Transition Radio Show

 

 @parkerbarefoot4255  Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment—you're raising genuinely important points that push us to be more historically and theologically sophisticated. It is a challenge that both Mark and I duly accept. You're absolutely right that we oversimplified Gnosticism's dating. When we said it emerged in the second century, we were specifically talking about systematized Christian Gnosticism as documented in the Nag Hammadi texts. The ideas are definitely older—early Gnostic thinking circulated in first-century Christian communities, and the Platonic and Zoroastrian philosophical currents that merged into Gnosticism predate that. You were absolutely correct in pointing that out, but we were specifically referring to the Christian Gnosticism that early adherents of Christianity held to. They believed that the material universe was created by a fallen being, a false god, an entity that they called the Demiurge or Yaldabaoth. These teachings were hidden from humanity for multiple centuries, and their burial contributed to the loss of the existence of their teachings. It certainly gave the future Church system ample fuel to promote their narrative and to emphasize whatever systems they wanted to create. Paul appears to be responding to proto-Gnostic thinkers in Colossians (60 CE), so you're correct that we should have been more nuanced. Similarly, you're right that Christians view redemption history as beginning with Adam— from Adam's sin and death through Christ's redemptive blood sacrifice is foundational to Christian theology. Cain and Abel's offerings are significant precisely because they establish that blood sacrifice was understood as necessary for atonement long before Christ, which is theologically important. Why did Yahweh demand blood sacrifice is one question that we would like to ask. Your car accident analogy about the flood narratives is excellent and worth taking seriously. Multiple witnesses to the same historical event will naturally have different details and emphases without one copying another—this is basic historical methodology. There was apparently a major flood in ancient Mesopotamia (the Sumerian King List records one at Shuruppak around 2900 BCE), and the Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebrew accounts all may preserve traditions of the same event from different cultural perspectives. You're right that similarity doesn't prove plagiarism or demonstrate which account is "more true." The scholarly observation that some passages between Gilgamesh Tablet XI and Noah are structurally similar suggests some kind of literary relationship or shared Mesopotamian cultural memory, not necessarily that later accounts are less reliable. So the question isn't usually "did the Bible plagiarize?" but rather "do these accounts share a common cultural memory that each tradition has reframed through its own theological lens?" However, we do have some genuine questions about your other claims that we’d love to explore further. The connection between the biblical Enoch (Cain's son) and Gnosticism is intriguing, but neither Mark nor I have encountered in mainstream scholarship the idea that "Gnostic" derives from "Enoch" or that Cain's descendants established "Gnostic schools for dark priests." Rather, these are perfect examples that Christians like to use to justify their dismissal of people, philosophical arguments, and beliefs that they do not agree with. The main argument for dismissing anything that they don’t like is to call it dark and demonic. Similarly, while the biblical text does describe a mark placed on Cain, the traditional interpretation is that it's a protective sign rather than representing knowledge. We are genuinely interested in where these ideas come from—are they from extrabiblical sources, or are you interpreting the Genesis account in a way that incorporates later traditions? These are sophisticated theological questions worth exploring together, and we'd love to discuss them further if you're interested in deeper dialogue about this. This is the reason that we do what we do. We invite the push back, we enjoy the conversation, and we look forward to learning the truth, even the parts that don’t sit well with us. Please tune in to our next episode this Tuesday, entitled “Yahweh Lies”. We have lots to say about ritual blood sacrifice for atonement. What Yahweh says about his character and how those characteristics were actually opposite of Jesus’ Father. In this upcoming show, we are going to present evidence that Yahweh is clearly NOT the Father that Jesus associated himself with. Thanks for listening and thanks for the engagement.