Very good presentation thanks Dale. I’m a pastor in a Unitarian congregation in El Salvador Central America. Hope one day I can go to our meetings, where is going to be the next one?
I honestly knew all these revelations about Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian etc. I materially agree with them, and that just makes me a subordinationist monarchical trinitarian. I can now accept the Nicene Creed “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty” within its historic context. I also agree with the jist of middle platonist philosophy and see it plainly in thr NT such as John 1:1, Hebrews 4:12-13, etc. Not sure what the problem is. Dale definitely presents a major problem for *Augustinian* Trinitarianism, which is philosophically and scripturally bankrupt system of theology that has already proven to be indefensible. I’m glad Dale is joining hands with us monarchical Trinitarians is showing the novelty of “Triune God” and “one being is three persons” theology.
My one critique is that I doubt we can say firmly, at least for Tertullian, that their Christology is basically Nestorian (two persons, the man Jesus and the Word). Sometimes it’s just their way of speaking. Irenaeus says plainly in Against Heresies that the Word was born of Mary, very much contrary to a Nestorian two persons in Christ idea.
After the Spirit of Truth ascension back to the heaven, those who preached the truth were stamped out completely. By the 6th;century spiritual knowledge was pretty much gone. And has been until about 40 years ago when the Spirit returned to open our blinded eyes. Slowly but surely the truth is spreading faster in the last few years than the last 1400 years all together. Imho.
The Spirit never left. The Spirit leaving would be like God abandoning the world to perish. What you are referring to is the Church diminishing in power due to the decrease of genuine faith and love, the multiplication of false prophets, teachers and doctrines, the increase of lawlessness, all which Jesus and the apostles prophesied and testified about.
When you see an increase or decrease of spiritual activity on the earth post Christ and Pentecost, this doesn't signify the arrival or departure of the Holy Spirit from the earth. It signifies a generational change in attitude towards God and towards the word of God. But the Spirit of God is always present. For without the Spirit, God would have no testimony on the earth. But the fact that so many of us have our minds fixed on the God of Israel, such that even atheists choose to mock and rage against Him specifically and not other gods, shows you that God has never lacked witnesses on the earth. And one cannot be an effective witness for God apart from His Spirit.
@@henryodera5726 I will be with you even until the end of the age. That age ended at 70 ad and the next age began. Wars, rumors of war, lawlessness, deception, false teachers, lack of knowledge. The dark ages. The light wisdom and understanding only returned within the last 100 years. Just as promised.
@@henryodera5726 I will pour out my spirit upon ALL FLESH in the last days. The LATTER rain. If the spirit has already been here, then there's no latter rain.
@@jdaze1 "The last days" in the bible refers to the 1st Century onward. See Acts 2:14-21 for Peter's application of your quotation when explaining the manifestation of the Holy Spirit; compare also Hebrews 1:2 for God speaking through the Son "in these last days". According to the apostles in the 1st Century, they were already living in "the last days". "The last days" began with them, and the Spirit was poured down from the day of Pentecost and onward.
This Platonic reading of Justin Martyr ('God is too transcendent to create directly') is not evident from the text itself, but a deliberate mischaracterization from Unitarians like Tuggy since at least the 19th century. I have never heard Tuggy (in all his presentations on the supposed novelty of Logos theology) give a direct quote of Justin to make his case for its Platonic origin. In Justin Martyr God is too transcendent to communicate (!) directly and uses mediators like angels. Logos theology is already there in NT (Col. 1:15-17, Heb. 1:2, 1 Cor. 8:6, John 1:1). It's based on the creation account. So if Justin was influenced by Plato, then the same case can be made for John and Paul! It's the same intellectual milieu.
Turns out Paul and Jesus Christ were also “Heavily into Platonism.” “Through a glass darkly?” (1 Corinthians 13:12) “whose God is their belly?” (Philippians 3:19) “No one is THE GOOD (ho agathos) but One” (Matthew 19:17) All these terms come from Plato.
*Dynamic Monarchianism* 1. The one true God is the Father. 2. The man Christ Jesus is the Son. 3. The Son is not the Father; that is, the man Christ Jesus is not the one true God. -- Very simple. And very carnal.
*Bible Truth* 1. The one true God is the Father. 2. The man Christ Jesus is the Son. 3. The Son _IS_ the Father revealed in true human form; that is, the man Christ Jesus _IS_ the one true God revealed in true human form. -- Very simple. Yet a great mystery. Which has been revealed. To those with eyes to see.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." -- 1 Timothy 3:16
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance As Dr. Tuggy mentioned, we don't have any of their writings. Tertullian said they believed the Father "made Himself a Son to Himself", and I would definitely agree with that. But it's impossible to say whether or not I would identify with them in general. Not enough info, and probably a lot of misinfo and disinfo.
Accepting the KJV variant in 1 Tim 3 of "God" manifest, (which is up for debate), I don't think that supports what you listed under Bible Truth. If God was manifest in Jesus, he was "shown" or "revealed". That doesn't mean Jesus was actually was God. The concept of humans being in the image of God, to represent God, is throughout scripture. Dynamic Monarchianism as presented by Tuggy fits with the Biblical evidence.
@@eddie3961 The manuscript evidence simply does not support “God” being the subject of 1 Timothy 3:16. And you are chery picking what is an allowable mystery. A mere human manifesting God would be a great mystery. A preincarnate Logos who is a distinct second person/enitity manifesting the One God would also be a mystery. Big whoop, all major christologies have an explanation. Of course other christologies are not utterly ridiculous like modalism and KJV onlyism.
26:10 Dale is engaging in pure speculation without a shred of evidence to say Dynamic Monarchians had an interpretation of who/what the John 1:1 Logos is. There is NO evidence Dynamic Monarchians even accepted the Gospel of John as Scripture. St. Irenaeus says circa AD 180: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.” - Against Heresies Book I, ch. 26. So the only thing we know about the dynamic monarchian NT canon is that at least some of them only accepted Matthew! This illustrates the perpetual speculating of Unitarians who try to impose their view into early church history. It’s very possible every Christian who read the Gospel of John circa AD 240, understood the Logos to be a preexistent divine person. That’s probably why the Ebionites rejected John.
Equating DM to the Ebionites is a mistake. While the Ebionites denied a literal preexistence for Jesus, they aren’t the only Christians attested to have done so, as the quotes from the presentation demonstrate.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance I never equated them, I simply pointed out the Ebionites are the only dynamic monarchians we know about their Scriptural canon, and they rejected John! The pure speculation is to say “well, the other dynamic monarchians must have accepted John.”
There were many other DM’s, including famous ones, like Photinus of Sirmium. But the entire point of Tuggy’s talk was to go through the sources that speak to the existence of DM as a significant, even majority, position. These are not Ebionites being discussed by Justin and Novation, and Origen.
And yet, you too seem to be speculating about what the Dynamic Monarchians accepted or didn't. The problem for all of us, is that their writings were not preserved. But why not also watch a video, not yet released but from the next conference day, on Dynamic Monarchians as described by their detractors. By Thomas Gaston. By the way, one can quote Justin's words about philosophy. As Dale does, for instance, about the philosopher being a Christian before Christ. But this isn't a talk about Justin alone.
@@maidstonechristadelphians2069 I admitted it was a speculation. I admitted we don't know if the Dynamic Monarchians accepted John or not. Tuggy is presenting his statement about how dynamic monarchians interpreted John 1 as a fact, excluding the possibility that they rejected John altogether, a claim without evidence. Stop digging yourselves into a greater hole by lying for your man.
Will, reason and speech are Spirit. Logos was God. It is clear that Jesus is not Logos and Logos is not Jesus and neither is Holy Spirit Logos or Jesus. The father of Jesus is clearly not Jesus. Man is not God. But when are going to talk about the plurality of God.
Very good presentation thanks Dale. I’m a pastor in a Unitarian congregation in El Salvador Central America. Hope one day I can go to our meetings, where is going to be the next one?
Yeah, I really enjoy Dr. Tuggy’s lectures and debates.
I may or may not agree with his conclusions, but I always learn.
I honestly knew all these revelations about Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian etc. I materially agree with them, and that just makes me a subordinationist monarchical trinitarian. I can now accept the Nicene Creed “We believe in One God, the Father Almighty” within its historic context. I also agree with the jist of middle platonist philosophy and see it plainly in thr NT such as John 1:1, Hebrews 4:12-13, etc. Not sure what the problem is.
Dale definitely presents a major problem for *Augustinian* Trinitarianism, which is philosophically and scripturally bankrupt system of theology that has already proven to be indefensible. I’m glad Dale is joining hands with us monarchical Trinitarians is showing the novelty of “Triune God” and “one being is three persons” theology.
My one critique is that I doubt we can say firmly, at least for Tertullian, that their Christology is basically Nestorian (two persons, the man Jesus and the Word). Sometimes it’s just their way of speaking. Irenaeus says plainly in Against Heresies that the Word was born of Mary, very much contrary to a Nestorian two persons in Christ idea.
After the Spirit of Truth ascension back to the heaven, those who preached the truth were stamped out completely. By the 6th;century spiritual knowledge was pretty much gone. And has been until about 40 years ago when the Spirit returned to open our blinded eyes. Slowly but surely the truth is spreading faster in the last few years than the last 1400 years all together. Imho.
The Spirit never left. The Spirit leaving would be like God abandoning the world to perish. What you are referring to is the Church diminishing in power due to the decrease of genuine faith and love, the multiplication of false prophets, teachers and doctrines, the increase of lawlessness, all which Jesus and the apostles prophesied and testified about.
When you see an increase or decrease of spiritual activity on the earth post Christ and Pentecost, this doesn't signify the arrival or departure of the Holy Spirit from the earth. It signifies a generational change in attitude towards God and towards the word of God.
But the Spirit of God is always present. For without the Spirit, God would have no testimony on the earth. But the fact that so many of us have our minds fixed on the God of Israel, such that even atheists choose to mock and rage against Him specifically and not other gods, shows you that God has never lacked witnesses on the earth. And one cannot be an effective witness for God apart from His Spirit.
@@henryodera5726 I will be with you even until the end of the age. That age ended at 70 ad and the next age began. Wars, rumors of war, lawlessness, deception, false teachers, lack of knowledge. The dark ages. The light wisdom and understanding only returned within the last 100 years. Just as promised.
@@henryodera5726 I will pour out my spirit upon ALL FLESH in the last days. The LATTER rain. If the spirit has already been here, then there's no latter rain.
@@jdaze1 "The last days" in the bible refers to the 1st Century onward. See Acts 2:14-21 for Peter's application of your quotation when explaining the manifestation of the Holy Spirit; compare also Hebrews 1:2 for God speaking through the Son "in these last days".
According to the apostles in the 1st Century, they were already living in "the last days". "The last days" began with them, and the Spirit was poured down from the day of Pentecost and onward.
This Platonic reading of Justin Martyr ('God is too transcendent to create directly') is not evident from the text itself, but a deliberate mischaracterization from Unitarians like Tuggy since at least the 19th century. I have never heard Tuggy (in all his presentations on the supposed novelty of Logos theology) give a direct quote of Justin to make his case for its Platonic origin. In Justin Martyr God is too transcendent to communicate (!) directly and uses mediators like angels. Logos theology is already there in NT (Col. 1:15-17, Heb. 1:2, 1 Cor. 8:6, John 1:1). It's based on the creation account. So if Justin was influenced by Plato, then the same case can be made for John and Paul! It's the same intellectual milieu.
thought the same and then read Justin by my own and indeed he expresses that: God the father is soooo transcendent that we needed the logos
1:06:30 Constantine was heavily into Platonism or neoplatonism and he saw a lot of continuation of that with the supposed christianity of that day
Turns out Paul and Jesus Christ were also “Heavily into Platonism.”
“Through a glass darkly?” (1 Corinthians 13:12)
“whose God is their belly?” (Philippians 3:19)
“No one is THE GOOD (ho agathos) but One” (Matthew 19:17)
All these terms come from Plato.
*Dynamic Monarchianism*
1. The one true God is the Father.
2. The man Christ Jesus is the Son.
3. The Son is not the Father; that is, the man Christ Jesus is not the one true God.
-- Very simple. And very carnal.
*Bible Truth*
1. The one true God is the Father.
2. The man Christ Jesus is the Son.
3. The Son _IS_ the Father revealed in true human form; that is, the man Christ Jesus _IS_ the one true God revealed in true human form.
-- Very simple. Yet a great mystery. Which has been revealed. To those with eyes to see.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
-- 1 Timothy 3:16
So you would identify with the Modalistic Monarchians?
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance
As Dr. Tuggy mentioned, we don't have any of their writings. Tertullian said they believed the Father "made Himself a Son to Himself", and I would definitely agree with that. But it's impossible to say whether or not I would identify with them in general. Not enough info, and probably a lot of misinfo and disinfo.
Accepting the KJV variant in 1 Tim 3 of "God" manifest, (which is up for debate), I don't think that supports what you listed under Bible Truth. If God was manifest in Jesus, he was "shown" or "revealed". That doesn't mean Jesus was actually was God. The concept of humans being in the image of God, to represent God, is throughout scripture. Dynamic Monarchianism as presented by Tuggy fits with the Biblical evidence.
@@biblefeed1094
A created human being who represents God is not a great mystery. God revealing himself in true human form _is_ a great mystery.
@@eddie3961
The manuscript evidence simply does not support “God” being the subject of 1 Timothy 3:16. And you are chery picking what is an allowable mystery. A mere human manifesting God would be a great mystery. A preincarnate Logos who is a distinct second person/enitity manifesting the One God would also be a mystery. Big whoop, all major christologies have an explanation. Of course other christologies are not utterly ridiculous like modalism and KJV onlyism.
26:10 Dale is engaging in pure speculation without a shred of evidence to say Dynamic Monarchians had an interpretation of who/what the John 1:1 Logos is. There is NO evidence Dynamic Monarchians even accepted the Gospel of John as Scripture. St. Irenaeus says circa AD 180: “Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law.” - Against Heresies Book I, ch. 26.
So the only thing we know about the dynamic monarchian NT canon is that at least some of them only accepted Matthew! This illustrates the perpetual speculating of Unitarians who try to impose their view into early church history. It’s very possible every Christian who read the Gospel of John circa AD 240, understood the Logos to be a preexistent divine person. That’s probably why the Ebionites rejected John.
Equating DM to the Ebionites is a mistake. While the Ebionites denied a literal preexistence for Jesus, they aren’t the only Christians attested to have done so, as the quotes from the presentation demonstrate.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance
I never equated them, I simply pointed out the Ebionites are the only dynamic monarchians we know about their Scriptural canon, and they rejected John! The pure speculation is to say “well, the other dynamic monarchians must have accepted John.”
There were many other DM’s, including famous ones, like Photinus of Sirmium. But the entire point of Tuggy’s talk was to go through the sources that speak to the existence of DM as a significant, even majority, position. These are not Ebionites being discussed by Justin and Novation, and Origen.
And yet, you too seem to be speculating about what the Dynamic Monarchians accepted or didn't.
The problem for all of us, is that their writings were not preserved.
But why not also watch a video, not yet released but from the next conference day, on Dynamic Monarchians as described by their detractors.
By Thomas Gaston.
By the way, one can quote Justin's words about philosophy. As Dale does, for instance, about the philosopher being a Christian before Christ.
But this isn't a talk about Justin alone.
@@maidstonechristadelphians2069 I admitted it was a speculation. I admitted we don't know if the Dynamic Monarchians accepted John or not. Tuggy is presenting his statement about how dynamic monarchians interpreted John 1 as a fact, excluding the possibility that they rejected John altogether, a claim without evidence. Stop digging yourselves into a greater hole by lying for your man.
Will, reason and speech are Spirit. Logos was God. It is clear that Jesus is not Logos and Logos is not Jesus and neither is Holy Spirit Logos or Jesus. The father of Jesus is clearly not Jesus. Man is not God. But when are going to talk about the plurality of God.