Scripture and Symbol: The Bible as the Key to Reality 

I have joined this channel as tier 1 member,how can i access your daily scripture reflections? I am facing payment issues in substack and patreon

​ Thanks for reminding me of this. I don't have many members through RU-vid but what I'll do in the next couple weeks is create a Doc to allow members to access the content as well as patrons. In the meantime, if you want to send me your email address at seraphimhamilton@gmail.com, I'll gift you a substack subscription so you can access them now. Thanks so much!

@@Seraphim-Hamiltonyo interview redeemed zoomer

​@@Seraphim-Hamiltoni have emailed you

Yes, I love that book!

@@Seraphim-Hamilton Thanks brother!!

The icon is called "Christ The High Priest"

@@anthonyp6055 thank you so much

You should have gotten them now. I check 3 or 4 times a day to see who purchases and then send them. I sent them this morning when I got up. Let me know if everything is working!

@@Seraphim-Hamilton I did get them, thanks Seraphim! I look forward to the lectures

I'm not Seraphim obviously but I will take a stab to give you a simple answer. No. You can't get symbolic meaning out of natural theology. Why? If you do natural theology you can only arrive at a sense of wonder over creation and a sense that there is a creator. That is all you will get. You will not get the proper symbolism or view or structure of reality and most importantly the meaning of it from doing natural theology. You see there must be communion between creator and creation for the creation to have a meaning. Likewise the created being must be like unto its creator in some sense to fully appreciate and grasp what he/she is in correspondence to its creator. A cup is only a cup because the creator intended it to be such and will be used as such and have meaning even though the cup is not aware of it. But the creator is aware and gives meaning to the cup but this relationship only goes one way, it has no communion. Communion requires persons and thus symbolism is a manifestation and descriptor of that which is created and given its meaning through communion. This communion begins with speech which is the word of God which is revelation itself in the Gospel. Christ is the ICON and SYMBOL of the Father and it is CHRIST who reveals Him. So in other words,without the creator revealing himself through revelation, you can never come to know Him or his meaning for his creation which is you in this case. You are the cup and you have a purpose and that purpose is to be in communion with your creator which is why God made you a living soul. Natural theology is the study of Cups, symbolism is the understanding of revelation given freely by God to his church. Hope this helps.

@@godsaveskyrieeleison5859 Yes, it definitely helps! Thanks. Also, are you saying that the symbolism that is embedded into creation from the Creator is based or established on the communion God Himself has with his creation? I ask it because you said that there must be communion between the Creator and creation in order that creation may have meaning; and that is very interesting.

@@GadierCasiano Not quite. Creation in this analogy is the Cup. It doesn't understand or is aware of the creator. This is why we humans being made in the likeness of God are unique. We were made as custodians over nature and with a unique ability to be in communion with our creator. We are thus able to directly participate in communion with God. In Orthodoxy this is called synergy. The eucharist is a symbol in as much as it represents the bread of life and the waters of life which is Christ, but in a much more real sense it truly is the sacrament and mystery that heals the faithful and allows him/her to participate Directly in God through his energies. There is a true sense in which God sustains and upholds creation (cup) but that same synergy and communion is given to Us who are able to not only comprehend the meaning given to us but to also reciprocate and participate in it. God willed to create, he didn't have to do so. When he willed to do so out of his limitless love, he in the mode of being Father (mode here not to be understood as in the heresy of modalism) wants to be in communion with that which he has made. Much like I being a father want to have communion with my 4 God given children. It is this LOVE which takes on many expressions that make me in a tiny sense like God, that I am in some small way made after his great likeness. This is the Grace that God grants us and the ULTIMATE symbol of Gods boundless love is the Eucharist/Cross. His willingness to condescend from his Majesty and Glory and be clad in our corruptible and perishable flesh, to endure a human life and all its trials. To be denied, forgotten, disbelieved, spat upon, scourged, hated and ultimately crucified. To be God is to be LOVE itself, which no man can be. That is the CROSS (just a piece of wood) and it's given its meaning as a symbol of LOVE and LIFE by God who creates it. As Christ says "I make all things NEW", what was meant for torture and death by human hands God now turns into LIFE and LOVE. On the other end of that we are shown another symbol on how humanity should commune with God in our lady the Theotokos she who embodied true synergy and life in Christ even before she carried her creator in her womb and all the days of her life. God made Her as all things in his providence and She directs us and is an Icon for Us how to be in relation to God, humility, thankfulness, love, obedience, attention etc etc and Christ is the Icon of the Father, confirming why God is due all worship AND lastly through whom we get to see in the resurrection what awaits us on the last day, being "Theosis". The resurrected Christ is the Icon and image of what we will be in the escaton. The deification of Human nature as a result of living in Christ and through Christ which brings us full circle. To see the symbols and to grasp their meaning requires communion and it requires persons, otherwise creation has meaning given to it by its creator but it doesn't understand it. This is why you and I are different. When you look upon Christ you look upon God who made himself circumscribed so that you can know Him. He gave you revelation so that you can know Him AND live in Him and through Him. Lastly he lived with you and showed you who He is since eternity so that you may have faith and not doubt and to teach you his ways. So when you Look at an Icon/Symbol it is given its meaning because Christ came into the world, because he made the world and everything and everyone in it. Everything in creation has meaning because He willed it to be so and then he made meaning itself possible by His own example. That is what a symbol is. It is what it points to and all of creation points to Christ but you can't get there and know this without Christ revealing it to you. Until revelation (the logos speaking into creation and finally entering into it) creation doesn't know it's meaning or it's worth, it is the existing cup which has purpous yet unaware of it. Hope I didn't mess this up. I truly try to show that that meaning and symbols or only what they are IF Christ exists. Everything starts with him and ends with him. It is NO coincidence that He is the Alpha and the Omega. God bless you. I hope Seraphim sees this and explicates better what I hope to have said. He has a much better way with words than I, and he is much more well read than I am.

No, there is a difference between hypostatic origin and economic procession of the spirit

You guys keep saying that as if we Catholics don't have that distinction clear: to proceed from the Father (unbegotten) is not the same as to proceed from the Son (begotten), All that the Son has he has it from his unbegotten Father, so the Spirit of the Son is the one that he got from his Father, because they both have the same Spirit. We don't believe in the strawman you guys make about the filioque, no matter how many times you try to make that silly claim, everyone comes from the Father, for he is the one that is unbegotten, he is the one who begets, so the distinction comes from the fact that his Spirit is given through procession to his Son, the thing is that the Son gives the Spirit to the Father because he reciprocates the action of the Father, and that reciprocity occurs in eternity, in an atemporal Godly manner, so the procession from the Son is an eternal procession from the Son also, not in the same sense, because the Son is not the unbegotten one, he is reciprocating as a begotten one, not causing as an unbegotten does. It's so tiring to read or hear the silly claims you and your guys make of us, we don't think the Spirit is lower than the Father and the Son, if you understood what we mean by the filioque you would see that it defends the monarchy of the Father, and reinforces the fact that all the persons share the same essence which is the fully selfgiving essence of God.@@mixk1d

@@AprendeMovimiento well the council of Florence specified that what was meant by the Filioque was that the son was, like the father, the source, principle and cause of the holy spirit. So while I understand your frustration and get where you’re coming from, it has actually been spoken about with specificity and I believe you are mistaken

Aitia and Arche are not the same, and causing (aitia) as a begotten one is not the same as causing as an unbegotten one since the latter would cause (aitia) as an Arche (Principle) while the begotten one would not do so in such manner. Florence never said that the Son was Arche of the Spirit. Latins use aitia in many senses, you have first causes, second, third causes, and for a Latin all of those woud be called aitia (cause), the Greeks reserve that term ONLY to the first cause which shows where the communion is lost in translation... But saying aitia doesn't imply being the first cause for the Latins.. Like I said before, it's tiresome to continue to read and hear these strawman arguments. It shows lack of charity, stubbornness, hardness of the heart, and a schismatic divisive mentality that is not willing, to accept what the other truly means just to continue the false dichotomy @@mixk1d