Thanks for listening. I don’t have a Facebook group or discord. You can always message me at transfiguredchannel@gmail.com. I also participate on Paul Vanderklay’s discord and Jacob Feturechi’s discord. If you want links let me know.
36:26 fascinating stuff 'the logos was inside gods wisdom' ....Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors, For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
1:16:10 I’m quoting from memory, but Origen says something somewhere like, “Among Scripture, the Gospels are the firstfruit. And the firstfruit of the Gospels is that of John-whose meaning no one can understand, unless they likewise recline at Christ’s bosom and take up Mary as their mother.”
Thank you for this convo. There was mention several times about Origen's Platonism as applied to his views on the Trinity. I dont understand the connection. I believe that Platonism and neo Platonism are not a bad thing, and I am a trinitarian, but I'm curious why Platonism was mentioned in this convo. The Father is the form of all forms, and Jesus is a form that precedes from the form? I dont get your Platonism references and Origen's thinking. Good channel Sam.
I am confused so the ascetic monks saw Jesus as more divine like hence the ascetism if that king tossed that out doesnt that mean he affirmed the more human side?
12:00 The first mistake of Trinitarians is coming up with a bunch of silly words to describe things. The second mistake is denying Jesus's humanity. The third is denying the divinity of all human beings. You could say it is a Trinity of errors.
I wonder how much of Origen's neoplatonic views on the soul and metaphysics match with mystical Judaism. Origen affirms that John the Baptist was a reincarnation of Elijah for example. Oh and that Elijah/John's soul was that of a mighty high ranking angel before incarnating in Elijah.
@@transfigured3673 You should consider that Elijah is more than the Tishbite. The spirit and mantle of Elijah rested on Elisha, not as a reincarnation but as a contemporary and successor. It was the same power that was given to John the Baptist.
@@transfigured3673 Yosef thinks reincarnation is a later addition to Judaism, he doesn't think it is "native" to Judaism. That heretic. I think it is pretty obvious that Johannine works are in fact very gnostic. My guess is that there were Jews inducted into one or more esoteric groups involved in early Christianity. The "lab leak" as you like to term it.
@@faturechi do you mean gnostic or neoplatonic? I do think there is some early connection with gnosticism in the Johanine stuff but some of the clearest anti-gnostic stuff is also in the Johanine stuff. Also if some esoteric jews were involved in the Johanine stuff who wrote the crayon?
@@transfigured3673 Well, it is difficult to describe whoever these people were as Neo-Platonic as opposed to gnostic, but I have no idea which is a better description. Maybe esoteric? I think it is possible that Johannine things were later edited by the wielder of the crayon or the crayon wielder was influenced by Jews inducted in esoteric groups. The final product, however, has a lot of crayon. I really did not understand why anyone found the documentary hypothesis convincing until I started seriously looking at the Gospels. It seems to me that the Gospels pretty much scream out for the documentary hypothesis in a way that simply is not true of the Hebrew Bible. Christians were perfectly willing to edit the text in ways that the Jewish scribes simply were not.
Re The Word was God. kai theos en ho logos. The word theos is used elsewhere in the New Testament without the article when speaking of eternal God. eg., John 1.6 speaking of John the Baptist as sent from God has para theou (no definite article). Verse 12 tekna theou (God's children), verse 13ek theou egenneetheesan (born from God). Verse 18 Theon oudeis heooraken (No man hath seen God at any time). I borrow from people more thoroughly acquainted with NT Greek than I am, and who are sure that "a definite article is not needed before the second theos in John 1.1 in order to make it definite."(Anthony A Hoekema on Jehovah's Witnesses[Patenoster]).
Well the problem in John 1:1 for trinitarians is what/who does "Theos" refer to. If you say it is God the Father you have the problem "The word was with God the Father and the word was God the Father" If you say it refers to the trinity you have a different problem "The word was with the Trinity and the word was the Trinity" Or you could say it refers to the being of God "The word was with the being of God and the word was the being of God" None of these are satisfactory even to trinitarians. So trinitarians also have to admit two different usages of "theos" in John 1:1 to have it make sense. Normally trinitarians understand it to be something like "The word was with God the Father and the word was God-being" But even then the second "was" is strained because it doesn't mean that the God-being is identical to the logos.
@@transfigured3673 My clumsy way of expressing it is that the Logos, the agent of God's creating and sustaining the creation is not it/himself a creature, but is God Himself. So, that agent is "with" God, as the agent, but also IS God. God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and it is the Son Who is identified as the Logos. We come back here to the inadequacy of language and of our minds to conceive and define the being of God our Creator. We can only maintain the terms which God has used in His word/Scripture, and reason as much as we can on that basis, while recognizing our limitations in considering the ineffable. IF you can accept that the one eternal God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost (as He has chosen as the best way of communicating truth to our limited minds), then when we consider God's creative and sustaining agent, the Logos, we wonder if it is something beside God, ( being an agent relating to the creation it is with God in that sense), when God tells us that the Logos is Himself, we accept the further clarification that the Logos is the function of the eternal Son. The error is to think that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate persons as three human beings are. God is beyond our ability to comprehend, and we must humbly accept the ways He has revealed it in a way accommodated to our understanding.
31:56 Wrong, Hank, so wrong. Those who received the three other Gospels knew Jesus as God with us. That is testified to in those three Gospels. It was the faith of the Church from the beginning and was not entirely dependent on St John's Gospel being written.
@@nathanielkrause4191 If people are named after the Saviour, that does not make them the Saviour. Jesus Christ is uniquely God manifest in the flesh. There is plenty of testimony in all the other NT Gospels and Epistles to the fact that Jesus is Lord, and that the one God has one Name: Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
@@nathanielkrause4191 The testimony to Jesus as God is all through the "synoptic" Gospels. He is the one who commands the winds and waves to obey him, and who calls people to come unto him for salvation. A proper consideration of his words and actions show that he proposes himself as the object of faith and devotion. Matthew's quotation from Isaiah applies to him the name Immanuel, God with us, and Jesus commands in Matthew 28.19 to baptize in the Name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Elizabeth addresses the Blessed Virgin Mary as "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1.43). The Gospels were never meant to stand alone, but to be part of the overall testimony of the Church which already proclaimed Jesus as Lord, and which had Epistles which I understand may have been written prior to the Gospels. Those reading/hearing the Gospels would already have the true faith in Jesus as God become man, and have understood the Gospels in that light.
@@transfigured3673 I try to avoid much of the nonsense coming out from Mr Bergoglio's clique, but some things are hard to avoid if you keep reasonably up to date with current affairs generally. Hank might almost have been quoting him verbatim when quoting that other fellow on the loving thing to do etc.
