I used to think exactly like Dr. E. Michael Jones, but have come to believe otherwise, after prayerfully doing some work... if it can help anyone: Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you WOULD know my Father as well.” (John 14:6) As the Muslims deny that Jesus is the Son of God, they can't be worshipping the same God as the Christians, otherwise I could say to a Muslim acquaintance who would "catch" me praying: “I’m talking to Allah’s son”... That would be an abomination to her and would, to say the least, make me cringe... So OF COURSE, if there is only ONE God, He is the only One “out there” listening to both the Muslims’ and the Christians' prayers- God does hear the Muslims :-) But still, both objectively AND subjectively EMJ is wrong, because both the Object of our worship (One God in three Persons vs. One God who rejects the Incarnation) and our intentions (different understandings of God expressed differently in the liturgy/prayer) are different. This fact is so important, that Yahweh chose a people and went to great pains to keep them from worshipping idols and other gods, in order to ultimately and fully reveal Himself in his Son- the same Logos which EMJ is always talking about and who gave the Great Commission! Furthermore, Islam was always considered a Christian heresy by the catholic Church, and even of satanic origin, as it denies Jesus’ divinity, and considers Christians as infidels. So WHO exactly inspired the Prophet, and whom, accordingly, was he/are the muslims worshipping? As such, the Muslim's "One God" could very well be compared to a biblical idol or "false god". Vatican II focused on ecumenism and on building bridges, so Lumen Gentium 8 and the New Catechism suddenly claimed we worship the same God together… but that is denying hundreds of years of Tradition and even making Jesus a liar: “he who is not with me is against me, and he who doesn’t gather with me, scatters” (Mt 12:30) “Who has seen me has seen the Father”... --> Has he who has not seen Him SEEN the Father? Conclusion: Cardinal Burke may seem to be wrong, but he is completely right- at least if you believe what the Church, based on the Scriptures, has always taught. And EMJ’s arguments may seem to make sense, but they are fallacious and misleading. Not to mention his portraying Cardinal Burke as possibly believing in 3 Gods (the Trinity), or thinking there are 2 "One God "out there" (the Christians' and the Muslims')... I wonder if EMJ is not overacting his "surprised disbelief" just a tiny-, little-, bit- ... to make his point? :-) I’ve heard EMJ say (talking about ecumenism) that “dialogue” with other religions wasn’t getting us anywhere, and that we should be trying to bring Jews to the catholic faith (my paraphrase, from memory). If they are already worshipping the same God, why bother?! And if that can be said of the Jews, what could, all the more, be said of the Muslims?! Or does EMJ actually agree with what Pope Francis says: “It is not licit that you convince them of your faith (the identity of the “them” isn’t specified); proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path”. We’ve seen the consequences of this false ecumenism, which forsakes the Truth in order to appease and please all :-( It starts with arguments such as EMJ's, and then gets everyone completely confused (if not abandoning the faith altogether). So much for EMJ’s “LOG(-os)IC”! That being said, E. Michael Jones is always very interesting, and even if I don't always agree with him, I usually do and have learned a lot from him... Thanks ++ for his efforts and dedication! God bless...
A very fine comment with critique' - I certainly agree with your points because they agree with Christian Doctrine. His arguments here seem to be cunning by subtle confusion/obfuscation and I'm very amazed that a person that has many writings of value would say such things in opposition to the magisterium/the Catholic Faith! Sometimes when we have attained to a high degree of study and accumulate a following we lose sight of foundational truths and objectivity? Mohammedism is a false, heretical belief, opposing belief in the Triune God: One God in His essence and in 3 Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are the chief mysteries: the Unity and Trinity of God, Who will render to every man according to his works, and the Incarnation, the Death and Resurrection of the Only-Begotten Son of God, 2nd Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ - that a Christian, the Catholic, is bound to believe!! (please see: A Catechism of Christian Doctrine or The 'Penny' Catechism, printed by TAN Books). Yet, try pointing that out to even a modern Muslim and see how far it gets to agreement in your religious beliefs.
Dr Jones's analysis confirms what the Blessed Lady has repeated in many apparitions: that there would be diabolical disorientation in the Church and the World.
At 31:20 this man claims Arabic is not a philosophical language and cannot engage with philosophy... how xenophobic and racist. I respect his knowledge, but Islam (which is expressed in Arabic) has a HUGE history rooted in philosophy...
Isaiah 1:18 God says "come let us reason together". Dr. Jones reminds me of that passage when he talks about "reason" existing before our Lord's incarnation.
Reason existed in Adam, because Adam is the creature of body and rational soul. Body is intrinsically bound to sensory input from the movement in nature, for which time is required, and therefore rational mind cannot be God's mind, because God is not learning anything from movement nor He needs anything to learn. It is not the manner God works, nor it is the engine behind creation. St Paul clarifies that, "Yours is to be the same mind which Christ Jesus shewed. His nature is, from the first, divine, … he dispossessed himself, and took the nature of a slave, fashioned in the likeness of men, and presenting himself to us in human form" - Philippians 2:5-7 Apostle clearly tells Christ was firstly God, and only at certain time He became man, with body, rational mind and soul. Ours is to follow Christ the man, who used rational mind properly, as is visible from his debates with scholars, Scribes and Pharisees; Christ refers to Scripture, and explains to them how they abused the Scripture and used wrong thinking to come to absurd conclusions. The Scripture comes through supernatural means, not through dialectics. Scripture is free from errors of rational process. St Paul uses term slave too, because Christ also showed that reason never overreaches the supernatural words of Scripture, but is bound by Scripture, like a slave is bound to its master. That humble attitude is visible in Thomism, but is totally absent in Hegelian dialectics, and in post-Vatican 2 encyclicals, which are full of futile mental contraptions and forced rationalisation.
Thanks, Zvonimir, for ALL your comments below this video, and for your pain. It was worth it! ... What a breath of fresh air :-))... Truth and Living Water... Makes my spirit rejoice :-) God bless!
You should also try to appreciate understanding where Dr Jones erred, because he used Hegelian dialectics to interpret Scripture to finally contradict it. He did not even stop at a certain moment, like Aristotle would, and dismissed the absurdity, but hurled further, like a Hegelian. That buck-goat approach is Protestant, and in the grand Protestant style, Dr Jones ended up with his own dispensationalism.
This in the video, is Hegelian dialectics, not Catholicism. Like a good Hegelian (as Dr Jones called himself once) Dr Jones goes as far as he can, then some more by force, for he never drops the argument if it ends up in absurdity, but tries to circumvent the obstacle to make it work. That is how communism and socialism work, Protestantism too, as Hegel is a child of the latter and inspiration for the former. He was no Catholic (rather called Protestant Aquinas, which is a contradiction in terms, but it works for Protestants). This approach is visible in Vatican 2 documents and post-Vatican 2 encyclicals, because the men who wrote them were Hegelians, and the socialists, but not Thomists or the Catholics. That their mind is alien to Thomism is also visible from their socialist attitudes: Vatican 2 was directed as the revolution, introduced despotic mode of rule in the post-Vatican 2 hierarchy, typically socialist carelessness for true welfare of people and negligence for the assets. But let's explain problems with Dr Jones’ arguments. Quote: "He explains the concept that God is Logos, which means reason and includes the law of non-contradiction. If you violate the law of non-contradiction you violate God who is Logos." Answer: St John uses the Greek term logos in the Gospel, because it means the ’word'. But Dr Jones explains the ‘word’ up to the level he is comfortable with in rational dialectics; then he forces another argument (of non-contradiction) to have it his way. When limited understanding and even more limited explanation of Scripture is forced into a confine, the result of it must then contradict the Scripture, because the Scripture comes through supernatural means, not through dialectics. Scripture is free from errors of rational process. Instead, he should have used Thomistic, or Catholic approach which already provided sufficient answers about logos, but he rather finds escape in dictionaries, and a document signed by John Paul 2, that uses same futile approach, and therefore share similar futile conclusions. He is not after already established meaning, but after a light-bolt that will give life to the dispensationalist contraption. This deserves a long article and numerous quotations from the Summa and the Scripture, but here is the gist: Does the 'word' immediately imply reason? No. St Jerome did not translate Greek logos (λόγος) in Latin ratio (reason), but instead, “In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.” (John 1:1) He used Verbum by inspiration and much deeper theological sense. ‘Word' has at least three prior implications before taken as “talk” through the faculty of speech: (1) comprehensibility, (2) concepts and (3) order. When the apostle writes "At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God", he writes of (1) power of comprehensibility, which existed before creation, and it was God's alone. Then he writes of (2) intellectual concepts; we must first have power of comprehensibility and concepts to claim intelligence. That faculty of understanding concepts, and the power to create concepts, comes from God, but heaven and earth comprehend concepts differently. Humans (usually) come to understanding of new concepts by using reason (ratio), through motion in time, intrinsic to our species, but God and angels are above rational process. They do not require correlation or juxtaposition of one thing against the other to ascertain quotient (ratio), which then helps better understand either or both. Above rational reach are matters of supernatural inspiration and faith too, which exist in fullness (not in ratio), to which we have an access through the Spirit and direct intercession of heaven. (3) 'Word' or logos means order. Where order comes from? God is ordered as the Holy Trinity, and through the procession of persons of God all order comes; otherwise we would have no concept of order whatsoever. All of that precedes human faculty of reason, which came last. The creation went for a very long without need for reason, intrinsic to humans. Therefore three Magi did not comprehend 'order', but were still in the process of examining its consequences, that have beginning before creation, but to which they had no access. Nor could they fathom it. From their answer in Jerusalem we understand they in fact read some fragments (but not all) of the Scripture, available to them from times of exodus of Judeans in Babylon and Media. That was the primary, and supernatural source of their information - otherwise, the star would have passed as another temporary happenstance in the sky. Reason can never be used for the explanation of logos in terms of Gospel by John. God does not need dialectic process which requires ratio to come to conclusions, nor the Three Persons argue between each other to come to conclusions or agreements (as Pope Francis put it, that in the Holy Trinity there is continuous arguing; that alone tells how pathetic the post-Vatican 2 structure has become; even if we forget for a moment how blasphemous that is, it is truly a miserable new theology. There is indeed a link between Dr Jones’ remarks and those of Pope Francis, for they follow same or very similar school of thought, and Dr Jones’ remarks eventually must end in conclusions of Pope Francis - if God needs ratio, He then needs to continuously look for truth, that may be both within or without, which means, in the world He created as well. Which is absurd, but perfectly fits the dialectics encouraged by the Vatican 2).
Logos is not "Word", that is just a simple English translation for a deep Greek Philosophical Concept. John wrote in Greek and anchored his writing in Greek Philosophy, which the Greek speaking Jewish communities of places like Alexandria were familiar with.
Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, who represents to those who say they worship God without knowledge, "we Jews worship God whom we know but you Samaritans worship whom you do not know. The Father wants to be worshiped in Spirit and Truth." Based on this critical knowledge of God, Jesus claim He is the Truth and no one comes to the Father except thru Him. So how is it possible that the Muslims who reject Truth itself as not being co-equal with the Father worship the same God as Christians do? It seems that the issue is about nominslism and realism. Just because they say they worship one God it does not mean they do so. However, in saying that there is only two ways to convert the non-Christian believers. 1) by force, 2) by non-violence. The first one, we know it does not work. The second one, however, either as Dr. Jones trying to do by awakening the highest consciousness of Logos in others by purging inhibiting disordered passion and thus made ppl recognize the LORD is who says He is. On this second part of course which could unite both Muslims and Christians is the role of Mary who both belives she is ever virgin. Our Lady in fact tried to do that when she appeared in Egypt, Zaitun, in 1968 for two years. In deed both the best of natural and the supreme reality of supernatural meets in Logos Incarnate.
Peter, I thought it would be good do a show to explore millennialism, with a particular focus on early church views on it. The view I hold is amillenialism but the evangelicals/jews are looking for an earthly kingdom set up in Jerusalem, Israel. The Jews go as far to say that their Messiah must appear before the Hebrew year 6000. We are at their year 5777 right now. Looks like they have date stamped the appearance of the Antichrist to me. I enjoy the show, thank you for it's production. God bless you and your guest.
I still am planning on finishing the review of Robert Sungenis's third part in Culture Wars magazine on the Jews and Israel. I am wanting to do it with Matt Eby since he studied this type of eschatology at Moody, Gordon-Conwell and Wheaton, (all dispensational schools). He survived those places and did reject their zionist eschatology. I will mention your email to him and make sure we cover your concern.
PETER HELLAND Great! The premillenial dispensationalist and now those calling themselves historic/apostolic premillenialist are saying the early church and apostles taught Chiliasm (premillenialism). When you look at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 a.d, they labeled Apollinarius, the main advocate of Chiliasm a heretic. This subject addresses if the kingdom of God has already come (When Jesus appeared the first time) or are we still waiting for it (when Jesus appears the second time).
"Mike defends his position in part by referring to the encyclical Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II" Does Dr. Jones realize that John Paul II was a phenomenologist? i.e., does not believe in Logos? www.philosophybasics.com/branch_phenomenology.html Has Dr. Jones read Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pius X? In any case, quoting a Vatican II Pope (who, BTW always refers to the Catholic church as the 'conciliar/new advent' church) doesn't strengthen the case for the Catholic Church, or the law of non-contradiction - it only weakens it. Vatican II was not a council and all of the documents that came out of that disaster don't even define any dogma anyway. How does Dr. Jones square the Law of non-contradiction with the First Commandment?? I'll say it AGAIN: Leave the Theology to the CHURCH DOCTORS!!! "we are heading for a real problem unless we can discover a much better way to talk with each other." I have a better idea: Why not do what the gospel tells you to do? Go and convert all nations. Problem solved. You don't have to associate with nations that won't convert.
Although all 3 monotheists faiths claim to believe in one God, only Christianity defined the Nature of God differently from the other two . In other words, all 3 believe that God is Eternal, Omniscient & Omnipresent Etc.( His attributes) only the New Testament describes God's Trinitarian nature. By His attributes, God is One for all 3 religions: but by His Nature, the Triune God of Christianity is different from the Unitarian God believed by both Muslims and Jews.
From a muslim.. Any muslim fellow would agree on most of the things dr. Jones says.. Because simply we are all based on Reason and faith in one God.. We are in the same basket!!
It is just common sense to say we have to talk and reason out are problems and differences. We do it all the times in our marriages families relationships etc. If we dont do this we have chaos. I was hoping Cardinal Burke was going to go on Peters show. It would be good to have a Muslim on also.Maybe it could be Mike and Kevin Barret. That could be a start.
Great show! I really have nothing to add, except I wish to give at an up vote against the opinion of some of the weak sisters here. My God, try and get it together people.
His argument is so fake. He even mocks Burke, "Is cardinal Burke a polytheist?" Since they claim to worship the only God, they worship the only God. It doesn't matter which are the traits they attribute to God. So goes his reasoning. Please, give a source prior to Vatican II for it.
Let's say. Muslims deny the Trinity, deny the divinity of Christ. Still, despite it, they worship the true God. Muslims believe God endorses the conduct of Mohamed. But still, they worship the true God. This is his reasoning.
ArsenioNassera That's correct. Just like St. Paul said the unbelieving Jews had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. Believing different things about the same person doesn't mean it's two different people. Pretty obvious.
ArsenioNassera So if I believe my father's birthday is November but it's actually December then I don't know my own father, or the father I thought I knew never existed. That's silly. This isn't about the totality of what men believe about the Creator.
At 53:00 he claims he's "asking people to talk to each other in a reasonable fashion" after ranting about and openly condemning feminism, homosexuality, Islam, universities etc... really???????????????? One single words can sum this man up: H Y P O C R I T E.
Love your show Peter, I have some of Dr EMJs books, love his work also but he's wrong when he says Muslims worship the same God as Christians, needs to go back before Vat II - Muslims reject the divinity of Christ, the Trinity and the idea of God as Father
I saw this article by a Catholic writer that reveals an apparent huge divide in the Catholic Church apparently partially created by Vatican II. Dr Jones agrees with Michael Voris that you must be Catholic to be saved in addition to believing in the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ. ronconte.com/2023/11/22/michael-voris-forced-to-resign-from-church-militant-due-to-violation-of-morality-clause/
At 35:00 the claim is made that the feminist movement is not operating on any logos - this just gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on. You really have to cherry pick the shards of brilliance that exist in this lecture. The rest is bias, discrimination and bigotry and should be abandoned. They are merely bolstering their own world-view, not transcendental truths.
The Bible says there are many so-called gods, some are more or less similar to the One True Most High God, yet none of the others are One with Him and His Son. 1 Cor 8 5.
Hello Peter, I love your show especially when EMJ is your guest. I believe he and you have done much to shed light on the origin of many of the problems we are faced with in society today. I recently stumbled upon a talk given by Scott Hahn that I believe is foundational for a proper understanding of much of what has taken place in Western Culture since the 14th century. The video by Hahn explains the paradigm shift from the via antiqua to the via moderna in western thinking and practice and how that has had a profound impact on every aspect of Western Culture. I will put a link to the video below. Thanks again for your efforts in trying to bring Logos to to an irrational world. God Bless. th-cam.com/video/CTMX4C169bg/w-d-xo.html
3:45 Allah gives you the good news with a WORD from Him that you will be given a son: his name will be Messiah, Isa (Jesus Christ) the son of Maryem. He will be noble in this world and the Hereafter; and he will be from those who are very close to Allah. Kalimah is used in the Quran many times and means word, divine utterance, and inspiration. Christians and Muslims could easily discuss logos more easily. Dr. EMJ is right we just have different understandings of God, just like amongst Christians.
This was interesting - except the fact that he's trying to express the complex connection between faith and reason while simultaneously conveying his homophobic ideology. Suddenly, the depth and sophistication of his argument becomes undermined because his claims are all about perpetuating his own world-view (homophobia), not solely and actually about the history of faith and reason.
He has a problem with the Khalif in Islam making bold claims about theological truths, yet, he has no issue with Jesus making equally as bold claims about theological truths... this man is full of bias and contradictions himself. He himself holds claims that his understandings of theology (rooted in christianity) are supreme and correct - this is a clear bias.
"Faith is a habit of the mind whereby eternal life is begun in us, making the intellect assent to what is non-apparent." - St. Thomas Aquinas
I used to think exactly like Dr. E. Michael Jones, but have come to believe otherwise, after prayerfully doing some work... if it can help anyone:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you WOULD know my Father as well.” (John 14:6) As the Muslims deny that Jesus is the Son of God, they can't be worshipping the same God as the Christians, otherwise I could say to a Muslim acquaintance who would "catch" me praying: “I’m talking to Allah’s son”... That would be an abomination to her and would, to say the least, make me cringe...
So OF COURSE, if there is only ONE God, He is the only One “out there” listening to both the Muslims’ and the Christians' prayers- God does hear the Muslims :-) But still, both objectively AND subjectively EMJ is wrong, because both the Object of our worship (One God in three Persons vs. One God who rejects the Incarnation) and our intentions (different understandings of God expressed differently in the liturgy/prayer) are different. This fact is so important, that Yahweh chose a people and went to great pains to keep them from worshipping idols and other gods, in order to ultimately and fully reveal Himself in his Son- the same Logos which EMJ is always talking about and who gave the Great Commission!
Furthermore, Islam was always considered a Christian heresy by the catholic Church, and even of satanic origin, as it denies Jesus’ divinity, and considers Christians as infidels. So WHO exactly inspired the Prophet, and whom, accordingly, was he/are the muslims worshipping? As such, the Muslim's "One God" could very well be compared to a biblical idol or "false god".
Vatican II focused on ecumenism and on building bridges, so Lumen Gentium 8 and the New Catechism suddenly claimed we worship the same God together… but that is denying hundreds of years of Tradition and even making Jesus a liar: “he who is not with me is against me, and he who doesn’t gather with me, scatters” (Mt 12:30) “Who has seen me has seen the Father”... --> Has he who has not seen Him SEEN the Father?
Conclusion: Cardinal Burke may seem to be wrong, but he is completely right- at least if you believe what the Church, based on the Scriptures, has always taught. And EMJ’s arguments may seem to make sense, but they are fallacious and misleading. Not to mention his portraying Cardinal Burke as possibly believing in 3 Gods (the Trinity), or thinking there are 2 "One God "out there" (the Christians' and the Muslims')... I wonder if EMJ is not overacting his "surprised disbelief" just a tiny-, little-, bit- ... to make his point? :-)
I’ve heard EMJ say (talking about ecumenism) that “dialogue” with other religions wasn’t getting us anywhere, and that we should be trying to bring Jews to the catholic faith (my paraphrase, from memory). If they are already worshipping the same God, why bother?! And if that can be said of the Jews, what could, all the more, be said of the Muslims?!
Or does EMJ actually agree with what Pope Francis says: “It is not licit that you convince them of your faith (the identity of the “them” isn’t specified); proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path”. We’ve seen the consequences of this false ecumenism, which forsakes the Truth in order to appease and please all :-( It starts with arguments such as EMJ's, and then gets everyone completely confused (if not abandoning the faith altogether). So much for EMJ’s “LOG(-os)IC”!
That being said, E. Michael Jones is always very interesting, and even if I don't always agree with him, I usually do and have learned a lot from him... Thanks ++ for his efforts and dedication! God bless...
A very fine comment with critique' - I certainly agree with your points because they agree with Christian Doctrine. His arguments here seem to be cunning by subtle confusion/obfuscation and I'm very amazed that a person that has many writings of value would say such things in opposition to the magisterium/the Catholic Faith! Sometimes when we have attained to a high degree of study and accumulate a following we lose sight of foundational truths and objectivity? Mohammedism is a false, heretical belief, opposing belief in the Triune God: One God in His essence and in 3 Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are the chief mysteries: the Unity and Trinity of God, Who will render to every man according to his works, and the Incarnation, the Death and Resurrection of the Only-Begotten Son of God, 2nd Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ - that a Christian, the Catholic, is bound to believe!! (please see: A Catechism of Christian Doctrine or The 'Penny' Catechism, printed by TAN Books). Yet, try pointing that out to even a modern Muslim and see how far it gets to agreement in your religious beliefs.
Dr Jones's analysis confirms what the Blessed Lady has repeated in many apparitions: that there would be diabolical disorientation in the Church and the World.
At 31:20 this man claims Arabic is not a philosophical language and cannot engage with philosophy... how xenophobic and racist. I respect his knowledge, but Islam (which is expressed in Arabic) has a HUGE history rooted in philosophy...
Does the Synagogue of Satan worship the same God ? Give me a break. Mr. Jones still need to do some homework.
They worship them selves..
Alchemystic is thinking on another level 🤔
Isaiah 1:18 God says "come let us reason together". Dr. Jones reminds me of that passage when he talks about "reason" existing before our Lord's incarnation.
Actually Peter Helland just quoted that also....
Reason existed in Adam, because Adam is the creature of body and rational soul. Body is intrinsically bound to sensory input from the movement in nature, for which time is required, and therefore rational mind cannot be God's mind, because God is not learning anything from movement nor He needs anything to learn. It is not the manner God works, nor it is the engine behind creation. St Paul clarifies that,
"Yours is to be the same mind which Christ Jesus shewed. His nature is,
from the first, divine, … he dispossessed himself, and took the nature
of a slave, fashioned in the likeness of men, and presenting himself to
us in human form" - Philippians 2:5-7
Apostle clearly tells Christ was firstly God, and only at certain time He became man, with body, rational mind and soul. Ours is to follow Christ the man, who used rational mind properly, as is visible from his debates with scholars, Scribes and Pharisees; Christ refers to Scripture, and explains to them how they abused the Scripture and used wrong thinking to come to absurd conclusions. The Scripture comes through supernatural means, not through dialectics. Scripture is free from errors of rational process. St Paul uses term slave too, because Christ also showed that reason never overreaches the supernatural words of Scripture, but is bound by Scripture, like a slave is bound to its master.
That humble attitude is visible in Thomism, but is totally absent in Hegelian dialectics, and in post-Vatican 2 encyclicals, which are full of futile mental contraptions and forced rationalisation.
Thanks, Zvonimir, for ALL your comments below this video, and for your pain. It was worth it! ... What a breath of fresh air :-))... Truth and Living Water... Makes my spirit rejoice :-) God bless!
this was a great show. If you guys ever have a symposium I am coming to a South Bend.
Your dedication to Christ is an inspiration to me.
Dan Drazenovich. Mike has had them before. Maybe he will want to do another.
Thank you for the hard work on this show. I appreciate. Dr. EMJ insights.
happy Easter
You should also try to appreciate understanding where Dr Jones erred, because he used Hegelian dialectics to interpret Scripture to finally contradict it. He did not even stop at a certain moment, like Aristotle would, and dismissed the absurdity, but hurled further, like a Hegelian. That buck-goat approach is Protestant, and in the grand Protestant style, Dr Jones ended up with his own dispensationalism.
Thank The Lord for faith and reason.
This in the video, is Hegelian dialectics, not Catholicism. Like a good Hegelian (as Dr Jones called himself once) Dr Jones goes as far as he can, then some more by force, for he never drops the argument if it ends up in absurdity, but tries to circumvent the obstacle to make it work. That is how communism and socialism work, Protestantism too, as Hegel is a child of the latter and inspiration for the former. He was no Catholic (rather called Protestant Aquinas, which is a contradiction in terms, but it works for Protestants).
This approach is visible in Vatican 2 documents and post-Vatican 2 encyclicals, because the men who wrote them were Hegelians, and the socialists, but not Thomists or the Catholics. That their mind is alien to Thomism is also visible from their socialist attitudes: Vatican 2 was directed as the revolution, introduced despotic mode of rule in the post-Vatican 2 hierarchy, typically socialist carelessness for true welfare of people and negligence for the assets. But let's explain problems with Dr Jones’ arguments.
Quote: "He explains the concept that God is Logos, which means reason and includes the law of non-contradiction. If you violate the law of non-contradiction you violate God who is Logos."
Answer: St John uses the Greek term logos in the Gospel, because it means the ’word'. But Dr Jones explains the ‘word’ up to the level he is comfortable with in rational dialectics; then he forces another argument (of non-contradiction) to have it his way. When limited understanding and even more limited explanation of Scripture is forced into a confine, the result of it must then contradict the Scripture, because the Scripture comes through supernatural means, not through dialectics. Scripture is free from errors of rational process.
Instead, he should have used Thomistic, or Catholic approach which already provided sufficient answers about logos, but he rather finds escape in dictionaries, and a document signed by John Paul 2, that uses same futile approach, and therefore share similar futile conclusions. He is not after already established meaning, but after a light-bolt that will give life to the dispensationalist contraption.
This deserves a long article and numerous quotations from the Summa and the Scripture, but here is the gist: Does the 'word' immediately imply reason? No. St Jerome did not translate Greek logos (λόγος) in Latin ratio (reason), but instead,
“In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.” (John 1:1)
He used Verbum by inspiration and much deeper theological sense. ‘Word' has at least three prior implications before taken as “talk” through the faculty of speech: (1) comprehensibility, (2) concepts and (3) order.
When the apostle writes "At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word abiding with him, and the Word was God", he writes of (1) power of comprehensibility, which existed before creation, and it was God's alone. Then he writes of (2) intellectual concepts; we must first have power of comprehensibility and concepts to claim intelligence. That faculty of understanding concepts, and the power to create concepts, comes from God, but heaven and earth comprehend concepts differently. Humans (usually) come to understanding of new concepts by using reason (ratio), through motion in time, intrinsic to our species, but God and angels are above rational process. They do not require correlation or juxtaposition of one thing against the other to ascertain quotient (ratio), which then helps better understand either or both. Above rational reach are matters of supernatural inspiration and faith too, which exist in fullness (not in ratio), to which we have an access through the Spirit and direct intercession of heaven. (3) 'Word' or logos means order. Where order comes from? God is ordered as the Holy Trinity, and through the procession of persons of God all order comes; otherwise we would have no concept of order whatsoever.
All of that precedes human faculty of reason, which came last. The creation went for a very long without need for reason, intrinsic to humans. Therefore three Magi did not comprehend 'order', but were still in the process of examining its consequences, that have beginning before creation, but to which they had no access. Nor could they fathom it.
From their answer in Jerusalem we understand they in fact read some fragments (but not all) of the Scripture, available to them from times of exodus of Judeans in Babylon and Media. That was the primary, and supernatural source of their information - otherwise, the star would have passed as another temporary happenstance in the sky.
Reason can never be used for the explanation of logos in terms of Gospel by John. God does not need dialectic process which requires ratio to come to conclusions, nor the Three Persons argue between each other to come to conclusions or agreements (as Pope Francis put it, that in the Holy Trinity there is continuous arguing; that alone tells how pathetic the post-Vatican 2 structure has become; even if we forget for a moment how blasphemous that is, it is truly a miserable new theology. There is indeed a link between Dr Jones’ remarks and those of Pope
Francis, for they follow same or very similar school of thought, and Dr Jones’ remarks eventually must end in conclusions of Pope Francis - if God needs ratio, He then needs to continuously look for truth, that may be both within or without, which means, in the world He created as well. Which is absurd, but perfectly fits the dialectics encouraged by the Vatican 2).
Thank you so much for the comment. That explained what was bothering me in Dr. Jones views. His allegiance to Vatican II was also a big part of that.
Logos is not "Word", that is just a simple English translation for a deep Greek Philosophical Concept. John wrote in Greek and anchored his writing in Greek Philosophy, which the Greek speaking Jewish communities of places like Alexandria were familiar with.
Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, who represents to those who say they worship God without knowledge, "we Jews worship God whom we know but you Samaritans worship whom you do not know. The Father wants to be worshiped in Spirit and Truth." Based on this critical knowledge of God, Jesus claim He is the Truth and no one comes to the Father except thru Him. So how is it possible that the Muslims who reject Truth itself as not being co-equal with the Father worship the same God as Christians do? It seems that the issue is about nominslism and realism. Just because they say they worship one God it does not mean they do so. However, in saying that there is only two ways to convert the non-Christian believers. 1) by force, 2) by non-violence. The first one, we know it does not work. The second one, however, either as Dr. Jones trying to do by awakening the highest consciousness of Logos in others by purging inhibiting disordered passion and thus made ppl recognize the LORD is who says He is. On this second part of course which could unite both Muslims and Christians is the role of Mary who both belives she is ever virgin. Our Lady in fact tried to do that when she appeared in Egypt, Zaitun, in 1968 for two years. In deed both the best of natural and the supreme reality of supernatural meets in Logos Incarnate.
What is the name of the play Jones calls the best of all time that was written by Euripdies ...? Probably spelled that wrong. Great show... thanks
No No No ....... The Man Mohamad is the antithesis of Jesus
Christ is the Logos, and you want to reason with the anti-logos, good luck.
Peter,
I thought it would be good do a show to explore millennialism, with a particular focus on early church views on it. The view I hold is amillenialism but the evangelicals/jews are looking for an earthly kingdom set up in Jerusalem, Israel.
The Jews go as far to say that their Messiah must appear before the Hebrew year 6000. We are at their year 5777 right now. Looks like they have date stamped the appearance of the Antichrist to me.
I enjoy the show, thank you for it's production. God bless you and your guest.
I still am planning on finishing the review of Robert Sungenis's third part in Culture Wars magazine on the Jews and Israel. I am wanting to do it with Matt Eby since he studied this type of eschatology at Moody, Gordon-Conwell and Wheaton, (all dispensational schools). He survived those places and did reject their zionist eschatology. I will mention your email to him and make sure we cover your concern.
PETER HELLAND
Great!
The premillenial dispensationalist and now those calling themselves historic/apostolic premillenialist are saying the early church and apostles taught Chiliasm (premillenialism). When you look at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 a.d, they labeled Apollinarius, the main advocate of Chiliasm a heretic.
This subject addresses if the kingdom of God has already come (When Jesus appeared the first time) or are we still waiting for it (when Jesus appears the second time).
"Mike defends his position in part by referring to the encyclical Fides et Ratio by Pope John Paul II"
Does Dr. Jones realize that John Paul II was a phenomenologist? i.e., does not believe in Logos?
www.philosophybasics.com/branch_phenomenology.html
Has Dr. Jones read Pascendi Dominici Gregis by Pius X?
In any case, quoting a Vatican II Pope (who, BTW always refers to the Catholic church as the 'conciliar/new advent' church) doesn't strengthen the case for the Catholic Church, or the law of non-contradiction - it only weakens it. Vatican II was not a council and all of the documents that came out of that disaster don't even define any dogma anyway.
How does Dr. Jones square the Law of non-contradiction with the First Commandment??
I'll say it AGAIN: Leave the Theology to the CHURCH DOCTORS!!!
"we are heading for a real problem unless we can discover a much better way to talk with each other."
I have a better idea: Why not do what the gospel tells you to do?
Go and convert all nations. Problem solved. You don't have to associate with nations that won't convert.
Although all 3 monotheists faiths claim to believe in one God, only Christianity defined the Nature of God differently from the other two . In other words, all 3 believe that God is Eternal, Omniscient & Omnipresent Etc.( His attributes) only the New Testament describes God's Trinitarian nature. By His attributes, God is One for all 3 religions: but by His Nature, the Triune God of Christianity is different from the Unitarian God believed by both Muslims and Jews.
From a muslim.. Any muslim fellow would agree on most of the things dr. Jones says.. Because simply we are all based on Reason and faith in one God.. We are in the same basket!!
"...same god...," "...their understanding is different...." Says who?
It is just common sense to say we have to talk and reason out are problems and differences. We do it all the times in our marriages families relationships etc. If we dont do this we have chaos.
I was hoping Cardinal Burke was going to go on Peters show. It would be good to have a Muslim on also.Maybe it could be Mike and Kevin Barret. That could be a start.
Great show! I really have nothing to add, except I wish to give at an up vote against the opinion of some of the weak sisters here. My God, try and get it together people.
His argument is so fake. He even mocks Burke, "Is cardinal Burke a polytheist?" Since they claim to worship the only God, they worship the only God. It doesn't matter which are the traits they attribute to God. So goes his reasoning. Please, give a source prior to Vatican II for it.
ArsenioNassera The traits don't matter? You must not have listened to the entire show.
Let's say. Muslims deny the Trinity, deny the divinity of Christ. Still, despite it, they worship the true God. Muslims believe God endorses the conduct of Mohamed. But still, they worship the true God. This is his reasoning.
ArsenioNassera That's correct. Just like St. Paul said the unbelieving Jews had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. Believing different things about the same person doesn't mean it's two different people. Pretty obvious.
Mac Guyver It isn't two different people because one doesn't exist.
ArsenioNassera So if I believe my father's birthday is November but it's actually December then I don't know my own father, or the father I thought I knew never existed. That's silly. This isn't about the totality of what men believe about the Creator.
At 53:00 he claims he's "asking people to talk to each other in a reasonable fashion" after ranting about and openly condemning feminism, homosexuality, Islam, universities etc... really????????????????
One single words can sum this man up: H Y P O C R I T E.
This man is brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
E Michael Jones - the Guv'nor!
Love your show Peter, I have some of Dr EMJs books, love his work also but he's wrong when he says Muslims worship the same God as Christians, needs to go back before Vat II - Muslims reject the divinity of Christ, the Trinity and the idea of God as Father
I saw this article by a Catholic writer that reveals an apparent huge divide in the Catholic Church apparently partially created by Vatican II. Dr Jones agrees with Michael Voris that you must be Catholic to be saved in addition to believing in the gospel of the death and resurrection of Christ.
ronconte.com/2023/11/22/michael-voris-forced-to-resign-from-church-militant-due-to-violation-of-morality-clause/
At 35:00 the claim is made that the feminist movement is not operating on any logos - this just gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on. You really have to cherry pick the shards of brilliance that exist in this lecture. The rest is bias, discrimination and bigotry and should be abandoned. They are merely bolstering their own world-view, not transcendental truths.
The Bible says there are many so-called gods, some are more or less similar to the One True Most High God, yet none of the others are One with Him and His Son. 1 Cor 8 5.
Hello Peter, I love your show especially when EMJ is your guest. I believe he and you have done much to shed light on the origin of many of the problems we are faced with in society today. I recently stumbled upon a talk given by Scott Hahn that I believe is foundational for a proper understanding of much of what has taken place in Western Culture since the 14th century. The video by Hahn explains the paradigm shift from the via antiqua to the via moderna in western thinking and practice and how that has had a profound impact on every aspect of Western Culture. I will put a link to the video below. Thanks again for your efforts in trying to bring Logos to to an irrational world. God Bless.
th-cam.com/video/CTMX4C169bg/w-d-xo.html
3:45 Allah gives you the good news with a WORD from Him that you will be given a son: his name will be Messiah, Isa (Jesus Christ) the son of Maryem. He will be noble in this world and the Hereafter; and he will be from those who are very close to Allah.
Kalimah is used in the Quran many times and means word, divine utterance, and inspiration. Christians and Muslims could easily discuss logos more easily. Dr. EMJ is right we just have different understandings of God, just like amongst Christians.
This was interesting - except the fact that he's trying to express the complex connection between faith and reason while simultaneously conveying his homophobic ideology. Suddenly, the depth and sophistication of his argument becomes undermined because his claims are all about perpetuating his own world-view (homophobia), not solely and actually about the history of faith and reason.
Magic = Magi = the first public recognition of Jesus
He has a problem with the Khalif in Islam making bold claims about theological truths, yet, he has no issue with Jesus making equally as bold claims about theological truths... this man is full of bias and contradictions himself. He himself holds claims that his understandings of theology (rooted in christianity) are supreme and correct - this is a clear bias.
Not catechism logos
No you're still wrong Dr Jones. You and Voris are two peas in a pod.
Care to explain why hes wrong?
Logos Rising
And further more, Dr Jones is way out of his area, he is not a theologian...and he speaks with zero authority on the Catholic Faith.
He needs to stick to talking about Philadelphia and Jerry Blavat!
you people just disagree with Dr Jones because you want to hate on muslims and jews
get that hate out of your heart.