Biglino Official Channel | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: L'ANTICA STORIA DI GESÙ | Mauro Biglino
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
The content argues that the traditional theological interpretations of the Bible, particularly concerning Jesus Christ and original sin, are inconsistent with the biblical texts themselves, suggesting that the Bible's sacred status and its narrative of God were constructed for cultural prestige and power, rather than being a direct account of a divine being.
I told you before that original sin doesn't exist. They say so, they write it in the footnotes,
etc., etc., etc. And the probable God of the Bible was one of many equal to the others.
That's what the Bible tells us. But if these things—I repeat, if these things are true—whose
son is Jesus Christ? And if original sin doesn't exist, why was Jesus Christ sent? To free
humanity from the consequences of a stain that doesn't exist? That is, we must draw the conclusions. Now,
in the coming years, you will see the Church abandon the Old Testament because it
can no longer sustain it, and therefore everything will be focused on the New Testament. But the New Testament exists
if the Old Testament contains certain premises. Because if it doesn't contain those premises, the New
Testament doesn't exist, there's nothing we can do. If there is no God the Father and there is no original sin,
Jesus Christ has no reason to... the Jesus Christ invented by theology has no reason
to exist. Another matter is the probable historical figure of Joshua ben Josef, which is another matter,
but the Christ-like figure of theology loses both the instigator and the motive, so to speak.
But what did Christians think, in the beginning, of Jesus Christ? Listen to what Celsus says. It's true, he
is considered, he was considered, how shall I put it, a heretic, right? We are in the second century AD and
he, in his refutations to the Christians, writes: - we are in his work, "The True Discourse,"
chapter 5 - "Now, was he the first and only one to come down here, or did
others also come before? If they mean - and here he is referring to Christians - to affirm that he is the only one, there one can
catch a flagrant lie and contradiction. They affirm, in fact, that others also came often
, even in numbers of 60 or 70 at a time." That is, Celsus tells us that Christians
said that others like him had come, even in groups of 60 or 70 at a time.
"And they also say that a messenger came to his tomb, or according to another version,
two, and told the women that he was no longer there. The Son of God, it seems,
was unable to open the tomb alone, but needed someone else to move the
stone, and another came to the carpenter about Mary's pregnancy, and yet
another to help them flee to Egypt. He is therefore far from being the only one
said to have come to visit the human race." And one says: Well, but Celsus is a heretic.
And then let's read Justin Martyr, saint, Father of the Church. He writes to the Emperor Antoninus
Pius in his "Apology." He writes to defend Christians and says to them: "But why are you
so angry with us? Ours, the one we believe in, is like yours. Do you know how many
sons of Zeus the writers you honor speak of? Hermes, who is the "interpretative Logos,"
Asclepius who healed, Heracles, Dionysus. But if someone were to reproach us for the fact that he was
crucified, this too is common to the sons of Zeus listed above." That is, ours is the same as
yours, but why are you angry with us? Justin Martyr, saint, Father of the Church: our Jesus
is the same as yours, why do you persecute us? Then Christianity came to us after the Council
of Nicaea and Constantinople. So we have the "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed" which
codified everything, and it's best not to talk about all this stuff. But it's there. And this is a saint,
eh, Father of the Church. Ours is the same as yours. Christians say they came
in groups of 60-70. Ours is like yours. Why are you picking on us?
We said before that Daniel was visited by Gabriel, remember,
who arrived very tired and said, "I saw an ish coming," a male individual. Gabriel
first goes to visit Elizabeth, John's mother, and she becomes pregnant and John is born.
Then he goes to visit Mary, and she becomes pregnant without knowing a man. Gabriel is not the name
of an individual. "Gavriel" in Hebrew is what is called the construct state,
a particular grammatical form meaning the "ghever of an el," that is, "one who exercises
power on behalf of an el," "the power of an el." So "the power of an el" visits Mary.
and she becomes pregnant without knowing a man. These texts are contemporary with the canonical ones of the Gospels,
where Joseph's doubts are recounted, as he feared that Mary had been deceived by someone who had
passed himself off as someone else. Obviously, there's no trace of this in the canonical texts,
because it must be the Holy Spirit who arrives, does what he has to do
, and everything goes well for Joseph. No, no, Joseph had very strong doubts that Mary had been deceived by someone who
had passed himself off as someone else. So, in the Sixth Book of Genesis, it says that at a certain
point, the sons of the Elohim saw that the Adam females were "tovot": they were desirable, beautiful,
suitable for, and they mated with them and had children. So the male sons of the Elohim mate
with the Adam females and have children who are called "gibborim." And in the Bible, it's written—
listen how beautiful, for those of you who've studied a bit of Greek history, Greek mythology—listen how beautiful,
these "gibborim," do you remember? Hercules, Heracles, Achilles, that is, the heroes of antiquity who were
all half-breeds, right? One son of them and one of us, or vice versa, of one of them and one
of us, and they are the great heroes of antiquity, right? So the sons of the Elohim unite
with the female Adams, and in the Bible it is written that they give birth to "gibborim," that is, famous men.
"These are the famous heroes of antiquity." This is not my translation. We remove this phrase from here,
put it in Hesiod, Homer, wherever you like, and we don't have to change anything. These are the famous heroes
of antiquity, the half-breeds. And they chose those "tovot," that is, the beautiful ones. Gabriel comes
to Mary and says to her, "chaire kecharitomene" in Greek. "Kecharitomene" is translated,
that is, "chaire kecharitomene" is translated with the normal greeting: "Rejoice, hail full of grace,"
meaning full of divine grace. No. The verb "charitoō" means "to be graceful" in the sense
of being physically beautiful. "Kecharitomene" is the adjective that comes from the perfect passive
of the verb "charitoō," which means "rejoice, you who have made yourself beautiful." Like "hello, beautiful girl."
Meaning... we chose you to do what we have to do, we chose you, so
rejoice, you who have made yourself beautiful. And Joseph fears that she has been deceived
by someone who has passed himself off as someone else. And if you read the studies of the Jesuit Daniélou,
a French academic, he clearly states that the figure of the Holy Spirit is nothing other
than the Christian transposition of the Old Testament's Gabriel. So
the Holy Spirit who covers Mary is Gabriel who covers Mary, and she becomes pregnant without knowing
a man. In all likelihood, the Holy Spirit entered "from the usual place." Jesuit Daniélou,
a French academic. It's a very detailed study that begins with the Apocalypse of Isaiah,
etc., and continues, where he documents that the "Holy Spirit" is nothing more than the
Christian transposition of the Old Testament figure of Gabriel, who is an "ish,"
that is, a male individual. So this story may need to be completely rewritten, it will take time,
but little by little, perhaps someone will get there in the coming decades... but this comes out, and
I repeat, it's no coincidence that I read Justin Martyr when he says: "But ours is like yours,
so why do you pick on us?" Ours is like your Hermes, he's like your Dionysus,
he's like your Hercules. What's the difference? In fact, there is no difference. If he... If,
because, I repeat, I never have the truth, I've discovered nothing, I travel by hypotheses and I travel
simply by hypotheses that present themselves as being "according to common sense,"
that is, being coherent in themselves. This, in my opinion, is already extremely important. Because if we
take the descriptions of theology, they aren't even coherent in themselves,
right? Because they never match the texts. So he says, he's like yours, and
if he's actually the son of one of those interventions, he's exactly like theirs, he's exactly
like their half-breeds, the same, there's no difference. So this, I don't know if it's true, but
It makes sense. It makes sense. It's something to think about, not something to believe. Believing is something else
entirely, it doesn't belong to me at all, and so I don't want it to belong to anyone who listens to
the things I say... I mean, I don't want to, sorry, I can't afford to... but with regards to
the things I say, you shouldn't believe them. If someone finds them useful, they can use them to
reason with, otherwise you can throw them in the trash, there's absolutely no problem. Exactly.
I do nothing but read, I really do this somewhat stupid job, all I do
is read what's written. In the New Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12, speaking of
Jesus Christ, it says: "The assumption is specific. The assumption is that God resurrected Jesus of Nazareth
, who was crucified, died, was buried as a seditious man under Pontius Pilate, and then revealed himself
as the Savior Lord. The hypothesis itself is historically unprovable, only the
context. The crucifixion of Jesus for reasons of sedition is the object of historical evaluation,
not demonstration, evaluation. The accounts of the resurrection do not contain elements that
can be the object of historical research. They are theological declarations." But this
is obvious. It's nice to read it in the latest editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia because it means that,
well, they're starting to tell us things... When you're fed up, tell me, and I'll stop.
On a Jewish counseling forum, they write: "Of course, Biglino defends the thesis that the Bible
doesn't speak of God. However, while it's plausible that some biblical texts didn't originally have
God as their protagonist, strictly speaking, these writings were later used and therefore
preserved precisely by those who wanted to speak of God. These texts were then repeatedly
reworked, recast, revised, and corrected by those interested in speaking of God, and then
subsequently interpreted in various ways by those who wanted to speak of God. In other words,
the Bible is the witness and fruit of a long, unfinished search for God." And if it's not
finished, that means they haven't found Him, right? "Because this search has never been univocal,
uniform, peaceful, and free from error. History bears witness to an absolutely varied search,
often equivocal, multifaceted, violent, and full of missteps." This stuff is theoretically written
against me, but I sign it, because this is the truth. That book ended up in the hands
of those who wanted to talk about God. It's not that the book talks about God and therefore was used by those who wanted
to talk about God. Why was the Bible made a sacred book? If you read a beautiful book—
it's not very easy—four hundred pages by Professor Satlow, a professor at Brown University,
a professor of religious studies and Judaism, it's called "And the Lord Spoke Moses." He explains how
they made the Bible sacred. He says that... you know, we were talking at the beginning about the Bible
being written in Greek, right? He says that that Bible was made sacred because the Jews
who lived in Egypt, from Alexandria—the intellectual class—felt a kind of
inferiority complex toward the Greek intellectuals who had their own great authors, right?
So Homer, basically, and all the others. And so they accredited that text to say: we too
have our own culture, and so they made it sacred for reasons of prestige. So in
Alexandria, what was at stake was culture and prestige. In Jerusalem, the authoritativeness
of the texts became the pretext for a risky race to the top and for a sometimes fatal contest
for power and money. That is, they made it sacred on the one hand for reasons of prestige
and on the other for power and money. Period. Because the Bible doesn't speak of God. Theology
speaks of God. Very good. But theology shouldn't deal with the Bible. That's all.
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
