Michael Bird is a genius and I thank God for that. His logic in articulating deep stuffs is fantastic. Thanks Gavin for inviting him to your channel. Gavin, you often mention Plantinga as your source of reference in discovering Anselm. It would be great if you could briefly make a video on the logic of the ontological argument for God's existence in simplistic manner. Thank you for your videos, looking forward to your new book on Apologetics.
@@infotruther Alvin Plantinga is a modern Christian philosopher widely regarded as the man who single handedly brought Christianity back into Philosophy after the positivist movement when it was falling out in even theology. He started a new renaissance in Christian thought with his work on the logical problem of evil (which is often stated by theists and atheists to have wholly defeated the logical problem of evil, leaving only the evidential, after JL Mackie effectively conceded in the 80’s), his founding of Reformed Epistemology alongside a couple contemporaries which has brought forth a series of arguments defending religious belief without argument and the claim that evolution given Naturalism is less likely than Evolution given theism, and (in relation to Anselm) his seminal work in advancing the field of modal logic, or the logic of necessity, in his masterwork The nature of necessity where he introduced his “victorious” modal ontological argument. St. Anselm was a Christian Neoplatonist philosopher in the 12th century who is most famous for the original ontological argument, where the argued that the greatest conceivable being must exist and also that God is either necessary or impossible, God is not impossible, therefore he is necessary. The two of them are among the top 10 most influential Christian philosophers in all of history, in the company of Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibniz, Swinburne, Paley, and Reid.
Michael Bird is a good scholar and very fair in his coverage of opinions that differ from His. I am reading his new book "Jesus Among the Gods". A real brain stretcher for sure, but with my dictionary and google word search to help, I am getting a lot out of this great book on Christian Origins.
Oh really honest do you think somebody who is professionally required to hold to an ideology and is personally dedicated to an ideology is actually going to be on Christian Origins?
@@greglogan7706 Yes, I am not that cynical to think otherwise. Psychological critique is just as easily applicable to people like Bart Ehrman. He and others can be seen as people with an axe to grind. But I look at the arguments of both sides.
I just finished reading "Honouring the Son". A quick and easy, yet deep read! It really helped to solidify what I already knew, but it was also just very interesting to see the difference in focus on devotian instead of doctrine. I am working on a video about Matthew 26:64 and this video as well as the book helped to find some answers to things I needed to consider! Great work brother! 🙏
Hi Gavin, thank you very much for this videos and your service to the Church. It is truly a blessing. Probably out of note, but I would love if you could share more about your life, like a little blog, just to get us more into your daily life. Just saying, would be cool 😎 haha greetings from Mexico! 🇲🇽
Mr. Bird put my exact feelings about the pop-churches into words. Also. . . Gavin, another view asked for a presentation on your life. Same here: I admire your eagerness to learn about what's going on in Christianity and your overall warmth and friendliness. So tell us why you are a Baptist. Not a bad thing at all, but would like to hear "and why NOT a PresbyLuthCathOrtho."
Catholic Apologist, Dr. Brant Pitre has amazing insights into this topic in his book, "The case for Jesus " as Jesus Christ states He is the Bridegroom which God alone is, and Jesus teaches He is Greater than the Temple as God alone is.
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684 What are your thoughts on Brant Pitre's work, "The origin of the Bible". Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
In Revelation 1:8, the one who says he is the Alpha and the Omega is called the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” Verse 4 refers to this same person who is called "him who is, and who was, and who is to come." Then in verse 5, Jesus is spoken of as a *different* person - "and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness." It is clear from these verses that Jesus is not the one who calls himself the Alpha and the Omega.
Bird's reaction at 0:19-0:20 is so funny! And I don't mean that in a bad way at all. It's like, "Oh, you read one of my books! Jolly good!" Love the discussion!
My question for both of the gentleman is pretty simple - you have such a deep connection with your own ideology - as well as a deep professional need for that ideology and somehow, amazingly enough, just like any other cult member, you continue to maintain your own dearly held, professionally required ideology... How surprising is that? As a side note, I see the errors Bart is making in John which is the clearest ontological statement of Jesus being a man of the Gospels (Jn8.40) and certainly there's no angel in Paul or personal pre-existence or some kind of silliness like this. In this matter I suspect Bart's Evangelical grave clothes are still clinging to him.
Lutheranism is traditionally very much in continuity with the history of the church catholic. Early Lutherans translated and published a lot of church fathers works.
Concerning this; Melchizedek, King - Priest - Messiah and the ransom for many. The whole idea of Ransom is to find an equivalent to fit the ransom demand. In our case the only equivalent would be a greater life and thus we find Jesus fulfilling this demand as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek and the power of an endless life. In the act of his self-sacrifice and in accordance with his father's will. The ransom is paid (in more than full) and all the forfeited lives of sin are redeemed. No earthly King could ever solicit such devotion, loyalty and love from his people. That's why the Son of Man is KING of Kings. Take time to express gratitude and thankfulness in offering a sacrifice of praise to Him who full-filleth all and all. For he is our God and we are his ransomed / redeemed people. O' the redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus! Now an: Ode to the Great Melchizedek, King of the Most High God. From earth, to sun, beyond the stars We see thy spender from afar With fainting breath, a fading eye We know Eternity draws nigh Beneath, above, beyond the sky We see thy face, thy August Eye In silent chorus we refrain While in our hearts we whisp thy name We bow our heads in reverent dread You sent your Son, you raise the dead Turn down our hearts, adorn thy bed Thou hast a place to rest thy head O' Seraphim O' Cherubim Thrice Holy hymn enjoin Eternal light, Almighty friend In Endless love, we say Amen! JS 2017 Further thoughts Daniel saw the statue with a head of gold with its historical import. John sees a vision of Jesus in the ascended, exalted Melchizedekian office as the King Priest with a living voice like a feast trumpet speaking pertinent things for the moments at hand. Saul in his Throne Vision Call on the road to Damascus must have seen the glorious piercing light of this Melchizedek as he rules and reigns And I might add, He continues to Rule and Reign for all Eternity even unto the Ages of Ages Amen! Thanks for all the work you do.
Not to nitpick on a tertiary issue, but isn't Anglicanism, at its best, a church started by a secular leader who just wanted to get around the Catholic's prohibition of divorce?
As I listen to Gavin I hear nothing but self-serving desperation for a presupposed theological agenda instead of a man who's genuinely interested in truth I'm okay with the idea that truth unites but I don't see the Gavin is really interested in truth whatsoever
So I just listened to all of Michael Birds nifty reasonings for Jesus being God in the synoptics as well as John. Not only were they singularly unimpressive they simply were dead wrong. Each of his big guns manifested a remarkable amount of both severe assumption and just lousy exegesis to be quite honest.
The Roman Catholic Church has always been faithful to teaching what Jesus Christ and the Apostles taught. Faith alone and Scripture alone, are not what Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught! Peace always in Jesus Christ our Great and Kind God and Savior, He whose Flesh is True food and Blood True drink
To me, it seems that the roman catholic church denies the sufficiency of Jesus Christ to His headship of the church, they add pope to His word they add their sacred tradition to His finished work on the cross, they add the mass which is performed on an altar to His infinite inexhaustible merit, they add a treasury of merit that contains the merits of Mary and all the saints to His purifying blood, they add purgatory to His satisfaction for sin, they have to satisfy their own sin to His high priestly office, they offer the priest to His role as the only sinless mediator they had Mary who is said to be another sinless mediator Since they have to depend on so many mediators, rituals and good works for their salvation in addition to Jesus the savior that they try hard and hope for salvation but no one has assurance if they are saved while in this world. But the scripture clearly says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 Jn 5:13 ESV) Since we can have assurance that we have eternal life and since we have been saved, we give praise, thanksgiving, worship Him and do good works, not vise versa. “God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. 9Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. 10For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago.” Ephesians 2:8-10 NLT
In some senses Yes but in other senses No. Henry viii declared that the Pope had no jurisdiction over the English Church and the thus declared it separate from the rest of Catholic Europe. However, the Anglican church sees itself as the continuation of the Church in England which was established by Augustine of Canterbury in 597 when he became the first Archbishop of Canterbury.
Alex Brown -correct, though we (Anglicans) also see the Anglican Church as going back even beyond the mission of Augustine of Canterbury to the earlier Celtic church that had been there for a few centuries prior.
Did Jesus claim to be Satan? We all know the God of this world is Satan. The Father you spring from is the Devil. The ruler of this world has been condemned. Jesus is a thrid-party mediator to this world and these heavens, from a galaxy far, far, away, so to speak, between you and your Father. No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. (1Jo 4:12 NABO) God is Spirit (Joh 4:24 NABO) No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is at (your) Father's side, has revealed him. (Joh 1:18 NABO) there are, to be sure, many Gods and many Lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, (1Co 8:5-6 NABO) "Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High all of you, Yet like any mortal you shall die (Psa 82:6-7 NABO)
I was challenges by the reference to the Calvary Chapel as a low church. But as the discussion progressed and the language of the first centuries of theology were charitably forgiven for their simplicity, that touched me deeply. I have always wanted to see the simple receive Christ. My passion for the handicapped and homeless have this necessity for simplicity for which I am perfectly called and equipped. This blesses me without your engagement in the topic. Shouldn't the Gospel be treasured and honored as simplistic and most blessed as it reaches the least. I love the history and discussions you provide, but are they as valuable as the more basic "Calvary Chapel" messages.
Herman’s description of Jesus being human, then super-elevated to Divinity after the resurrection sounds familiar to a fundamentalist background. The focus on Jesus’ human state (that he was perfect as a human) pairs well with the “you need to live right” (works-based) rhetoric.
In John 8:58 Jesus is not declaring himself to be God. Some believe Jesus is making an allusion to Exodus 3:14 where God says, “I AM THAT I AM,” according to the King James version. But Jesus did not say that. He used the Greek expression “ego eimi” (“I am”), which was a common expression and was used by several people in the Bible. For example, in John 9:9 the man who Jesus cured of blindness said “ego eimi”, affirming that he was the one cured by Jesus. In Acts 10:21, Peter used “ego eimi” to say, “I am the one you are looking for.” In John 8:58, Jesus is simply saying that he existed before Abraham. “Before Abraham was born, I am.” (The Greek does not capitalize "I AM" as if it were a title.) Other translations translate this verse to more proper English: “Before Abraham was born, I have been” or “I existed before Abraham was born.”
@@timothym2241 At John 8:58, do you really believe Jesus was claiming to be God? If you do, then, you haven't read the whole 8th chapter of John. Consider. Catholics believe God is not one person, but THREE PERSONS! As the Athansaian Creed says: "[The Father, Son, and holy spirit are not three Gods, but ONE GOD." So, look again at John 8:58. Did Jesus say or even imply that the I Am consisted of THREE PERSONS? Uh, no, he didn't. And another thing, did Jesus ever say he was God? NEVER!! Consider what he told the Jews at John 8:40. He said: "But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." In this verse, did Jesus say he was God? NO! Instead, he said he heard the truth FROM God. This verse should remind you of John 7:16, where Jesus said: "What I teach is not my own teaching, but it comes from God, who sent me." In this verse, did Jesus claim to be God, or did he say that God SENT him? And another thing, consider John 8:42. There, Jesus told the Jews: "If God really were your Father, you would love me, because I came from God." In this verse, did Jesus claim to be God himself, or did he say that he say he came FROM God? Also, in this verse, Jesus AGREED with the Jews who said in the previous verse that God was the Father, not the Son. So, no. Jesus never claimed to be God. You would know that if you fully understood John 3:16, where Jesus told a Pharisee: "For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son [JESUS], so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life."
This is actually a pretty good take given the historical context of the English reformation, particularly evident when one looks at the Formularies (Prayer Book, 39 Articles, Homilies) and how they developed. Still, his other point was also good that the Anglican Church, at its BEST, is what the western Catholic Church could have looked like if it embraced the Reformation.
Dr. Bird is an Evangelical Anglican. There are other Anglicans who are Anglo-Catholic and would interpret what Anglicanism is from a different vantage point.
He never claimed it he just done it by his deed's actions speak louder than words. . Like those who claim to know jesus.our actions must align with our words.
@@prod.mohomid Jesus obeyed his father, therfore Jesus cannot be his own father. Equal wills cancel each other out., two masters cannot do anything. Like the Persian ideal of two equal gods.
@@prod.mohomid Jesus only movement claim Jesus was the father himself correct, they deny the trinity concept, which is the most controversial dogma in Christianity. This concept is a very sensitive issue with the Jewish and Islamic monotheistic beliefs. Very subtle distinction between trinity and tritheism. Modalism l believe is that distinction.
