haha, thanks for that shoutout Sam! This is another really interesting video, I appreciate the two of you researching and reading and delivering to us a condensed version of what you have found!
1:26:50 Aristotle is ultimately a Platonist. He still doesn't mean physical stuff when he says Ousia. In the metaphysics he defines Ousia as: that which is the subject of predication, but never itself predicated of anything. It's closer to the Je ne sais qua of a thing than the "stuff"
Actually orthodox Christian’s still believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father through the son. Just not from The son as if it originates with him as well
1:07:46 he says scholars think Job was the earliest book of the Bible but it’s actually the opposite. Pretty much every scholar in the world thinks Job was one of the latest books ever written
19:39 Despite the historical case to be made, the Church doesn't have women deacons and also distinguishes between deaconess and the diaconate. More info here: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/deaconesses-sure-women-deacons-not-so-fast
there are female prophetesses in old testamanent though. Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, is described as a prophetess in Exodus 15:20. Deborah, a judge and prophetess, is mentioned in Judges 4-5. Huldah, a prophetess who confirmed the authenticity of the Book of the Law discovered during the reign of King Josiah, is mentioned in 2 Kings 22:14-20 and 2 Chronicles 34:22-28. Anna, a prophetess who recognized the infant Jesus as the Messiah, is mentioned in Luke 2:36-38.
1:23:08 Substantia and Ousia are ineffable terms, in fact they quite specifically are the ground/essence/is-ness of something which can't be predicated. The Platonic thing in it itself.
1:09:00 had the same problem till I understood that the condition of our harts was the problem like in Mattew when Jesus says You heard it was seied You shall not commit adultery, or devorce your spouse, these comandmants ware given because our hard hearts, so what I see was a gradual "climbing" to the true good, with Jesus's comands, also The Lord quoted and accepted the Tora, Old Testament and that was also very helpful.
I dont agree with what Turtulian or Teophilus Lidsey or even Charles take Russel would say....I just open the Bible and as a Christian we base our truth not on what man says but what the Bible says...agree?
1:16:16 I don't think he's that materialist. Substantia means that which stands under or grounds. I don't think one should assume that materiality was the ground for a classical era writer. I would refer you to David Bentley Hart's excellent essay on this very subject (churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-spiritual-was-more-substantial-than-the-material-for-the-ancients/)
Tertullian’s belief about God the Son in the OT is absolutely hilarious. It kind of reminds me of a dad letting his son take out the family car for a test drive but it doesn’t go as well as the father had hoped lol. Finally, after he’s perfected through his suffering, Jesus has earned his keep and is ready to “drive” on his own. Something I didn’t know until recently is that the modern Charismatic/Pentecostal movement isn’t necessarily just a Protestant phenomenon - it even found it’s way in the Roman Catholic Church. Amy Coney Barrett, for instance, is an example of a famous charismatic Catholic, which speaks to how influential the Charismatic movement is even today.
I think you maybe didn't mention what Tertullian said at the start of chapter 3 of "Against Praxeas" as follows: "The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the three in one)". I take it from this (the context makes it clearer) that the majority of Christians in his day were unitarians and were shocked at what Tertullian was teaching about Jesus and the spirit being part of God.
I’m not saying what I think substance or essence means I’m trying to describe what I think tertullian thought which honestly is kind of difficult. He seems to intentionally avoid questions that are too metaphysical because he distrusts human philosophizing. If you have a better idea of what tertullian is trying to say I’m all ears. I just think it’s important to remember that not all the ancients were uniform on these sorts of questions.
@@transfigured3673All I am pointing out is that, as confused as he may be, it's linguistically impossible that he means substance in the modern post 1400 way. That meaning for substance had not come into use until around 1400.
Leviticus 20:26 "I the Lord am Holy" John 4:24 "God is Spirit" Therefore God IS HOLY SPIRIT meaning one in the same thing, not one part of a Triad? As a candlestick maker would give gifts of candles, a baker of bread would give loaves of bread as gifts. It is then not far removed God(Holy Spirit) would give what he is for gifts. His gift is holy spirit, just as the scripture proclaims. This is all laid out nicely by E.W. Bullinger in his book "The Giver and His Gifts" available on Amazon
haha, thanks for that shoutout Sam! This is another really interesting video, I appreciate the two of you researching and reading and delivering to us a condensed version of what you have found!
Because of the angels
A symbol of being under authority? Protection?
Very informative and very enjoyable conversation, thanks Sam and Hank
Thanks for watching
I'm loving this playlist. Thanks guys!
I always enjoy it when people make their way through the backlog. Keep leaving comments on your thoughts and reactions!
1:26:50 Aristotle is ultimately a Platonist. He still doesn't mean physical stuff when he says Ousia. In the metaphysics he defines Ousia as: that which is the subject of predication, but never itself predicated of anything. It's closer to the Je ne sais qua of a thing than the "stuff"
This was very helpful and informative.
Thanks for listening!
Actually orthodox Christian’s still believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father through the son. Just not from
The son as if it originates with him as well
1:07:46 he says scholars think Job was the earliest book of the Bible but it’s actually the opposite. Pretty much every scholar in the world thinks Job was one of the latest books ever written
I tend to agree
19:39 Despite the historical case to be made, the Church doesn't have women deacons and also distinguishes between deaconess and the diaconate. More info here: www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/deaconesses-sure-women-deacons-not-so-fast
Gotcha thanks
I knew you would come through. Thanks
there are female prophetesses in old testamanent though.
Miriam, the sister of Moses and Aaron, is described as a prophetess in Exodus 15:20.
Deborah, a judge and prophetess, is mentioned in Judges 4-5.
Huldah, a prophetess who confirmed the authenticity of the Book of the Law discovered during the reign of King Josiah, is mentioned in 2 Kings 22:14-20 and 2 Chronicles 34:22-28.
Anna, a prophetess who recognized the infant Jesus as the Messiah, is mentioned in Luke 2:36-38.
You are correct.
@@transfigured3673also in the book of Acts....Agabus and later when someone else prophesied Pauls death
1:23:08 Substantia and Ousia are ineffable terms, in fact they quite specifically are the ground/essence/is-ness of something which can't be predicated. The Platonic thing in it itself.
1:09:00 had the same problem till I understood that the condition of our harts was the problem like in Mattew when Jesus says You heard it was seied You shall not commit adultery, or devorce your spouse, these comandmants ware given because our hard hearts, so what I see was a gradual "climbing" to the true good, with Jesus's comands, also The Lord quoted and accepted the Tora, Old Testament and that was also very helpful.
1:10:00 it’s as if Jesus learned obedience by what he suffered.
what a crazy idea
1:06:55 I think I agree with Tertullian.
You would wouldn’t you
I dont agree with what Turtulian or Teophilus Lidsey or even Charles take Russel would say....I just open the Bible and as a Christian we base our truth not on what man says but what the Bible says...agree?
1:16:16 I don't think he's that materialist. Substantia means that which stands under or grounds. I don't think one should assume that materiality was the ground for a classical era writer. I would refer you to David Bentley Hart's excellent essay on this very subject (churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-spiritual-was-more-substantial-than-the-material-for-the-ancients/)
1:22:54 Substantia doesn't mean what you both seem to think it means.
Tertullian’s belief about God the Son in the OT is absolutely hilarious. It kind of reminds me of a dad letting his son take out the family car for a test drive but it doesn’t go as well as the father had hoped lol. Finally, after he’s perfected through his suffering, Jesus has earned his keep and is ready to “drive” on his own.
Something I didn’t know until recently is that the modern Charismatic/Pentecostal movement isn’t necessarily just a Protestant phenomenon - it even found it’s way in the Roman Catholic Church.
Amy Coney Barrett, for instance, is an example of a famous charismatic Catholic, which speaks to how influential the Charismatic movement is even today.
I think you maybe didn't mention what Tertullian said at the start of chapter 3 of "Against Praxeas" as follows: "The simple, indeed (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the three in one)".
I take it from this (the context makes it clearer) that the majority of Christians in his day were unitarians and were shocked at what Tertullian was teaching about Jesus and the spirit being part of God.
Ya I had meant to include that quote but forgot it during the stream of consciousness
I thought he was a lawyer?
1:20:05 Sam ... I think you need to back track and make a more serious attempt to understand Ousia/Substantia this "God Stuff" language is brutal.
I’m not saying what I think substance or essence means I’m trying to describe what I think tertullian thought which honestly is kind of difficult. He seems to intentionally avoid questions that are too metaphysical because he distrusts human philosophizing. If you have a better idea of what tertullian is trying to say I’m all ears. I just think it’s important to remember that not all the ancients were uniform on these sorts of questions.
@@transfigured3673All I am pointing out is that, as confused as he may be, it's linguistically impossible that he means substance in the modern post 1400 way. That meaning for substance had not come into use until around 1400.
1:12:13 Orthodox baptisms include an exorcism.
well yours certainly will
@@transfigured3673 haha
Leviticus 20:26 "I the Lord am Holy"
John 4:24 "God is Spirit"
Therefore God IS HOLY SPIRIT meaning one in the same thing, not one part of a Triad?
As a candlestick maker would give gifts of candles, a baker of bread would give loaves of bread as gifts. It is then not far removed God(Holy Spirit) would give what he is for gifts. His gift is holy spirit, just as the scripture proclaims. This is all laid out nicely by E.W. Bullinger in his book "The Giver and His Gifts" available on Amazon
Christ is the imminence of God. Full stop. There is no imminence of God without Christ.
Boy I find the interrupting of the guest and the interviewers injecting very annoying, and rude. Sorry cannot stay
Despite his alignment with my political theology I really don't like Tertullian.
Ya I get that. He is a very concrete thinker and kind of an outlier among the church fathers whose writings we have.
@@transfigured3673 It's really just that he's an asshole. Concrete is fine, I mean look how often I quote Aquinas.
what is the bad with Tertullian? Christian dont believe their trinity because of him. Im learning and I see they have a case that Jesus is god