วีดีโอ

Thanks for your comment. A few words in reply. 1. I do not think a representation of a thing is a mode of being of that thing. A thing only is a representation because it is taken by someone to be a representation of something else. This means that representation depends on a representing intellect. On the one hand, this "taking as" can be mistaken, as when I think an artist's portrait is of one person when really it was intended as a portrait of another. On the other hand, I can represent for myself things that do not exist. I do not thereby give them being. A representation is an activity of an intellect, not a mode of being of a represented thing. 2. Practical knowledge is a matter of knowing how to do something. That is not the same thing as causing something to exist by knowing it, which is what I was addressing in the video.

Do you affirm Thomasitc Divine Simplicity.

I don’t know anything about that!

@@GregorasProject Thank you so much for your comment!

@@modernmoralist thank you!

I am agnostic about that. From my point of view, I don’t think it really matters.

Thanks for sharing this! I think that is a very attractive reading. Jesus says in v. 11: “Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen, yet you do not receive our testimony.” It’s easy to take this to be a report by Jesus about his own experience of being born anew.

@@drstevennemes I thought it was too. It also works well with John 10:36 where Jesus says, "can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world". He points out that there was a time he was sanctified and sent into the world. This surely can point to the moment he was anointed by God with the spirit. Second, Jesus says to his disciples, "As you have sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world." (17:18). So, he equates his sending with their sending. If someone were to ask "how was Jesus sent" we can reply with John 20:21-22. Just as Jesus sent his disciples by giving the holy spirit, God the Father gave Jesus the spirit and sent him. I think this also builds on all your analysis too. What do you think?

@@Jano342000 I like it!

@@drstevennemes One more thought I had. If Jesus and the Word are distinct can we read John 1:14 like this, "And the Word became flesh and lived among us," (that is to say the Word-Power tabernacled upon/in the human Jesus) and we have seen his glory (that is to say Jesus functions as the glory of the Word-Power), the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth (this would clarify that the Word-Power's glory [i.e. Jesus] was a unique son who was full of grace and truth. Secondly, in John 1:16-17 could we read it as saying, "From his fullness (that is to say the Word-Power's fullness) we have all received, grace upon grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (the Word-Power's grace and truth was realized through the human Jesus Christ). Is this even possible from the Greek grammar? I'm curious if the whole prologue can be read as extended poem about God's word, understood as a power that he utilizes to bring about all things. It also shows us that God's word is a power that he can share with another (i.e. Jesus). The focus of the poem the efficacy, creativity, etc. of this power (i.e. the Word) So, even John 1:10-17 would be about the journey of God's word throughout history (it came to Israel in the past and was accepted and rejected and finally found a home in Jesus). Those that trusted & obeyed the Word(s) of God in the past became children of God (i.e. gods/spirits in their own right see John 3:6-8, 4:24, 10:35 the Father is a god and a spirit entity so he produces gods/spirits in a derivative fashion).

@@tookie36 It may well be apocalyptic literature. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t refer to things that actually happened.

Thank you for your comment. I don't quite understand the argument. What exactly is not in order about the canonical form of Mark's gospel? Papias says that Mark was writing things down out of order because he was transcribing what Peter was preaching to people on various occasions. The canonical form of Mark's Gospel does not read like transcriptions of improvised sermons. I don't see what reason there could be for thinking that Papias was referring to it.

Thank you so much. 🙂

@@kevinmac8629 I don’t agree that the starting point for this doctrine is in the 16th century. I think the earliest figures in Christian history held to a memorialist doctrine. I argue for this in my book, _Eating Christ’s Flesh_ .

@@drstevennemes And were these people under a Bishop? Do we know their names, or their locations?

@@drstevennemes So if you've argued this in your book, can you give an account of these early Christians that held as a normative belief that the Eucharist was purely symbolic?

Are you watching the videos before you comment? I have my doubts.

@@drstevennemes Well I did watch the first two. I waited for something other than appealing to divine simplicity, and it never came. I'm not trying to presuppose your argument but I've so far haven't seen anything new.

@@drstevennemes Nor did you reply to my other comments on the other two videos.

​@@drstevennemes You're doing what so many do. That is the Protestant tendency to only prey upon weaknesses in Catholic doctrine. Similar to the Atheist tendency to only prey upon the weaknesses in Protestant doctrine. Why not focus on the Orthodox Church and see if your theories can hold water?

According to the church fathers, Christ did not really die?

@@drstevennemes Read the last part of book III of John Damascus.

@@kevinmac8629 I did not collapse nature and person. I noted that the consubstantiality of Father and Son implies that there is only one act between them. Are you paying attention at all as you’re watching?

@@drstevennemes And how does that imply an act between them?

@@kevinmac8629 That is how thinkers in the pro-Nicene tradition interpreted the phrase. For Athanasius, the Father and Son are not merely alike but separate, like two bodies, but identical in likeness, i.e. the Father and Son are equally the subjects of numerically one act. For Augustine, the divine nature is simple and completely shared by the three persons. For the Athanasian Creed, there is only one omnipotence, one omniscience, etc. in God, and it belongs equally to Father and Son. John of Damascus there is one act between Father and Son. If you would pay attention to the paper as I’m reading it, you would see that I am not making the mistake you’re claiming.

​@@drstevennemes And what is the one act?

@@kevinmac8629 It doesn’t matter what it is. My point is that if the Father does anything “through” the Son, there is not just one act but rather two. That’s what the logic of the word “through” implies.

Thanks for your comment, Sam! I appreciate the points you raise.

@@Tobias-kk8zf Why should it be a heresy? To me it seems true.

@@drstevennemes Dear Dr Nemes-Thank you fr your reply. With regard to the heresy of Photinus, it is striking that both Pro-Nicene and Arian prelates condemned it as the heresy most to be abhorred. As the First Creed of Sirmium states: "Whoever does not say that Christ is God, Son of God, as being before ages, and having subserved the Father in the framing of the universe, but that from the time that He was born of Mary, from there He was called Christ and Son, and took an origin of being God, be he anathema". Moreover, whilst all the Archbishops and Councils of the Church during the 4th century condemned the heresy of Photinus, his most prominent ally was the infamous apostate Augustus Flavius Claudius. The apostate indeed stated that "one holds to be a god can by no means be brought into the womb". Thus with regard to the heresy of Photinus I side with the overwhelming consensus of the Holy Fathers in his condemnation, rather than with a devil worshiping Augustus who sneered at the Incarnation. Finally Dr Nemes, again with all respect, I fear that you not only seek to resurrect a long dead heresy, but undermine the entire Christian faith, given your denial of the Prologue of St John and your perception of Christ as a mere deified man as opposed to the Incarnate Word of the Father. I am truly sorry, yet if this is the end result of Protestantism, I desire no part of it.

@@drstevennemes Precisely Dr, it seems true to you, yet it is wholly heretical in the eyes of both the blessed Fathers and the Arian prelates of the 4th century AD.

@@marcschneiderr Thanks for the correction. I think I saw that too. Unfortunately it’s too late to make a change!

@@accentedreality Can you explain what I did not understand?

Argument from silence. The Spirit is grieved, the Spirit speaks, the Spirit is adored, the Spirit's name is invoked with the Father and Son in baptism, the Spirit hears, etc, all things that point to personage, and any attempt to claim anthropomorphic language is cope.

1 Corinthians 12:4-6, & 11, the Spirit is described as working the same power as God

@@metaphysicswithmike Thank you for your comment!

Dynamic Monarchianism is not the earliest view of Christology. Its an early heresy, sure, but def not the earliest.

​@@Thedisciplemike Hie is it a heresy?

@@kevinmac8629 it denies Christ is by nature God, of same substance as the Father.

@@Thedisciplemike No it doesn't. God the Father is the unoriginate source. That's the mode of operation of His personhood. The Son is eternally beggoton of the Father, which is specific to his Personhood. They are the same in essence.

Genesis one: does not assert the universe was created out of nothing. Creatio ex nihilo is an innovation from the Second Century CE.

@@brianthomassen2209 The revelation in Genesis one? Before there were universes or time, God is. What we know of the universe is that it was not and then it was, brought out of that not by the proceeding forth of the Word and the Breath. How this is so in a physical sense? Divine mystery. But the import is that the distance between the mind and being of God and this physical existence is but a work of Word and Breath. In the first century CE Messianic Jewish writings, the universe is sustained moment by moment by the same means (Letter to the Hebrews chapter one). In the first century CE Gospel of John, chapter one, it is the divine Word who proceeded forth and became flesh and dwelt among us, like a son sent forth from a Father, and the divine Breath gives new life to all those receive this beloved son. How these things are so in a strictly physical sense? Divine mystery. Not going to find the answers in a science textbook.

​@brianthomassen2209 incorrect. - "I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also." - 2 Mac 7:28 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" John 1:3

@@Thedisciplemike The claim was Genesis One: asserts creation out of nothing. This is incorrect. Gen. 1:1 does not state creation came from nothing. The opposite is the case. This is the Hebrew " בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ׃." The predicate בָּרָא (bara) means to form, or give shape to, or to craft. It necessarily entails a prior X that is acted upon. Both within the Hebrew itself and the entirety of the Middle Eastern Ancient cosmological traditions, creation is formation. It is the bringing of order from what was chaos. This also applies to Greek Thought. There are no exceptions. Per John 1:3. This is the Koine Greek: πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν The predicate here is γεγονέναι (ginomai). It derives from the Attic (or Classical) Greek ἐγένετο (gignomai). Ginomai does not mean something from nothing. The verb means to be produced from, to be born of, to descend from, or be the product of. It does not indicate being without a prior source. It is the same situation for 2 Mac 7:28. The predicate is never used to mean something from a total absence. Here is the Koine Greek: "ἀξιῶ σε τέκνον ἀναβλέψαντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα ἰδόντα γνῶναι ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ θεός καὶ τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος οὕτω γίνεται" ὄντων or οὕτω when looking in the writing of Xenophon, or Aristotle, or the commentary of Philo was never used or understood as something from total absence. The refer to Gerhard May's work on the subject. "2 Mac 7:28 makes no theoretical distinction on the nature of the creative process, but (is only) a paraenetic reference to God's creative power" Creatio Ex Nihilo is an innovation by Tatian (a pupil of Justin Martyr). This is found in his "Oratio ad Graecos" (Oration to the Greeks). Creatio ex Nihilo was also advocated by Theophilus of Antioch more comprehensively in his second book to Autolycus. These developments all occur within the Second Century. (circa 165CE)

@brianthomassen2209 do you concede your false claim that the idea came from 2nd century? I gave you a 2nd century BC and a 1st century AD proof text. Youve yet to demonstrate the contrary

Thank you for your comment!

Better not to engage at all, in my opinion.

Thanks for your comment. Bilby argues that first there was Q, then there was a first version of Mark, then Marcion’s gospel, and from there the canonical gospels were written in various stages, the process of each one’s composition and redaction being finalized in the middle of the second century. Some people might think that Marcion’s gospel plays the role of Q and that the other gospels were based on it in some way or another. I don’t know enough to give a definite action. But to me it seems clear thar Marcion’s gospel is earlier than the canonical forms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is even a tradition that John dictated his gospel to Papias as a response to Marcion.

@@drstevennemes Thanks. So if there was an earlier version of Mark, and if the gospel Marcion inherited was derived from that, and then eventually Luke was derived from Marcion's gospel, wouldn't we expect to see greater variance in the early Markan and Lukan texts?

​@@seanhogan6893 What do you mean?

@@drstevennemes I guess I'm asking where is the manuscript evidence to support this theory? If there was an earlier version of Mark and an earlier version of Luke then why is there no trace of them? Or is there?

@@seanhogan6893 Well, there is not much manuscript evidence for anything from the first few centuries CE. The most of what we have are small scraps of papyruses the dating of which is highly uncertain. At best they range to the middle of the second century, which is consistent with what I’m arguing in this video. See M. David Litwa's _Late Revelations_ for a discussion of early NT manuscript evidence. And as I mentioned in my video, the first person we know of to clearly say that there are four gospels is Irenaeus in 180 CE.

I disagree on this topic. This is different from modern era, not many Christians were that educated people but rather poor so able to have faith in this inferior cult. Iraneus is not smart guy. He used unreliable sources and his imagination to make certain criticism. That's the reality of intellectual bishop and theologian in this era. The poor people can't even read single script what he said this period. They just go to a church not because they get persuaded with magnificent teaching but because most churches provide free bread and soup. Real smart guys already changed to gnostic cause they got good education in Greek.

Is it not possible that Tertullian and Epiphanius (our two main sources for Marcion's Gospel) were simply sincerely incorrect, rather than outright lying, about Canonical Luke preceding Marcion's Gospel? It seems reasonable to me to think that they may be reliable sources in relaying the contents of a text that was right in front of them, while also being mistaken about the origins of that text. Tertullian and Epiphanius were writing decades and centuries, respectively, after Marcion's death, after all.

Why would we not know what Marcion’s gospel contained when Tertullian and Epiphanius (for example) say what it contains and even quote it?

@@drstevennemeswhat I mean is, the Marcionite priority theory seems to rest on two things: 1, a theoretical version of it produced based on quotations from certain fathers, and 2, that the testimony of those fathers' regarding the origin of this gospel is basically built on lies. But if we can't trust them to have given us an honest explanation of marcion's gospel's origin, why do we trust the quotations of it they give us? If they lied about where it came from then it seems valid to assume doubt on how accurately they quoted it.

​@@AnUnhappyBusiness I did not say that Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius are lying. That implies that they know the truth. The “lie” came earlier. They simply inherited it and passed it off as true, not knowing any better.

@@drstevennemes Dr. Nemes, this was one of my three main critiques. Look it up. There is not “one version” of Marcion’s Evangelion. Multiple scholars have attempted a reconstruction to widely varying results. Even worse for Paul’s letters. Tertullian and Epiphanius never claim to be citing it in its entirety, and if you are skeptical of Irenaeus quoting the NT, how much more of Tertullian writing at the start of the 3rd Century, Epiphanius much later. It seems to be based on biased, one way skepticism.

Thank you for your comment. I have various articles published which you can read for free on my academia.edu page. I present arguments for the existence of God in them. I can’t listen to the video right now to be sure, but I don’t think I said that William insulted me.

@@drstevennemes ok If you didn't find that insulting then that is fine. Don't get me wrong Dr. Nemes but not everyone is trained to read and properly understand high scholarly articles in order to get to know your views. I myself published scholarly works in medicine and I don't expecy laymen to understand them. If its too complicated to answer my question that is fine but don't expect ordinary people to understand your position if you don't try to give an answer on an average level. I personaly think my questions are quite straight forward and either you know there is one God or multiple Gods and that this God (or Gods) is/are God, or you don't know. You can simply say you believe God made a public divine revelation of himself or not. Thanks again.

@@davidszaraz4605 search "Dr. Steven Nemes God Divine Simplicity" on TH-cam... he explains it in depth there.. basically anything that exists has to get its existence from something.. infinite regress is impossible, but even if it was possible, doesn't solve the question ontologically of where the infinite regress's existence is grounded in. If its composite, then there is a higher dimension. That which exists necessarily is God by definition. That's the divine simplicity proof atleast, but not sure what he'd say regarding the incarnation.

My username is nostosaphthitos.