A verdade sobre a Bíblia (segundo um teólogo AGNÓSTICO) | Dr. Osvaldo Luiz Ribeiro

Hi, what's up? Well, I'm Daniel Gontijo, a psychology professor with a PhD in neuroscience. I'm here today with the great Osvaldo Luiz Ribeiro so we can talk about the Bible.

This is another episode of Section 47, Barra, Testimony 7, because Osvaldo is going to tell us about it. Also, his trajectory from a fundamentalist Christian to a Bible scholar who is now agnostic, just to give a little taste of the topics we're going to talk about today.

In addition to telling us about his very interesting trajectory, he'll tell us a little about how the Bible was formed, who wrote it. For example, the Pentateuch, the New Testament—were the apostles eyewitnesses of Jesus or none of that? In addition, we will talk about facts and myths of the Bible, how to differentiate what is mythology from what may have a historical background, the origin of the Judeo-Christian God and faith.

What origin is this? How did he suddenly appear among the crowd? Did Jesus exist? Who was Jesus? This is a topic that people keep asking for, and it generates controversy. I put it on the agenda here too. Will it be that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, as many apologists defend out there, like Isaiah 53?

And in the end, the Bible—was it inspired by God or not? These are some topics here that we are missing today. I will introduce Professor Osvaldo, but first, I want to thank the new members here on the channel from last Wednesday to now, who are Renata, Marcos Zimmermann, Lima, a guesser's opinion, I think it's a channel, Flávio de Carvalho, Débora Fernandes, Laryssa Galvão.

Thank you for supporting my work of scientific dissemination and reflections on religion and pseudoscience. If you can, also become a member here on the channel. There is a button below, and there is a link in the description. There are several benefits. I will be happy. You can also purchase books that I left here below; they have everything to do with today's live.

Hi, sister! How Jesus Became God is a big book. I don't know if Professor Osvaldo knows it. Then, leave a comment for us, and also leave a like so you can buy scientific t-shirts from Ciência. If you want, send a super chat so your message can be highlighted here. I share for Professor Osvaldo to respond to us.

But if you leave a like, activate the bell, and subscribe, I will also be very happy. Osvaldo Ribeiro, who are you, man? Let me see that. My mini-resume is big. I graduated with a master's and doctorate in Theology from PUC do Rio, post-doctorate in religious sciences from the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, professor at Faculdade Unida de Vitória, where he also coordinated the postgraduate program in religious sciences.

He does his work here on YouTube, scientific dissemination of biblical research, which is the tent of the necromancer. So, the title that I fell in love with—I loved this title and explanation too. If you are curious and take a look at Dr. Osvaldo's channel, you will see what cool material and fantastic content he has there.

Osvaldo, thank you for accepting this invitation that I made to you to talk here on my channel. I am an admirer of your work. I have known your work for about a month, but I have already taken the time to make videos and learn a lot from you. Thank you and congratulations on your growth. It's great. Quick here on YouTube.

Thank you, Daniel. I appreciate the invitation and your generosity. I hope I can contribute to your audience there. Let's start with your story, so people can get to know you a little. Tell me if you were a fundamentalist Christian. If I remember correctly, the Baptist Church.

I'm using the fundamentalist tense that I think I'm afraid you used yourself out there, so it's okay, right? Explain to us what it's like to be a fundamentalist Christian, what your religiosity was like in those times. I don't know if it's been a long time since your conversion, but tell us a little about what the proposal of the church you participated in was, to see what vision you had in the Bible at that time.

Hello, I am from the time of the Baptist Church when the church was quite different from what it is today. At the time I was a member of the church, to give you an idea, there were congregational music directors. The service was pedagogical. The directors would interrupt you while you were singing during the service. If someone challenged you, you were interrupted; the director would correct you because everything was done in a pedagogical way.

It was supposed to stay polite and aesthetically beautiful. It wasn't an experience that I have a very fond memory of. Now, I've become a believer. I don't make much of a difference. That's why I use the term fundamentalist without much embarrassment. Because I don't make much of a difference between fundamentalist and conservative.

No, I think that the conservative created the fundamentalist to sit down on the crimes he condemns in the fundamentals. The oil for the fundamentalist and a conservative—I don't see much difference there. There are not even very progressive people; there are also many progressives that I look at, and I see that deep down, deep down, the only difference is education.

How does he pat me on the shoulder? One is agnostic, and the other says that I'm going to hell. But the two penises do one thing. What happened is that I'm going to remember the old people, and I'm going to see him write that book. The Greeks believed in us, united, and he explained that it was believed because myths are a narrative.

So a person like that plants with the narrative and the truth. The Greeks believed in the narrators of the vineyards. So when I converted to the Baptist Church, what the pastor said was unquestionable. There is no questioning; you do not have a principle of autonomy. You do not have that idea that what will happen if what is being said is not true.

You are completely open to progressive defense and the idea that you may be in the environment that, in some aspect, and everything I've ever had with the Bible, and only with the Bible, in some aspect, may be wrong. In the point of view of the use of the Bible in the church, it is totally wrong, but the believer has no idea.

As I was very gullible, educated by my mother and my grandmother to obey authority, then the figure of the pastor became an undeniable reference. This made me read the Bible many times from that time, but you read without understanding absolutely anything. Because what you do with reading the Bible is reproducing what you hear in public.

So, like the people you read from that denomination, you confuse the Bible with the reading of that denomination. Then, as I was in the Baptist church, the only possible interpretation is that of the Baptist Church. We dismiss the reading of an Assembly member or an ADN as inconceivable, and exactly at that level.

Why is he wrong? Because we are the ones who read; we read it right. I wasn't a fundamentalist like that in the sense of how I'm going to say no. It was something intrinsic to my own attitude; it was a consequence of the environment itself.

When you ask yourself, "What do I have to do to be well-liked in this space?" What you need to do to be well-liked is precisely to indisputably admit the doctrine and behave the way it was established. So I understand the Pentecostal churches, that everyone there repeats the behavior.

Why are they doing the same thing I did? They observe what I have to do to be loved, dear, accepted, and then people do it. Because they do it willingly, they do it because they believe. That's why today I can't ridicule a believer. I am intransigent in epistemological criticism.

A little thing—I'm not going to tell him it's not true. Zinha bonito is not for you to believe in the myth, but you have the right because he doesn't. He is able to hear me as he hears his pastor. The psychological process is not possible; it is a very difficult task.

Only if something happens in his conscience and he asks the question that he cannot ask will he be ready. Then there is no way because the system is so bad. Enjambrado. It's so bad, the system from the point of view of the Bible's deal, is that when you start to question, the only way the system doesn't allow you to dismantle it completely is that process of violent forms that we know.

Many churches that are fundamentalism—the Baptist Church was not a fundamentalist church in that sense. And wash by the doctrine; you did not negotiate anything; you would be excluded. But there is no such process as uncovering the subject's science. You are quiet there; if you are not opening your mouth, that's fine.

But they are not brainwashing; there is none of that. As I wanted to be recognized, I approached, studied, spoke, and then when you start talking and saying things that don't really fit with the environment, that gives this in the future, and you will have a problem.

But I would defend, yes, it is an absolute passive credulity, loving conviction. You think that what you are actually hearing is God speaking to you. To have an idea, the day I decided to join the Baptist Church was August 10, 1984. It was a Saturday. I have no friends; the preacher preached.

It was a Baptist preacher from another church on the day of Baptist man. By coincidence, I had never been to church; I had never entered the church. I entered that day, and he told me that he took it there when he finished at that time and half an hour of appeal.

Because a pastor showed himself empowered in the Baptist Church if there were conversions after his preaching. If there was no talking, I would just look at my sprout, and it was weak, right? Then the appeal of living a lot. He started to make the appeal just like that: "Come accept Jesus."

I don't know if you understood. Then there was a time when he finished. I went to the Baptist service, and I witnessed this moment. My mother-in-law was crazy for me to accept, you see, because she took this Golden one to me, right? It was in my preaching.

It even had the elements that matched me, you know? It seemed like the thing was talking to me, but there was no way, you see? My heart was too much, and it is not entirely impossible that it has been directed. There are no such schemes; you have to say no.

I know; I discovered some things. I'll tell you the deal later. Then there was a time when the preacher said that there would be a time when God would reject me if I didn't accept it at that moment. God would reject me.

My mother was hyper mega religious, power everything at the same time, all religions at the same time. So I was very religious to the point that at 15 years old, I would lie down on my bed and leave a space here on the side for God to lie down with me. I mean, I didn't win at that level.

My mother, I was from Umbanda, Candomblé, Universal, the superior rationality of Kardecism, the Catholic Church, and she dragged me everywhere. So I didn't know God from the Baptist Church. What happened in the Baptist Church that they threatened me? The guy said that if you don't accept God today, he rejects you.

When he said that, I didn't think anymore. I raised his music. He reached a point; it is the tooth canal. He reached. I didn't go there from the front, and I was dragged there to see. There wasn't because I believed that what he was telling was the truth.

From that moment on, there is no way. So you continue to believe, even though I don't know how the experience of others committed, but my experience was of deep credibility. I would define myself like this: the subject Credo Lu.

It's interesting that you comment on this, Osvaldo, because I bring here in the testimonies board 7 people who say they converted to tell your story, how it was. I already lent this pastors, this medium guy from Candomblé, also that I Jairo, anyway, several people.

And many people who start later say, "Look, you were not a true believer. I did not truly accept Jesus. I did not see you there a genuine experience." Because it seems that people cannot conceive of the idea that some people discover in even though they have some experiences of going to that lead them to rev their faith.

And that is the fallacy of the Scottish truth, right? Because if you find Jesus and then he abandoned him, in fact, he didn't really find it. But this fallacy in which he only thanks Victor here, who sent a super chat, greeting us here. He said something like this: "Wonderful people, such beauty."

Thank you, Vitor. Do you want to give me the fish, people, a question, the comment? The teacher, I thank you more than anything else that also helps the channel, Osvaldo. But what was happening? So for you to change your mind, you who were so fervently religious that you accepted Jesus, went to study the Bible, and dedicated yourself so much to your faith that it was rolling there to you changing your mind is quite the phenomenon.

That was fundamental—was my going to the seminary. And my going to the seminary is due to a Hebrew phrase written on a church board in the church where I was a member. There was an advanced campus of the official seminary of the Baptist denomination, which was the Southern Baptist Theological Scene Brazil today, the Baptist College there in Rio de Janeiro.

I went there, and I had no idea that it was Hebrew. At the time, the Baptist churches had a youth training union on Sunday afternoons, yes, at 6:00 pm, and the new convert was the first. When it got to 5:30, I was sitting down.

And then one day I arrived at the Friday seminar class, and someone didn't clean the board, and there was that Hebrew phrase written there on the board. I looked at that thing for about 20 minutes until it arrived. Someone there, the first person who arrived, asked, "Why that?" So, I had not the slightest idea.

Then a fifth person arrived and said, "Oh, I don't know, ask Fulano because Fulano was the seminarian of the church." I said, "Okay." I went there and looked for the person who knew that Hebrew. Why Hebrew? Hebrew is a language in which the Bible was written.

How come the language in which the Bible was written? The Bible was written in Portuguese. I didn't know why we call it Portuguese. Because he doesn't know Hebrew anymore. Osvaldo says that we don't know. No, because it's to know if we have to do this, what we're going to study.

That was the conversation. Because we don't study, because to help, we have to go to the seminar. So how do I go to the seminar? Osvaldo, I need to finish. You have to want to be a pastor. And how do I make you a pastor? And I went to the seminary.

But at the time, for you to go to the seminary, you had to write a letter of vocation called saying that you had been called to be a pastor. I wrote a letter. This one is to send me like that to the ones I was going to. I was going to any. I was going to any place at that time.

I was going to any place, and it was not a false conversion. It was a credibility to any proof. I was totally delivered, even every injury, totally, totally. And in the middle of me, I feel violated because of this.

I don't understand the process exactly; there is no trauma, no trauma from the process. To the people who are there, at the time, I became very ill, a very serious illness. A is to lose a lot of people who think that my deconversion has to do with it; it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The name has nothing to do with it. My decoration was all in cognitive terms. I went to the seminary; I started to study the teachers, not the Baptist seminary to form pastors. You can't just say pastor today because of the decision to the MEC at the time.

It wasn't the same; you say goodbye and then take advantage of the theologian to be a pastor. You won't use the Federal system destiny to form a pastor. So I always say a lot, lap, and then see what makes the subject is.

But in my time, I would not like information from a pastor, but it is in the considered course, including a major seminary. Until what to do for the money to enter the Philosophy course, he went to UERJ. After I finished, every day I could enjoy it.

I was very respected, and the teachers, pastors, another one like that, half liberal, deceitful, because everyone is very concerned. Then I saw a phrase here; then I saw another phrase there. I know that in the second year, I had already started a process of understanding voted in my hand, psychology of religion with you.

When I read psychology of religion, my deconversion process ended. It happened when I read a book by a pastor, Gontijo, verbal rosa. It is not the depth of the depths; it is not the basics of the basics of the basics.

But when I read it, I understood why I cried in the service. And then the magic was. And then I said, "But wait, if it is, so it will be with me. However, it will be with religion. Will the Bible be with me?"

I was lucky enough to have an Old Testament professor in my undergraduate course who, coincidentally, was the son of my pastor. My pastor, the church pastor, was also my homiletics professor. He was an excellent preacher, and we have rhetoric.

Since I deconstructed what is taught in the Bible in the church, I cannot make the same assessment about the content, but the rhetoric was income. I am sorry. And then this one of mine to make the Old Testament had he used with a lot of control, measuring many words, but he used the historical-critical method.

He introduced me to the historical-critical understanding in the seminary, and I developed this understanding. Osvaldo, just for those who are more lay to understand that you are so historical, the historical-critical methodology was the methodology created by the pastors, Lutheran and Reformed PT members in the 17th century, in the 18th century.

Many ill-intentioned people say that biblical criticism was developed by atheists in the Enlightenment. This is a blatant lie. It is a lie. The person who says this is either very ignorant or a scoundrel because the person who invented biblical criticism was a Lutheran and Reformed pastor.

Luther put the Bible in the hands of the people, so out of every 100 people, 99 repeat the reading of the first Nutella. After that, English, after Paulinus, and so on. But you have that one percent that the system cannot mold.

It is the spirit of a pig from birth, and these pastors dismantled the Bible and began to see that what they themselves, the pastors, were saying was not in the biblical text. So when the end of the century arrived, 1887, one of these representatives did this.

It took 200 years, so this date, 1787, is just a symbolic date, like in 1789. A symbolic date, right? Things already happened once and for all. This group dismantled not the Bible, but the church's reading of the Bible.

They proposed a conference of March 30, 1787, that the Bible remained the church's, but life was not the foundation of theology, as Luther had said. So we should study the Bible and its history and exclusively history without any theological concern.

And systematic theology would account for the doctrines of the church in terms of tradition. Ah, but this is to confess that Protestantism was a mistake because whoever does this treats systematic theology from the tradition of the Catholic Church.

How is Protestantism going to admit that what it did was nonsense? And what Luther did in the field of the Bible? Nonsense does not save; there is no forgiveness that Luther made this circus that is the evangelical and Protestant world, totally exclusively Luther's fault.

But then in 1787, the church had an opportunity to correct. Let's treat the Bible seriously; we study using critical tools, respecting what is written, seeing in 200 years discovering that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that the Gospels are not written by the traditional names of the pastors.

But the church refused this. This critical historical perspective went to the university there in the 19th century. She systematized it and built the set of tools there, and already within the audio period of the Enlightenment, to create a tool for you to decide if that text was dressed.

You did not find out where the content that is there was taken from. I discovered that he wrote it without taking into account tradition when it was written, without taking into account tradition. Because it says that there is information that tradition gives about the authorship date.

99% so wrong; there is a save, but you can't take tradition seriously. So I was introduced to this universe because of this teacher of mine. We are still in touch today.

And when I was in the second year, the last book came into my hand, which was part of the Treaty of the History of Religions in the book Feriad, which helped me understand the religious phenomenon. What is psychology of religion? And with my understanding about myself, while the religious doing psychology of religion made me understand my insertion in religion, the magic ended.

And the phenomenology of religion made me understand religion; the magic ended. You didn't give me topological of psychological culture; it ends up magical in the sense that you understand that you turn on the phenomenon for a minute. You lived a phenomenon, but you had no idea what the phenomenon is in reality.

You gave me a phenomenon with a blurred mirror, whose image that appeared was not of the object but of a falsified mythological construction, etc. But I did not feel bothered by dje monte; it was a natural process. It did not generate trauma.

So much so that I was at the Baptist Church, and I was coordinator of the Batista do Brás clock until 2010, even though I had deconstructed myself. And I was not just the teacher of the house; I was a teacher of the house, and I was coordinator published in the Baptist newspaper.

If anyone thinks that the things I say today, I advise watching a video on YouTube. The video is called Jesus Under Pressure at the Time of Dan Brown. Look how old the code is from 20/2006. It was that pandemonium in the middle of the trains.

Jesus is being attacked. Jesus is being attacked. There, MK wants a conservative publisher from Rio de Janeiro held an event there in the chapel of the seminary. This event is in the chapel of the Southern Baptist Seminary of Brazil.

The director is there, Pastor Israel Belo de Azevedo, and I, as I was the course coordinator at the time, the professor now is not. I remember if it is already a coordinator professor. And then they asked me to talk about Jesus.

Only depression is the one Jesus is under pressure from, and Jesus from heaven is a construct of the church. So how is it that the construct of the church built by the church is being attacked? It's not possible.

The Jesus of the Gospels is a literary consultant. He is a character controlled by an author. So how is he going to be attacked? And the historical Jesus? Nobody has the slightest idea. People have hypotheses, but nobody knows who Jesus really was.

Well, this was so I don't know which Jesus is being attacked. How is it that you can say this in a chapel? Because the environment of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Brazil is a very airy environment, very airy.

I only left there because of a problem with a CPF. I clashed with a CPF, and then the other CPFs from that are normal. This time it doesn't work; I can't either. I didn't put it down; I was too big there that you irritated, right?

In fact, it was a long fight with the seminary students. The seminary students provoked someone in the denomination, then that person of domination fought with the boys. I was the course coordinator. I got up in the meeting and also from the boys.

Only understand your beating. I said, "I think it's kids all 18 years old; don't play around. Leave it there." The guy said, "No, you have to stay on our side; we pay even the salary." You understand clothes, right?

No, it's not like that. No, there you can still last to this os nine months. But then when it arrived, and nine months straight to wash this time, it's not possible. I'm not on the street there. I went around, but I don't go out.

I don't go out with sadness; I have a good memory, and there's nothing before. It's not an unnatural trauma. And today, it's another prejudice of people, right? You were disappointed with God; you suffered.

Oh, no, we can't deconstruct something totally intellectual, cognitive, dry laughter, exactly what they pass on to us, not even Osvaldo. So this is a trauma, right? You didn't see any Talma's level; it was a conscious understanding.

I still remember that there was a period when I started to disengage myself from theology, and as it was an intellectual process, I went to see if I could find a theology that would come down for me to manage. Then I went to negative theology.

The negative theology Mastercard says so: God can only be found in silence. So wherever there is theology, where someone opens their mouth, it's not God; it's the hydro. Wow, cool, I said battle.

But then how does he know there's a God? Oh, I understand. When you know how to think, you can't fool yourself. Then tell me, Osvaldo, stay. Go tell me like because you had to give that dog a pastor, a theologian who is celebrated here in Brazil by the Progressive people.

I said, "Okay, let's try to find the will. I already had a will; let's go, who knows?" Then I picked up a little book of his, The Dynamics of Faith, the elite, a formula, right? Which is a way of trying to overcome fundamentalism.

I wrote like this: God is a symbol for God. I wasn't missing the third one, right? And semiotics with two legs alone doesn't work, you understand? He hides it, right? Because the phase is even beautiful; it has the true God, and it's accessible, and it has the God that we express.

This God that we render symbolic, I said, "Okay, but first you are failing to mention the third element who produces this symbolism." You had to say like this: God will be one for God, for those who believe in God.

This God, like this, put for God. How is that you know that this is the same problem that was the symbol there? Until I found Buddhism later, there is a phrase from Buddhism I used that is very similar: when master Kátia finds Buddha Christmas, because it is not Buddha.

Buddha there, I did not know that phrase. I think it is spectacular. Yes, show forgot, found Buddha, kill. Because it is not Buddha, Buddha, and do not get tired. It's the same phrase as in Chile; that's very beautiful.

But if you want that, I don't want that. I want to understand reality, and how can he tell me that if I find a needle, I have to kill it with my ass? How is that? He then knows that there is Buddha on the other side.

It's a rhetoric and a hunt that is the limit of a voluntary adherence to a creed and a way of life. But I didn't want a religious way of life; I wanted an understanding of reality, whatever it was.

This, what diseases without God do not—ah, but there is no—I do not negotiate. I cannot negotiate. And then whoever has this search stuck like this to critical thickening and everything can among the pay the price of conversion, right?

What can be a very good thing, even psychologically, for some people, but it's difficult. You started to raise questions, right? You joked; he is that he started to talk about being air and even follows seriously on this path.

Then you can start to deconstruct everything. Robson, thank you. Send a super like. Excuse me for a super chat here inside, guys. Leave the like. Thanks, Robson.

If there is anything, we can send a super chat there so I can bring a question here for Professor Osvaldo. Osvaldo, is it a question? You look for several points that I think we will still address throughout this chat.

Plus one issue that I haven't brought up here yet on the channel that I've already talked about with André Chevitarese, for example, Juliana Cavalcante, several Jonathan Matthies, the pains of the subject. But this point has not yet been addressed.

You have already given a little hint about the Pentateuch, for example, that it was not written by Moses, despite people believing in it. Nor those people who receive the best saying, right? The texts there in the New Testament that receive the name of people were not the apostles who lived with Jesus.

So I'll go there then ask me for you is who wrote the Pentateuch, for example, right? How is this process of writing these texts and them being sacralized and gathered there? Does not understand what the Bible is? Can you give a little taste of examples without the Pentateuch, like some things in the New Testament?

I think it could be cool because there's something that common sense believes, right? That it's Moses and the apostles writing these texts there. It's not quite like that, and how is it that he together, right? Because it is the criterion, after all, this text here will enter, is Sacred, and the word of God is this one here, not here.

It is very funny how is this thing there? Look, and I'm going there before I answer. Let me just not make a small comment about my condensation process because someone may be listening and think that it's all very easy, everything is very simple.

Great, in mine it was very easy because of my wife, Isabel. And then for me, our conversion process was joint. And for different reasons, she did not study theology, and her conversation about deconversion was parallel to mine and even more radical.

What is her conversion, for example? It started when she heard a sermon, and the pastor said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. That day, all the little will she had ended, what she believed reluctantly.

She is quite autonomous, right? She has, and the principle of very large high identity tooth, so with great reluctance, she gave birth to the child. But when in a certain sermon the pastor said that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then you understood her issue.

It was very affectionate, very emotional. Mine, no. Mine was merely intellectual, but we walk together. Hence my solidarity with those who go through a process of disjointed deconstruction of the family.

It is a very delicate process. I don't know; I think that after we leave the house, it is no longer just us. So I wouldn't want anyone to be measured from my experience because it is not.

Let's talk about the gas hotel, and it must be me. It is me and my circumstance. I went through everything with Dell; it was very easy at the times. And if you have a lap now, go through this process.

You already feel alone because the magic of the universe dissipates, and you still have problems with your family. So all my solidarity to those who go through this and sometimes don't take the next step due to commitments to the comprehensive list we have with the family.

Now, in relation to the Pentateuch, no, it's news. It's been settled for three hundred years that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. It's been settled for three hundred years, and Our had already written in his political-ideological Nutella Treaty three chapters to say that it is right that he only exchanged Moses for this one from Nehemiah.

So he was wrong. The Pentateuch was not written by AD in it; he only took it from Moses, which is obvious that, but she could not have written and played here in the 5th century. She was so dangerous at the time that he, for example, was excommunicated by Judaism.

He had to flee to Holland, and there were many people from both the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church who wrote under the pseudonym. One of the main Richard Simmons of the main researchers of the time wrote a book saying that from the sources that Moses used to drink the Pentateuch because he couldn't say that you were registered.

So they kept finding a way because at that time you would be burned at the stake. So why? They came to this conclusion; there are more than 100 natural verses that when you read them, you realize that Moses could not have written them.

You are two, for example, in one of them it says: "At that time, the Canaanites inhabited the land." Basic high school syllogism. Whoever is writing is writing in a time that no longer exists. None on earth.

Because then he can, at that time, exist every god of the earth. But from the time of Moses, there was every god. So today she cannot be writing that process that I spoke about the deconstruction of the shepherds.

It is at that level; they had no method. It will only be you read the high school teacher. You open Deuteronomy, and it starts like this: "Moses said them on the other side of the Jordan." Hi, whoever is writing this? I'm on the other side.

The car is already on the other side. Moses is in Jordan. Let's say Moab, which is Jordan. Today the book of Deuteronomy itself says someone is writing, making reference to Moses as a third.

Whoever is writing to one side of the river, Moses is on the other. It cannot have been Moses. Apart from that, there are more than 100 verses at this technical level.

Now, there are other verses that you want knowing that the theology that is being defended is not a theology esteemed by Lica and the world that is reflecting the narrative reflects a post-exilic theology. For example, the expiatory sacrifice—there was no expiatory sacrifice in the pre-exilic period.

So you have someone talking about killing an animal to pay someone's sin. This is being reflected when the priest took power in. So you will add this after the death of Moses there on, right?

If you historicize the Exodus, Moses is in the 13th century; you need Enzo. It is a myth, the summary of the Book of Exodus, pure fantasy. But if you can remember, it is from the 13th century.

The beloved was written in the 5th century; it is a history and a half of Brazil, and it is not like that. 100 years to type, and it is very beautiful. The aspect that did not happen.

What is the word there? I don't know if the escape, right? You have more correct time, right? Of the guys there crossing the Red Sea, okay? Open the Red Sea, and we are not that the 7th that we are not going to swallow this nonsense.

But it didn't even exist. Moses, maybe, or you admitting to Moses next ten, the Moses of Exodus, not Moses times, is an invention. If the Moses diseases were invented out of nothing or if it was invented from a tradition, this is under discussion.

The most accepted theory is that Moses is a traditional character of tradition of blacksmiths that the Bible calls rare. Freemasonry even uses them; they have a sun, right? It's a Blacksmith from the drift, hence the word Freemason, who were metalworkers.

It's just people; I'm going to go out to the baker, the weapon, hydro images. When you look in the Bible, you find the reference to Moses making images of God and Moses' grandson making an image of God.

So the researchers, and I already follow this, advocate the thesis of creating a non-character trade memory, a traditional memory of a Kenite Moses. Calls the Kenite hypothesis of a Moses, allow it to be from a group of blacksmiths.

Maybe the—and then what derives falls into, for example, is going he goes two pens. But the Moses of eso is pure fiction. But Moses may have existed a tradition completely divergent from that of eso.

But the Exodus—nothing. Israel did not go to Egypt; I didn't leave Egypt. It's already a conquest. Canaan—all of this is mythology. There's no archaeological evidence, historical history of any of this.

But it's not because there's no evidence; it's because we already know it's the tire. But I'm not a people. Modern historiography today, historiography constructed with archaeology and with history, says the following: there are only two peoples of Palestine—the Israelites in the north, who are Canaanites, using Brahmites in the South, who are Canaanites.

There are no Judahites; there is no one else. It is just he is already in the north. Biblical Peoples and use Brahmites in the South and a tradition of Amos with reference to a group that constitutes in Israel the book of Amos written in the 18th century.

Then it is a pre-exilic material, and there is a reference to the Exodus. But it says in the book first the text day, but it's very funny because he says like this: "You are not for me today; I will bring you like the Cuxites."

The divinity speaking to the Jairita, you and a like for me the same thing. I didn't bring you from Egypt; I didn't bring the Philistines of cactus. I didn't bring the Arameans of laughter.

What is the prophet talking about? Big crap. Your mistake, Enzo, you don't go out for anything because you are here, yes, because I brought. But why that? The Philistine is here because I brought it because it was mine here because I brought it.

Because this is in the book of the prophet Hi, and then later in chapter 5, he will say, "And furthermore, you offered me something in the desert, didn't you worship coal and your God stars?"

So when you take this information that is 300 years before the writing of the book of Exodus, and you make a historiographical bet on this here, the conclusion that you reach is that a population contingent in Israel is a group that has a tradition of having come from Egypt.

But they weren't already; he's cold. They prayed, and the old woman, he leaves polytheistic Egypt. And then they may have found, and even in the south of each one.

Because you're going to ask me this in a little while, so I'm not going to say it now. But Israel is not even me; I gave a Jew. They meet, and even there in the territory of the [__], and may have taken Yaveh there to Joel is the thesis that is used today.

But Israel was destroyed; this tradition is of no use, and probably the refugees brought this tradition, stayed there, and helped during a while. But it is of no use because the mythologies of the Bible are not tales and legends of the Brothers Grimm.

They use mythologies to represent historical circumstances of what is happening, like Apocalypse, the book of Revelation, the reading of historical circumstances, the beast that says that Babylon is Rome.

So the myths have this historical functionality of social control. Writes a play like if it had happened a thousand years ago, it is actually representing the conflict that is being resolved at that moment.

Judah will receive the mythology of Eso in the afternoon alone, and they will not have to do with it. But 200 years later, when the people return from captivity, they will take the addition of Exodus and read the return of the elite.

What those who went into captivity were not the people; it was the ruling class. The ruling class will take the mythology of the Babylonian flood, meaning that when they went into captivity, it was not actually punishment; it was being preserved.

And explain with Enzo's mythology that when they returned, they went soap putting their tails between their legs. It was Yaveh bringing him to take with the conquering of the land. Then they wrote the book of laughter, and a curious fact, the high priest who made this is called Joshua, the name of General Du of Moses, who takes the land from the Exodus tradition.

Is Joshua, and the one who is really taking the land here in the 5th century, taking the land from the peasants, is Joshua the High Priest. So you can imagine the psychological impact of reading this.

Ah, so you're saying that whoever wrote The Exodus put himself there and put his name. I didn't quite understand. Whatever you want, you put it there in this story here to make it look good.

But this is generalized. The overwhelming majority of the Torah is mythical-literary narratives. Characters represent people who are involved in the historical conflict. The conflict is resolved by the class that will win.

The biblical narratives are like minutes of that conflict. For example, I'll just give one example because we can't spend a lot of time to be in detail. Here's an example: there's only one passage in numbers, and Miriam and Aaron are complaining that Moses is saying that God only speaks through him when until that day God had spoken through Miriam and through air to the number twelve.

And what is the office of the narrative? It makes God appear. The narrative calls the three here. The story is that you were speaking ill of my servant Moses.

There you have already given an enigmatic phrase. When there is a prophet among you, for Miriam, Aaron is a prophet who is making the word put there. When there is a prophet among you, it is true; I speak to him; I dream there.

Moses, no, but it is that I speak mouth to mouth; he sees my form. And it is written in red. Today we teach that God has no form, spirit, and people say they are biblical.

There he sees my finish, my form. Now, because you said that he is prose, then throws a curse, and Miriam, she is prose, stays out of the camp.

But look what an interesting thing. Miriam and Aaron complained. But why did only girl go punished? Then Aaron comes close to Moses and still begs, "Or forgive her."

Then there was a daughter spitting in her father's house; it will not be forgiven. What am I going to forgive alone? Then I will forgive.

And then the wrong reading of this text, you end up thinking that the episode there, time of Moses, none of that. This is a record of a resolved conflict.

There are three groups in conflict. The prophets, and what is interesting here that represents the prophet is the woman and Miriam, who were prophetesses. There is the priest of the popular society, who is represented by Aaron, and there is the priest, the high priest of the temple in Jerusalem, who is represented by Moses.

The historical conflict that occurred was the following: a priest who came from Babylon, that was from now on, it's over. There are no more prophets. There are no more evasions.

Only those who do not accept death can worship the Temple of Jerusalem. As it is there, Zechariah 13. Whoever rises up as a prophet, father and mother have to kill the prophets and prophetesses and the independent Levites and not fight with the Temple of Jerusalem.

This for narrative, the two are recovering. How come God said for us to eat that? Now it's just talk to Moses.

There only how does the narrative end? The result is that one person gets it, and the other person doesn't. How are you going to know what happened? Only you, electronics, the Levites are bought.

Time Jesus, besides doing this, look, a prophet can't be negotiated, but with you, I can't. I got it; you don't want to work for me.

So we get that priest who makes a sacrifice depending on bringing to the Temple of Jerusalem. There is the priest of the afternoon, are flavor quits the Levites, and will be left for who will be left for the prophets.

These narratives of the Bible are all will be agents. One is like this, Jesus, two, and three like this. The text of Cain and Abel is like the text of the flood, like the entire Torah.

It is the theological-political representation of conflict. The conflict is not resolved by the narrative; the conflict is resolved. It shakes the narrative; it is just the symbolic operation of the catechetical maintenance of the violent resolution of the conflict.

Hi, and everyone ended up interpreting it literally as action research. The worst thing is that he has something old; they go to the world of the narrative. The world of Nativa is false; it doesn't exist.

But that's why I say it; there's no point in saying it's a myth. Then you didn't understand anything because it is myth, but it is a profound historical reality because it represents an event that is really happening at the time the text is being produced, which is not a cow.

I had heard this type of perspective of analysis. So it is not that it is a myth that someone invented, pulled it out of their head, and went crazy there. You put that on paper; any invention was created there.

You put the word better, an allegory or a description of a character of events that portray or reflect in some way some events there. It is not as if there was a historicity behind the myth.

Something like that, you do not have happiness behind the myth. The entire myth is invention, is fiction. It is close to you reducing the characters of the mythical plot to the characters who were actually in the historical conflict that generated that myth.

Do you understand what is happening? I would avoid an Argentine author who has a chapter in the book. The book should be withdrawn, corrected, and sold again because it has a serious error.

But the chapter on myth, The Extraordinary, which is José Severino's book, pro ato, the languages of religious experience, the manual of phenomenology of religion. What the book is wrong because it treats Divine and sacred as the same thing.

By the way, the voice has just published the manual of Network Technology, Religious Sciences of the Elastic. Gilles is the name of the author who makes the same very serious mistake. He says that Eliade, the Divine, is the procedure.

This is madness, just complete madness. He has never spoken of Divine. Eliade speaks of sacred, and sacred for Eliade, the definition of sacred, ask a element of the structure of consciousness in origins or in the English version of Quest.

Look at the definition of the Sacred; it is Aries. Sacred is an element of the structure of consciousness. It has nothing Divine; it is sacred; it is not the duty.

So people turned Eliade into a theologian and in evil theologian. But then what are you selling glued to do in this chapter? The chapter of my daily transport is my understanding of the Torah.

And why? What I told you, my understanding of the texts of the Torah is based on him. And the other author is James, which also has a book on mythology, which is as follows: the myth projects into the world of origins the historical circumstances at the time of the construction of the vehicle.

And it is not the market; it is not a fairy tale. It is a piece of political intervention in the community. You want to understand the text; this is only valid to turn what is an operation of the priests of Jerusalem by priest.

But I would advise republic and read Plato's laws, but read Marcel Detienne's book, The Blessing of Mythology, because he describes exactly this procedure. How do you control a society? You produce myths, and what glue these people?

And how these myths were manufactured, the brick we are, the characters in conflict. They isolate the characters; they cover this character with figures, the tradition. Then they do the theatrical staging, but the theatrical staging represents exactly what happened in history.

So if you know how to read, you have a photograph of the historical event. But why do I only what doesn't it do a little bit with the Bible talks about the church? It has everything.

The head of the church, a bunch of academics, they look at the narrative as if the narrative existed. One doesn't give a well; they killed the author. I die laughing. People from the Bible, but the author is dead.

And then I see him playing with the narrative. They are all lost. I will never understand anything because what he does is take the narrative and then throw it into a narrative to look for the truth beneath the narrative.

There is no truth low Haddad; it is a political fiction. These are texts of social control unibes. And when you talk about this social control, it reminds me of some people, mainly more skeptical and even Zag optics, who say that the gods were invented, the myths, precisely to control the masses of the population.

But not in a Machiavellian sense. Something that—and look, I'm going to take it out of mind, anything here. But when you say that, I have doubts if you are having, let's say, this purpose.

Look at this here, for example, Constantine. I don't know; it will be good for my government if Christianity is promoted here as an official religion. Because this religion here tomorrow, if this group is like this, I will be able to govern in PA.

There is only one interpretation as if there was only a Machiavellian intention to know whether it is power to be able to invent these myths and God to control people. Whereas in the psychology of religion, analytical psychology, people see several anomalous experiences, right?

Willing to contact divinities with spirits. Alisson even commented here that he is a spiritualist and sent a super chat. Thanks, Alison. These people are not necessarily trying to deceive others.

They are having strange experiences that deplete reality. From these experiences, I think there is, it's natural, and they sometimes build a doctrine based on what they are experiencing, right? Because they can't rationally explain everything.

So there's this aspect of the psychology of religion that clashes with the perspective that religion was created by their gods, their myths, just for social control, as if there were people who didn't really believe in that, and you just wanted power.

I was clear about what I'm commenting here, but I wanted your opinion on this. Do you think that those people back there actually legitimately believed in the origin of the Judeo-Christian God, for example? Or were they people who were there in power that invented these stories there to have control over the masses?

Your question is very serious. I will answer in three items, but we would need to talk about this. There is another live just about this, who knows?

The first thing I would say the following: I will remember Jerônimo Barcot, General Dharkov, is a theorist who says the following: the truth needs to be compatible. There is no truth in psychology if it is not the historical truth, and if it is not the topological truth.

The problem with sciences is that they are enclosed within themselves. They establish rules that apply to them, but they do not ask others if they apply to others. If so, I have problems with ghettos.

For example, this approach of psychology region is forgetting politics. Hi, is forgetting ruling class. One thing is religion in the hands of ruling class; another thing is religion of the hand there in the church on the corner.

The ruling classes, without any exception, without any exception, play a planned game. I will mention two cases. I will Earth God and men. In God and men, they have dismantled the Bible.

It is like Spinoza; he dismantles the Bible. It is very old, right? The return was elitist, so I had every reason to dislike him. But I like to take it because he writes wonderfully well.

There at the end of the book, he tells why he is angry. He starts at the end of God and men and says like this: "We want a fair society; we announce a fair God."

What the man, the philosopher, is stylish, wear the statesman, has to be theist. He tries to announce a finger; it is written to return with all the letters. He has to announce a fair God because the police punish public crimes, and God will punish him punches.

And then in a letter he wrote like this: "If the population does not believe in God or does not wake up alive and the solid with religion, as are the children's games, we here below up there will not follow what you think is right and left."

In Brazil, they are fighting over the 31 and the name of the oxen account. Yes, there I have another case. Let me tell you another case. In the century in the century in which Max was there in England doing research for the capital, what was said in the newspapers?

They have to force them in those terms. They have to force factory workers to attend mass on Sunday because if they abandon mass, we cannot convince them, and God's plan for them to stay 16 hours in a factory.

And I would advise anyone who finds my reading too radical that people generally think that my reading is because it is a Marxist reading. It is not. You just need to read Marcel Detienne.

I would advise you to take the invention of mythology and read the chapter The City Defended by Its Mythologists from the Hammer of M. There you took the Earth, and you read a book that for me is—I was a Worshipper denit.

I was in love with it, like then I fell into the stupidity of reading Domenico Losurdo, nitinho, Rebelde, silver editor, 1,200 pages, and nothing was left. A lot of deaf sound barrier destroyed.

United is an object being, and then he shows I have all of Elite's works. I went to look. It's not possible. I went to look at the books in those parts that I loved.

Observations here will be strange. I had noticed. But I loved so much trash that I hadn't seen it. He said like this: "First, he is—I liked Christianity because what Christianity was to do was to keep the poor there."

I don't even tell you that the poor are like Shandalah from India, the Sandal from India. He explains that he can't even have the right to drink water from the pot; he has to drink water from the hole.

What the ox does on the road, he said the only function of the poor is this road book for the carriage of the genius. But the problem is that it is very much there as socialism began to develop at the same time as ide, and Christianity began to date socialism by Ohm's account.

The utopian socialism of the French Priests Neide was filled with hatred for Christianity. He said if we use Christianity to empower the poor, that's the end of the outbreak.

You'll find the negotiation process of the European church with the European ruling class, a document with everything. And they asked for the love of God for the church to stop the biblical criticism, to stop the theological criticism because they were losing control of the population just at the moment when the socialist revolution was exploding.

Then you have, at the end of the century, Vatican first, the moment of maoba, which is fundamentalism. And the moment of fundamentalism in the United States, so it is a reaction of the geopolitical platform.

They know that they have that using religion there as the problem that the researcher of an isolated discipline sticks his head in a hole and looks at an isolated case.

And I think he is seeing a photograph. The world is seeing my picture now. It is obvious an isolated subject to a church and there in the corner that you can't say that the guy is trying to control others at the same level that today the right and left in Brazil are planning to conquer Brazil.

We use trains; you have to adapt yours to your type. But I'm not mistaken; he mentally. I said that I was bankrolled, but for me, the fundamental function of religion in a society is social control.

And I was allowed just one last question because this subject is important. I am nonpartisan to the thesis that the class society that we invented from agriculture is completely different from the pre-Neolithic society, which is the hunter-gatherer society, in which the hunter-gatherer society does not have.

Of course, in agricultural society, because there is a surplus, we invented class society. Religion was not invented in class society. It was invented in the hunter-gatherer era.

There, it was not a system of social control. It is because there is no social class there. Religion was born to be a system of social control, but people give themselves over to religion so much that when the social classes emerged and the first class conquered, hitachiin 14,000 years ago, 13 thousand years, depending on when you beat the ruling class, that I go to there.

And people put four days of these gods; we will control the gods. There is the entire ruling class; all the king will play the role of the Emperor. Christianity, 2,000 years, control religion, control of the people.

But it is not an ontological quality of religion, but it is pay that she wouldn't. If it weren't a class system, we would have to give up the desire for control, but that will never happen.

Community, but I totally agree with you, Osvaldo, that it is dangerous researcher who stays there in his ghetto thinking he will explain every religious phenomenon from that theory of yours.

Only psychology will be able to account for as if there were no political tensions, and this is felt for power. So I think that when sciences communicate, scientists, right, when they communicate, they can actually see this big picture.

That you make the more general picture where there are several levels of analysis for you to understand the complex phenomenon that is religion, right? It's not possible for us, right?

Great, now that the person saying this is someone who started his speech saying that he owes his abilities because I'm going to give you religion, but there's no prevention of my part. The psychology of religion, I just think that there are moments and moments, right?

And yes, perfect, Osvaldo. I will pass here anything. I will skip another topic that if there is time, I will come back later. We have there is an item that I think is very interesting.

I don't know if I got to the conclusion. This video was the day before yesterday that I finally got to your channel, but I was really enjoying the subject, and I wanted to learn more from you today than the origin of Yahweh, God of the thought type, right?

The God of gods then, "or not, then you wait, people, how is this story?" So we can trace it historically when and see it started to be what it is correctly.

Anything he corrects too, it started to be worshipped. We can learn this, discover this, and what do you have to say about the Judeo-Christian God in this more historical sense?

Even so, there in the scriptures, we can see something. I have that going beyond that, right? I think that's an important point too.

And then we shout scriptures, the Hebrew Bible has clues, and these cards coincide with what history tells us today, archaeology. I'll be succinct; I'll try to be as brief as possible.

And it needs to be to make two things clear. The historiographical reconstruction is always in the field of plausibility. Are sciences index Ares? The object is absent.

So you reconstruct from the clues; it is subject to it. It is the problem day; it is the same problem of historical Jesus. The reconstruction is hypothetical.

Part everything indicates today the following: first, Israel is Canaanite. He never knew Yahweh. The God of Israel was Elo, attacking the very name Neves.

There she and she is the father of Baal. EA old woman does not exist in Canaan in the south because it was already going there in the south. You have you Adamites, whose God is El Shaday, have no good.

So we have an Egyptian stele from the 13th century that mentions Israel and the people in the area. It is in the book of Mário Liverani, in addition to the Bible, the spectacular book.

It has two pieces; the first piece, the first spectacular match, the second one by not changing because there is already an attempt to explain the myths of the Bible. There I think he knocked it down, but in the part where he does the historiographical reconstruction, it is formidable.

And this information that I am going to give about the Aramites is in the book from page 52 in the release that is the following: in the stele, there is Israel in the north and the Ramon people in the south.

What are the experts saying? That these people Hum have a toponym, an ancestor called Abdulrahman, father of the Hum, that is, Abraham is not a name. Abraham is the reference to the father of the inhabited, the south of Canaan, which is the people um.

Hence the Brahmites; this is historiography. So there are only two peoples in Claro; there are 50 others. Only tends to the poor mentioned in life help does not exist.

And see, there is not only the one who is in the South, who is the Canaanite and worships her to the Nati to smell and the Brahmites in the South who worship that there to smell and all the other gods.

At some point between the 11th century and the 20th century, 9. Hi, today the tribe of Judah, which is an Arab tribe. Look at the irony and error of giving it. It is an Arab tribe here in a broad sense because only those tribes that are stopped, the Amalekites, the [__], the Rechabites, and the Judaeans, they enter through a migratory process.

Normal, we don't know if it was a Bedouin tribe. But they come from there, from the same place where that Rechabite thesis of Moses, who imitates Moses, also comes from there.

This tradition is so strong a relative that to go see him is the book of Exodus. Moses is in Egypt; he will take the people out of Egypt, but he is forced to come here to the land of Amalek to meet with Yahweh to return to Egypt, which is a tradition of being in the South.

There is a lot of hunger; I attribute it to the tribe from Judah. Then enters that is not Arab, that is not Jewish, is Arab. Enters the territory of the Adamites, the people go Hum that we are Abramites and use pretty ones like that.

Let us stay the Rechabites, Rexona; there is always room for one more. At some point, they conquer Jerusalem, which was a Jebusite city. The Adamites do not belong to the Bible.

This is said to be a feat of David. This story is told whether this is historiographical or not, and it is left for another discussion. But the fact is that suddenly the city of Assisi owns Jerusalem, and it owns all of the territory and imposes itself on the Adamites.

No problem crossing Brahmites. Why? Because from the pre-exilic period, the king did not interfere in anyone's religion, and the king was polytheistic.

The Temple of Jerusalem was polytheistic. Only in the temple of Jerusalem, you had three main gods, and I even found that Yahweh's wife is fair to the other gods.

So I was going to see if she would enter the Southern territory because that doesn't explain it. Now I'm talking about Judah; they are two different peoples; they are two different stories.

And the old woman is in the South, taken by this Arab immigration of the type of guide run. At some point, a David or any group of militiamen—the Cangaceiro choose because the group of David or were militiamen, the cangaceira of Barra.

They were of the shovel turned bread. Jerusalem keeps the time keeping the priesthood, but has all this makes Yahweh the National God then.

And see if he became the National God because the national God is the God of the city that controls everything. Like Jerusalem starts to control everything and even passes on its national God and warns me it's with.

How good it continues to worship until the 6th century because there was no religious interference of any nature in the pre-exilic period. Now in Israel, there are two hypotheses just to reinforce something here that may have gone unnoticed by those who are watching.

But then you already described there an origin, an existence of this I worship the faith that is the Judeo-Christian God, who then lived with other gods in the popular imagination and everything and had a wife.

So that's when pink is the word that I am Sarah, but go there; it will give. I need to clarify PA is the name ierruda already has the name of yavé as a component of name.

Then when the tribe of Judah enters the territory of the Ammonites, they are exporters in the cult there. The old woman, but the smelling one is not an Arab goddess.

The smelling one is the goddess of Canaan then, and Vera will become strong to smell when she enters the territory and become the main God.

Then when he becomes the main God, then puts it all together. He will take the children of Elba and take the wife of Ao. This will be in the south, and it will be in the north.

It is a normal process there in Babylon; it was like that too. The main God was, and then he is replaced by a bard, and he continues there.

But depending on the social group that conquers power, His God passes up, passes down, etc. So when the love of Jerusalem comes, he immediately becomes lucky enough to find a husband.

Husband, same husband and wife to find, and my Custom still has another deity, a pencil, which is another deity with healing activities. This in the south, in the north, the two theories, but they are not self-exclusive.

They can even be concomitant with an archaeological site called the Culture at age bad love. Put you on Google, people. Culture at age Hood people go see.

The image I'm talking about is an archaeological site from the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 8th century, and it has a really big vase with two phrases written on it that it be blessed by Yahweh of Samaria, that is, the capital of Israel, and by Yahweh Dieteman, who capital day Doll.

That is, there is a temple of Yahweh in Edom, and there is a temple of Yahweh in Samaria at the same time. And this archaeological site is agile quantity. Where it is far from Israel, all life is very close to day Doll.

So it was probably a commercial warehouse that was not the chapel of worship that is of the Israelite mitas used and has a phrase like this: "Be blessed by yaveh and his smell."

And then we have to join the dots. Yaveh is a God, two Jews who are Arabs there from the territory day Doll. So in fact, and the old is a God, the territory of Edom has two passages in the Bible that mentions the judges 5 says that when he was going to see, he will save today Israelites who are fighting against the Canaanites.

And the time there of Mount Seir, that is a mountain of the main thumb, that is, the sacred mountain of Yahweh is not in Canaan; it is there in the territory of Edom.

Look, it is in the Bible and in Habakkuk 33. It says that the saint came from Mount Paran, which came from Tema, which is the capital of Edom.

Is this information survived within the Bible? And then what the speaker suggests, the hypothesis has a confirmed archaeological relationship that links faith to Edom.

Let's go for a minute in the myth of Israel. Jacob, brother of Esau, and with good works, how is it that are brothers? You have a time that mentions a time here is good, and a time there in Israel.

There was an elastic wedding; there was an exchange of elastic. Then give me your God, us here. Take my God there, and even went to Santa Maria.

But he goes, "How?" The lyrics of the song say, "I came from there; I came from there slowly." Little by little, someone taught me to step here slowly.

He arrives as I gave high school only a warrior God. EA old, some you take the sociology of religion of Joaquim of Joaquim Yoshi, and you take the chapter he talks about of Ogum is Yahweh described as one of the warriors.

Wherever he arrives, he will stay looking; he will stop head first. Then he arrived in the south; he became the main God because what does it mean to say that the Warrior God?

Nobody get me wrong; I'm not doing theology. This enology of region, the group that carries a Warrior God is a Warrior group. So it is not a group concerned with agriculture; its business is to conquer territory.

So he was old man arrived. Let the time to arrive was already. Then he will take power in Israel as he already had power there. Idol.

Then he entered there until the book here, the simple Israel is there when he wrote the Bible says buried part of this story is in this book.

He says like this: "Irony of ironies, Israel is the Canaanite." And I go further, irony of ironies of ironies. The Jews are not Jews; Jews or Arabs.

And let's see, it's not a Jewish God; it's an Arab God. And I don't need to continue doing one. What is it? Just turn on the television, and now it's also today.

There is this speculation on the internet about the birth of the heifer red, right? There, the priests are crazy to destroy the Mosque of al-Aqsa to build the Temple of Jerusalem.

Look at the irony; they are Arabs by origin, and now they want to fight with the Arabs. Imagine studying that there, and Rael, the agenda, pressure that Israel made.

Thais must suffer there in Israel. What is there is politics here. I'm messing with the Bible; the dogs get mad at me.

I teach; there's a pastor from the student. The student said, "Professor, my pastor gave you a nickname. It's Oswaldinho foot in hell." I can't even stand this; it's at this level.

It's just the day that it's in hell, but the guy says the dog barks, the carriage passes. Go there, and already she policies.

Imagine you taking the bottom there. Had already been a problem before because the name of the territory is Palestine, and they—your son debuts Cristina Palestine when the Jews started fighting with the Palestinians.

And they started the Bible, and then they started to dig it up because—but you were here. I was already here before. Your own Bible says that you stole my territory.

At the time, it was God, but today he resolves this in court. I can use it. It is at this level. You can—we have no idea how ugly the fight is there, and they stopped using the Bible to pass the bomb.

Because if you use the Bible, it asks too much. It's written here that you robbed me; I was here; you robbed me; you get death.

For example, there it goes; it's written. I brought it; it's already from Egypt, and the Philistines of the past. Then the territory of both is of he already has a Palestinian.

If you are going to use the Bible, it was already there. Let's see how this story will end. But you would see it was an Arab God, and the Bible keeps this memory.

You can pursue it through the interstices of the assembly to recover. We would not be able to recover without archaeology. I am already Finn that I will be is fabulous work for me.

It is the work for now, the work of the millennium in the biblical area, but it has not yet taken to the last consequences. And then I think he didn't take the political pressure point to its ultimate consequences.

Then you give me some titles to put here for the people who want to be there, to whom to give it, and a reinforcement. There's the invitation, a tip to follow Professor Osvaldo, who explores and systems in much more detail.

On his channel, there are several videos betting almost generally, right, Osvaldas? A lot of high-quality content, so it's a quick hop over there. I left the at sign here in the video description.

We're already 1:15 into the live, and we're going to move on a little bit to Jesus. I'm going to ask you, and so I've already discussed this topic here about three times, maybe, Osvaldo.

So it doesn't get too long, right? But try for people who have been following for a while, but I was curious about your opinion on this. What do we see on the internet so much mysticism is affirming and defending the thesis that Jesus is entirely a myth, that he does not exist historically, even as construction?

Maybe he of the Roman Empire, I don't know for what. And there are also people who have a vision more of a historical Jesus while the man who actually set foot there in Palestine of the century believed in the imminent end of times and who later received the pain there in the mythological, that the person he would have performed the miracles, the resurrection, something like that.

You have a firm position on this topic. What do you think about it? Does Jesus exist or not? In heaven, you are more inclined to one side or the other? No, you can make a decision.

No, I hardly ever sit on the fence, nor do I only sit on the fence when I'm an opinionist. This time, opinion and the other has an opinion. And in the case of Jesus, it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of argument.

With all due respect to those who there, Luiz, there was no historical Jesus. I think it makes no sense, but I may not please those who think there was a historical Jesus and draw him.

And I will give two arguments. So for me, there was a historical Jesus that hate has nothing to do with the Gospels, much less with Paul, much less with General exercises, and nothing to do with Jesus of the church.

The Jesus of faith is a Frankenstein monster. It is a montage of pieces of myth from all sides. It is afraid of the Jew; there is Greek myth and Roman law tucked in there.

We can reconstruct each little piece because the material of the history of the church does this. Experts do it from there on; it's easy that you have the problem is to jump from there by Jesus history.

There for me to do these. I'm not a historian; the two Vegeta. So I don't care about historical Jesus; I deal with Jesus of the narratives.

Well, then what about the Jesus of the narrative? It has nothing to do with historical Jesus. The Jesus of the narrative is a ventriloquist dummy controlled by the writer of the narrative.

So whoever opens the gospel and goes to the world of Jesus, you are doing complete nonsense. You have to open the gospel, go to the world of the writer. What is Jesus?

Let's stop playing in this context that I think is not right. I watch a Netflix series with my wife, and she gets into the vibe. But I'm Vegeta, so I've already lost the fun of the script that I know how it works.

There at the peak, the character

How is the Messiah cursed? It is written, "cursed," but he is the Messiah. He is cursed, right? He deserves it. It is Father's Day; remember the tradition. Isaiah 53, the suffering servant. Ready? He is the suffering servant and would take pure, but it is an allegory used on the factory floor. The guy doesn't. He sat down and invented this, born of conflict. He is Coado, and in his tradition, he has to give an answer because he will lose.

I can't even say this: Jesus on the cross. He has to give an answer because if you want an answer, he wins. He gives the answer; he is the suffering servant. He is cursed by us. What is cursed? And then why is it cursed? Which channel? Because it is from the cursed one. There, he smells the barbecue. It is the Temple of Jerusalem killing the lamb. He is cursed; he took over.

I think business revisions are ready. Christianity was invented in the conflict, and this is a holiday on the ground. From there on, it's over because you incorporated into the myth the event that you cannot deny. What you said is that it is the cross and the altar, so you will have to carry the cross. There, it will be bad up ahead because when you go to announce a Messiah of the Cross of the Roman, to leave this one of messianic likes, no, he is not. His kingdom goes from this world; they lied. His kingdom was of this.

So much so that in Revelation, it is the day of the beyond. Good morning, everyone, and come down, of course. This world then lied, was betrayed, and after the generations developed, it becomes institutionalized. This memory is left behind. They will invent that it was not the Romans. That is the thesis of André Chevitarese, right? I am only going to report his thesis here because I have not yet reflected on her.

It is sent to a traitor in order to take the blame off Rome, to say that the blame is on the Jew. Because then you can become a black man from Rome. Because you won't be able to have anyone tell you to your face how you are bringing the murderers of the Messiah into the faith. No, it wasn't Rome. Pilate's da Lagoa hand. All this story is idle talk; this is false.

It has an example of how stories begin, are told. If you allow me the example for the diary, it is Luke Chapter 24, and this is extraordinary. Luke writes a story of Jesus who would have been resurrected. It is very natural, but the women witnessed it, and then they run to the women and tell the men, the twelve and all the other disciples, "Jesus was resurrected."

And then Luke makes them say that they were crazy; they drank so much and were drugged. But then in verse 12, it says like this: "But Peter was thinking." He went to the tomb and saw that Jesus had risen. This verse is from Luke. We have very old original manuscripts in which this verse does not exist. When Luke wrote the gospel, he destroyed the church in Jerusalem.

Because you look at Luke 24, no one believed in the resurrection. The disciples of Emmaus didn't believe. Jesus is there, dead and rotting. Ended. Jesus had to appear for them to open the bread. Then after Jesus stayed with them for 40 days, Thomas is still there trying. Nobody believed anything ever.

It is messing with the church in Jerusalem. There, in the first chapter of Acts, when Jesus now goes, "Now you won't believe it." He's all looking like idiots. Two angels have to come. What is Luke doing? He's destroying Jesus' authority. I said to throw all authority in Acts 2, which is the midrash. The Holy Spirit descends, and Peter, who was a traitor, who did not believe in the resurrection, now becomes a superhero.

Who is winning? It is Paul. It is a political treatise to empower the Pauline ministry. This book of Luke will arrive from the community of Jerusalem. And there is the leader of the community, Joaquim. Joaquim arrives here, "Look at what's going around here, look at the clothes there." Because the Pauline community and the Jerusalem community were poking each other in the eye when they went to get the Galatians.

Paul said that the roosters had been bewitched by the people from Jerusalem. The word in Greek is "times bewitched." This is someone preaching another gospel to you of cursed. It was at that level that he gives me a lot with others. Then the Gospel of Luke arrives there in the Petrine community. "Look what the scoundrel is writing here." He said that nobody believed in the resurrection.

Look at the others; who can go to hell? But Peter can't write there that Peter, another one. There they are; someone made the gloss; someone adulterated the gospel again. I'm saying that for me, it was the precise community because it will be the community of Mary Magdalene that will invent Peter, who prodest, who will commit adultery. Who gains from it? The story is over.

There is not just waiting. The Johannine community will arrive. The beloved disciple is coming here. Here he comes. "Look what is circulating that is here." Is the woman seeing the resurrection? Then Peter came back. "Hey, John, no, no, no. Let's do the following: you will put there that John arrived first, waited for Peter, and let him enter."

And then you can also play obirocha.com. The neurons in good condition and have some level of history. This is everything; it is an invention. Everything is a political fight. Today, people forget or sometimes don't know that the Gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus. Not just something that happened now; we are already recording it. It was there in the newspaper the next day.

There are Osvaldo, the letters of Paul, about 15 years after the death of Jesus. How much stuff happened there from word of mouth? And he himself didn't even know Jesus. I think it was through James that he found out about some things that you, brother of Jesus. The last Gospel of John, 60 years ago or less after the death of Jesus, and the only one that has some traits there that Jesus believed he was God.

In the other three Gospels, he does not place himself as identical to God and everything. So there are several questions there. That is what you are bringing up here. People go to the corner; they're going to join one thing to another.

Let's try to make this text coherent now to talk to that other one. Jonathan Matias already brought some elements in one there that we also did regarding this adulteration of the Sally way over the centuries that people were in the text, right? Many people take that, as you said before, right? It happened like that here, exactly as it is written here and does not have this critical eye and perhaps does not have access to people who have this background like yours and like other exegetes, academic historians who open people's eyes, right?

Osvaldo, I just wanted to read Maria das Dores' super quick chat. He said, "Professor Osvaldo, how great that we have another channel for questioning intelligence to watch." Thanks. Leave the arroba below, okay, people, because you've just arrived. We're almost a thousand here on the live bed and rocking out.

Osvaldo, look at this great group of people. And Rogério Matias, you said that. Please, can you explain it as a fact and can change the time count? We are in 2022 after Christ. I'll leave you with that. Go answer it, and I'll get you the painkiller because my head is exploding.

Okay, Osvaldo, I'll be right back here, but tell me then I'll watch what was recorded later. I'll only waste a few minutes, okay? It's me. And before answering this question, because in fact, whoever made this calendar change, the church, has nothing to do with Jesus. So much so that today in the research, it is no longer used before Christ or after Christ.

It uses it was common, and moreover, half of the planet does not use this calendar. In China, it does not use this calendar. Israel itself does not use this calendar. It is a very weak argument. It is even one day in a theology class with the deceased selected Baptist pastor teacher. I was in class, and then he gave the work to the students. They were in a master's course, and the work was to argue in favor of the revealed character of Christianity.

Then the group of three boys presented the following argument: "Christianity is obviously revealed by the amount of followers." They didn't say anything. Then I raised my hand, idiot that I was and still am, right? I raised my hand. I said, "Professor, can I ask a question?" Then Darcy dusilek rio, who already imagined that something was coming, can I? I spoke for this argument: "Islam is also revealed."

What the Lan has as many followers as Christianity? So the criterion of adaptation, the criterion of the number of followers, this does not mean anything. Now, I wanted to make a recommendation. Daniel Gontijo, on my channel, I have a video about John's prologue. You mentioned that in the Gospel of John, there are some intuitions of Jesus assuming the identity of God, but this arises from the crime that the Johannine community committed.

The doctrine of the verb, Jesus is a theft that the community will make of the doctrine of Torah. You reconstruct the entire prologue of John. It is not one word, another; it is not everything that is said of Jesus in the prologue of John. Each verse is copied from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch. And there it ends saying the veil, and it is to endure of Moses.

Then the Johannine community, in a dispute that I will not delve into here, stole the title of Jesus' verb from the Torah and applied it to Jesus. That's why they were expelled from the synagogue. And then when the community develops, this will turn into another Christology. It's the same in the Gospel of John that is happening either at the end of the first century or at the beginning of the second century.

There is no memory of the Gospel of John; it has no memory of past events. Paul has no memory of anything, and I do not agree with what they say that there are a certain number of letters that are from Saint Paul. I do not believe in letters that say they are from Paul. I doubt that they are from them.

Even Paul in Corinthians does not believe in soul and interspersing these, right? It talks about soul, body, and spirit; it can't be about the author. So no, I don't believe that. I think the community is much more ideologized than it believes. Most of the New Testament gives no satisfaction to the historical Jesus.

Where you will find possible memory of tradition, not of the historical Jesus, is in the synoptics. In John, in no way. And James, in James, there is some memory not of Jesus but in the practice of the community to help you. And that Jesus was a Jew, died as a Jew; there was nothing Christian about it.

In fact, the first writings are from 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus because Jesus died in 26, and Paul is from the 50s. That is, if he puts it in 30, to put 20 and 25 years in the first letters. But as you said, Paul had no contact with Jesus. He doesn't mention anything about the historical Jesus.

The only sentence about supposedly the historical Jesus that Paul mentions is that he went around healing the oppressed of the devil. And if someone wanted to argue against the historical Jesus, Paul is Paul's best friend. Paul doesn't know Jesus; he couldn't have invented it.

But for me, the question of vrau jica, if someone wants to defend that Jesus did not exist, the obligation to listen to the rest of the arguments. I don't even stop to listen to what I saw. You have to say how they invented the cross. I managed to convince myself that a Christian genius must be an idiot on the planet who would invent a cross for the Roman.

There is fine, but for me, the cross is the thorn in the side, right? Here's a tip for Antônio Miranda, who is even watching us here. Let's give him a hug when he releases crying Eva that lag. More historical Jesus, Antônio Miranda brings many questions in this direction.

I believe that today Antônio needs to correct anything in the chat because he leans more towards the Marxist view than towards the historical view of Jesus. I think he wants a little bit of that. Antônio said he would explain it later. Now he answers everything here.

I'll explain the Cruz thing; make a video for us. Go and send it to Antonio. Osvaldo, we're getting to the end. This was a really cool chat. I'm learning a lot, things that I'm going to have to reveal later. Take it easy; I'm even feeling a little. I have a really bad headache here. I took some medicine to make it better, but it's not because of me.

No, no, because of you. I didn't get it wrong; I slept little; I worked a lot. Not for your house; I arrived at Live a little bad; it got worse here. Okay, I didn't want to talk for the love of God, but I would like to finish with a very provocative question. I don't know how it is that you will say about this, that I have not seen any video of yours addressing this issue, which is very broad, but at the same time, I think it can make a good conclusion to this reflection that you brought for us to decide teaching in the end.

Is there any reasonable margin still, after everything you said, for us to say that the Bible was inspired by God? Do you still see there, wow, there's a 0.1 chance, a margin opens up for this possibility or not? Even if God exists, it's not him who's there being portrayed, and those words are not a reflection of his advantage of what he thinks and such.

What do you think about this? Give a live that I will give a live. What is behind this is a lot of willingness. I will give a technical answer and then my personal position. This question has nothing to do with you because it is a question that everyone asks. It is a biased question. Protestantism is a Protestant neurosis.

Hi, and Protestantism is a tiny part of Christianity. This issue is not a question of Christianity, for example, of the Orthodox Church. What is the word of God? Any speech of any person to God is present in the speech of any person: a drunk, an old woman, a pastor. The Bible is the official doctrine of the Orthodox Church.

I do not have a neurosis of the Bible as the word of God. In fact, this neurosis is a cancerous metastasis. Treating the Bible as the word of God is the Protestant metastasis. It is a disgrace. Luther's fault in the Catholic Church does not have the Bible as the word of God.

I made a reservation in a moment for the Catholic Church, which for me is the Christian church. Because the Orthodox Church broke away, I have a friend who will be angry with me because he thinks that the Orthodox Church is the Christian church. But the point of view of history, the Orthodox Church breaks with the Christian church and stays with the East.

Protestantism is dissident of the Christian church. For me, it is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church affirms that the word of God is the tradition, the official statement of the church in the Council. Who invented this misfortune, this misery, this crap of the Bible doctrine?

How to talk about God was happy in the world. Hi, and then leaves people completely with their heads lost because a believer is a functional illiterate. The believer is either functionally illiterate or doesn't believe because the doctrine of his church, which is different from all the others, has to be put in the same Bible.

So the Adventist follows the Bible law as Adventist and Baptist, as they say. This is a circus, and worse, he sees the cognitive disgrace that the evangelical suffering is difficult to recover. It is the biggest factory of functional illiteracy as Roberto on the planet.

So it is a question that is a false question and is not true. It was not even supposed to be taken seriously because not even the pastors take seriously what they are left with. They know how to read the Bible; they know he there. They reproduce in the Bible their doctrine because in truth, or Gontijo sings evangelical church is a Catholic church, but they cannot assume there is a pope who is the owner of the church.

There is a doctrine that is the doctrine of the church; there is a hierarchy that is the hierarchy of the church. But that is how the church is; there is no other way to do church. The problem of the Protestant church is that instead of them assuming what is the tradition of the church, that the word of God is the pastor who authority plays fair, no, they invent a rhetoric that is false.

And then from your head, from everyone else's, saying that, I'm going to answer, no, if the Bible is the word of God, any word of God is faithful. I answer both in the Orthodox perspective as in the Petite Catholic perspective and in this false Protestant perspective. God is a myth.

If God is a myth, how is there a word of God? It is the word of God only for those who believe. For those who did not, it is not a fact. God is not a given object; God is an object of belief. Then for those who believe, it is.

And as I know the psychology of religion, because he believes, his body reacts to this belief. It is true; the reaction to the belief does not matter. It is a myth. What the person cries about in worship is the problem. I martyred myself a lot because I always valued my crying in the ass.

I was a Baptist to cry in the service. Never you, not Pentecostal. Never. That's my personality; it does not allow it. But I am deeply the reason. So I cried in the church service energy for you to cry in the Baptist service is an expensive refrigerator. But I found it beautiful.

The services I went to because only the bathroom, I was Catholic until I was 15, and I think it is beautiful. So now the ritual of the Catholic church and such, but I found it boring already. The services of the Baptist Church that I went to Getsemani, that my mother-in-law's branch, I found that I really like it.

So enjoyable to watch, exciting at various moments, like the song. The Word, I arrived, I get emotional too, but not in the spiritual sense, right? Or at least I want Inter, which I was like that. But it's a Renovated Baptist Church; it's already Family.

So I don't know how to tell you because you can cut it short by describing the church. It's not that it hits me right time; you don't even lift your hand from the chair and shake. No, no, guys, get up. Then related sometimes it's already praised. I would never take it also because I've been out of the church for two decades.

So I wouldn't know how to say how I hear even from motorcyclists, right? From this church on weekdays, they have a group there, right? Motorcycle gang there in the yard. If there was a band, then with a rock n' roll vibe, it's great. I told you with Luna that participating in a motorcycle club, but it wasn't she was a believer.

You guys didn't rest; she right. But don't let me. I bought one reasoning here, the middle battle. I think I cried. No, I cried, and I despised the religious of other religions who were also moved. My mother, I saw my mother cry; I saw my aunt, and I despised them and valued my crying.

When I read school the day and understand why I cried, I cried because I adhered to the myth. And everyone who adheres to the myth, the body will react to this adherence and will have true emotion. True, it is not false, but it also happens in candomblé.

And then I cried with remorse. Stay there; I recognized that I had been had been close. Then the person who believes believes in God, believes Exu, believes in Maria, believes in the path of Shintoism, in the state of Candomblé. I believe there is no problem. There is no problem to believe that her body will react equally.

So religious difference of the guy of candomblé is equal to the difference of the believer. It is the same as the experience of the indo, but this proves absolutely nothing about adherence to myth generating true experience. That's why I'm getting ready to end here, right?

I wanted to remind a theologian of the 20th century that he is 50 percent admirable and fifty percent testable because the service he did was to prepare Jesus for the Nazi church. All the scanning and last feet of Jesus because he was an employee of the state pastor in Germany, employee of the Nazi chief.

You, the church, has to say that Jesus was Jewish, and if not, you will do. I'm sorry, Germany, everyone in the New Testament in Germany sold out. And then they painted the Aryan Jesus with blue eyes. The History of the Bible in Germany at the time of the Nazis. It's sad; it's enough to make you cry.

But within this wretched context, he had an idea that he proposed thus: Complete lucidity. Bible myth to God is myth. Resurrection is myth. Original birth of everything is much more in the liturgy, in worship, at the time of worship. Everything is real, and it is the notion of theater to take our seriously.

He took the Platonic basis of the Matrix of theology and put existentialism. What makes the truth in worship is experience. So this is written. He proposed this for Christianity. It would be wonderful because the only human experience that did not go through modernity is religion.

Everything we do, we invented millennia ago: art, sports, war. We have an understanding of art, sports, war. Everything modern understanding, but the understanding of religion is really from 100 thousand years ago. But we know that religion is culture like anything else. We invent everything and get really excited.

Because then in the disappearance, it is because there is that tip alone. Because it's politics; religion is politics. But nothing is the law of politics; you will lose control. What you want is control. No one wants to control anyone with the theater.

Then you go to the Theater Shopping. I know there's a waxing; I'm not being naive, but it's not direct, right? You're biased now; religion is all over the place. And you go to the theater; you get emotional. You watch a movie; you cry.

I read Memorial do Convento by Salvador Saramago, and I cried for one of the times I've cried the most in my life for a work of art. But I didn't cry. I can't say much because I'm going to spoil the end of the book, and I cry in religion.

If religion today, if I had this understanding that it is an aesthetic-political experience, it is not just aesthetic because everything happens and is managed in society in the group. So it cannot be merely aesthetic; it is political, but it is the political use of techniques.

For me, the problem is in the region; it would be resolved. My problem is not with religion; my problem is that the state of religious alienation does not know what is happening. So if someone thinks it is normal for a citizen to go through what he is going through and not be aware of what is happening to him, who thinks that this is normal?

It's beautiful, and this is a disservice to humanity. For me, it's a crime against humanity. People will be enlightened. I don't plan to abandon religion. But because society knows what happens to it, it's not the same. Progressive academic people, nobody is even letting people see it.

You think alienation is beautiful; you talk about his difference. Now you are anachronistic. That this Good morning, can you stop in my face, man? You have any idea that the person believes that, and she had to know. She had to learn psychology; she has to know the body.

No, you know nothing. It's the world of ignorance taken seriously. I can't live with it; there's no way. Disgusting guy; some things really do revolt me. But when religious leaders manipulate, deceive, and lie shamelessly, Nicolas, our friend, the magician, has a channel here.

I don't know if you know it; one day he unmasks charlatans, mainly from the religious world. And there are each magic hypnosis tricks that they use to pretend that they are performing an operation, a mediumistic surgery. It is little demon babies that the woman had in the church, and then there were little skulls on a keychain that they put there.

And people, oh my, it's such a bizarre thing. This revolts me much more than the fact that people are there believing it and crying and giving tithes, maybe out of ignorance, even though they didn't have an opportunity to develop more critical thinking and think outside the box, you know?

But that's why we're here, right? Osvaldo on YouTube from the life of 20 asking here at Chateada. I don't even put the channel link. Professor Luciano Rodrigues said this here; it's here, people. It's here in the video description. The at is the name of the channel, the necromancer's tent.

Maybe it was unclear here, but take a look there. The necromancer's tent is the name of Professor Osvaldo's channel. It is here in the description; just click, and you'll be taken there. Subscribe; it's already here below.

So Osvaldo, you finish by just talking a little about your channel. So what is the proposal for people who subscribe there? You will find it there. Why should they leave a subscription on your channel?

So it's a pleasure, and I had a profile on Facebook until 2018. But Brazil in 2018 was impractical for me. It was making me a violent person rhetorically. I closed the account, but I have everything I wrote saved. I tried to read my texts from the last two months before closing the account.

I was out of the ordinary. I was so disgusted with Brazil because of the events related to politics that I closed the account. But it only comes; everything I have, one thousand and one hundred pages of text, is enough to publish 10 books.

One thousand one hundred pages of text just from YouTube, and I have a test book, Facebook provocations Anas. It was a book that the publisher asked me to put together, published post. I don't have to sell; it is in the bookstore for something that I never imagined a dick.

Even provocations Facebook Anas, I think I'm going to sell to make nine more little books that I have to do. Then I abandoned social networks. I don't hate cell phones; there's no WhatsApp.

Then last year, a person there common suggested my name to Cláudio Crib from Caminhos do Imaginário. You know Cláudio Crib? I haven't done a live with him yet; I intend to call him one day, but he's already at his work. He likes her.

If I were a Kardecist, I would say he's a soul, the spirit of light provoking him. He's yours. So he's a very enlightened soul. He called me for a live, then we did a tear for four hours there. He said, "You have to make a channel for four hours there."

Then he called another one; we did another for three hours there. "You have to make a channel." Then he called another four hours from there. Now in January, he called 35 hours delivery. He went, "Valdo, you will not come back here if you do not make a horse there business that fishing."

I will open a channel; I will cause trouble for myself because I don't measure; I don't change the model. But I am like this classroom; there is no way. I am this here where you tell me your. This here is to go.

He will; I will get into trouble. I will open. And then it went wrong because I fell in love. I am in love; I opened the channel, the tent of the right chromatic and tent, right? It's not an answer; it's not a tent, the necromancer's answer.

And then why is it that the necromancer's tent has a channel for studying the Bible but in a scientific way? And they understood that the authors said application of historical-critical methodology. I perfected the methodology.

Then calls the abyss and the historian, the historical-social methodology. And what I want is to understand what the narrator wanted to do with the texts. As I am a Hebrew teacher, I myself translate the Hebrew Bible, do the evangelical.

But as for me, it is not possible to understand biblical text without understanding anthropology, history, phenology, even evolutionary anthropology. Because you deal with creation, you will hear idle talk, and then you have to explain it to the person.

So the channel ends up discussing all these subjects. Any topic that involves the Bible, we can discuss there in the channel. I took the pervert me, and in 45 days, I recorded 270 videos.

In 45 days, I thought you were alone and per day maybe high two per day with an emergency. So sometimes three per day. Saturday and Sunday are three per day. But my channel has a schedule, and there are already videos published that are only released on time until April 18th, like Netflix.

So if you go into the community there, you will have a problem. I already had to do two today, you know? I have a plan there, divided. One of it's cool to hear that since the information is in my head.

After 30 years of teaching, I can only teach. If it's in my head, I don't use the outline, so that doesn't make life easier for me because I can teach a class without being prepared to know what it is. The topic there, two minutes, everything.

So I'm recording today, for example, I recorded seven videos. Hi, what's up, Jamaica? Osvaldo, old man, I'm going to come over there to do an internship with you to learn there in this productivity.

But it's because at this moment, I don't need to research. I'm using the information that I already have, you're right, 30 years. And then I warn you that despite the fact that we have been training for 30 years, they are up to date to be here.

I used cutting-edge choreography, but for example, I'm not going to use it. For example, there's Sergio Sacani's channel, which I love, that astronomy channel. He does what I do. I want to do it in a year's time, take the article that just came out and spread it to Brazil, who will never read this article because nobody reads it.

But for now, not for now, I'm going to burn what I have. And so I think he must have some 500 videos to record without having to open the book. Very good, so a very nice experience. It's a community; there we go.

I don't allow discussion; the network is of any nature. You can't mock any religious person, so the community doesn't have fights. There are no discussions, and I also don't allow it.

What a believer arrives to evangelize, and the guy arrives and does the, and for no one just looks here. You can't; you can discuss. But if it is based on, if you do the blocking again, then blocking.

Then we are managing to build a community. What excites me, my expectation is in a year, two years, I built a working community. Understand? I already started recording videos to teach the community how to do Jessica, how do I do it?

I know it will take two years; I'll have to do it. But I want to prepare people so that in two years, a research group will be there to do research on the Bible in scientific terms. There are good people there; there's a boy who, wow, I'm talking about something.

It already comes with 18 glasses. I'm looking at it; damn, it's getting lost out there. There are people lost out there. They're cute. They don't have the opportunity here. Yes, he knows that the Bible can be studied in an Academy way.

That's why I was going to end by saying this: whoever read the Bible in church has no idea what the Bible is. I didn't like that phrase at all. What you learn from the church about the Bible, what's up?

What's up, people can learn because it's the Portuguese language. It's a person with good literacy made that is not functionally illiterate and tends the text. But first, has to deconstruct the addicted mode. The problem is the addicted access.

Yes, I advise when you interpret. Professor Osvaldo was very good. I just wanted to thank Eliel Vieira, who sent a question about Marcos secreto that I don't know what it's about.

And also Rogério Matias, who asked you to talk to the decade. I lost here in the chat, and our people, the chat today was our who caught fire here. Spoke up again, work 6 Mac.

This new Rogério of the aunt was not taken to the date. How is the movement? Who changed the calendar like that? But he sent another question on the list. But then I just wanted to tell Rogério and Eliel that you accept orders there in the necromancer's tent.

There is a person, one of the fights, and you record videos based on the questions. So sorry about that, Rogério, but we have to finish here. As I said, right, that would be the last question.

But I look for Professor Osvaldo on his channel, and I'm sure he'll probably answer you with a video. Look here, what an honor here, great Osvaldo. Thank you for a very cool chat. I loved it; I learned a lot from you here.

I will continue following your channel. I recommend everyone to follow me. I left the two at Valdo below. I need to follow the content; he is a machine gun and the video every day, sometimes 2 or 3 a day.

Envy. Congratulations, Osvaldo. I hope you don't go with you in another Live later on. It was a pleasure; thanks. It's a pleasure. Thanks, chat, guys. That's it. Thanks, Marcelo. Thanks for moderating, as always, here the fights in the chat that every now and then catch fire.

The business here, I'm very happy for everyone. Almost a thousand people watched us here from start to finish, so the desire for a third of us almost reached a thousand. So until now at 10:00 pm, I thank everyone. Leave a like and subscribe to the channel. Activate the bell.

I know you're going to the future in 2084. Don't forget to comment below. What did you think of this serious talk? Bye.