1:21:38 Id be curious to hear Ryan unpack why he thinks that part of the “basic Christian story” is a triune God before creation? Wouldn’t the basic Christian story be the things that are just on the face of the New Testament story, the things repeated and emphasized by the Jesus and his Apostles? Like… there is one God who loved the world and sent his Son to redeem it?
My first thought is triune God is basic bcuz it identifies which God. Christian God of the Bible is the only triune God, to my knowledge.... So seems pretty obviously fundamental and basic to 'the christian story' 🤷♂️
@ in that sense, that’s fair. Yeah, insofar as the Trinity is an idea about… how should we say it… the mode/nature of the One God’s existence? Insofar as the Trinity has something to do with who/what the One God is, yeah it could be considered a basic part of the story. But to the extent that we’re trying to describe the “basic story” told by Jesus and his Apostles, then the Trinity is just not a primary (and certainly not a “basic”) component of the story *as they articulated it* (or as it’s articulated in the Bible).
@@transfigured3673 how about simply the significance of "three"? Some have tried to amateurishly deal with it, hamfisting love into it, like as if you require at minimum three to have perfect love. ...and yet, that which God loves, which FINISHES His creation, He CREATES at the End --- almost as if His love (if He IS love) did that
Mile Licona did an interview on Inspiring Philosophy where he argued that Mark often tells stories of Jesus in a way that mirror OT stories and put Jesus in the place of YHWH. N.T. Wright also argues that Paul reworked the Shema with Jesus in the place of YHWH and gives other arguments that Paul saw Jesus as YHWH in the flesh.
47:56 this is what I currently think. Jesus was what humanity was supposed to be, and is now what [redeemed] humanity will be. In the end we will be exactly like him (we will even be like the Father in terms of “what” sort of thing we are), but the Father will still have authority/preeminence over the Son, and the Son will have authority/preeminence over us as the Firstborn.
1:17:58 this is my goal as well, Sam, love and appreciate your efforts on this. I think I am more concerned with the problem of the Trinity as essential dogma than I am with the Trinity is true/false.
Amen. Hard to even have a productive conversation about the trinity being true or false without have the conversation about it being essential first. Almost no one will change their mind if they are convinced hellfire awaits them for wavering on the trinity
This was an interesting discussion. Using the proper definition of the word "God/god" would make all discussions about God/god even more beneficial. The proper definition is "Placer," from the Greek theos. "God" is a functional word, not a nature word. You hardly ever hear the word defined, even when people debate about "God" for several hours.
From a Biblical Unitarian perspective, I don't see the benefit in attempting to apply the term "divine" to Jesus, even in a derivative or secondary sense (which it seems Dr. Mullins was making the point that if he is lesser than God the term shouldn't be applied to him, and I would agree with him on that). Of course, Jesus is magnificent, but trying to find a way to use the term "divine" seems unhelpful and perhaps counterproductive. His greatness isn't found in some sort of divinity (however one may define the term or apply it to him), but in the fact that he accomplished what he did as a fully obedient man, full stop, and is still a man, albeit now an immortal man, in his exalted state.
@transfigured3673 It depends on how the term is being used, I suppose, so it could be like that, but it doesn't seem like it was being used that way in this conversation (I do appreciate your conversations by the way). We are told that without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (this has to do with moral character). We aren't told that we can't see the Lord without divinity (if the term is being associated in some way with how a being is classified). Admittedly, it can be easy to misunderstand what one means when the term is used because it doesn't appear to me that it gets used consistently. If one uses the term divine about Jesus to refer to his character, this would be acceptable, in my opinion, and I think that is exactly what is meant in 2 Peter 1:4, for example, i.e., it is referring to us partaking in God's "moral" nature. This, to me, is the same as becoming partakers of his holiness (Heb. 12:10). In Ephesians 2:3, for example, I agree with the argument that it isn't saying we are by nature (by human constitution) the children of wrath, but by our nature in the sense of our character. *Thayer's, c. - "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature." God's intentions for us are for us to become partakers in his moral (in this sense, I think we can indeed use the word divine, but it seems that most of the time the word is used as a synonym for deity, or even a lesser deity, which the "lesser deity" idea runs into some of the same problems, I think) nature - the way he is, the way he acts, etc. But, again, in the conversation in the video, it doesn't seem this was how the word was being used, which is why Dr. Mullins said the term shouldn't be used of someone lesser than God (if I understood him correctly) - it appears the word was being used in a sort of constitutional sense, and I don't think we have to argue for any kind of divinity (something that separates him from the rest of mankind, unless we are merely saying he was divinely empowered - but would that make him divine? Not in my mind, but maybe it can be said in some kind of sense along those lines and I'm just wrong) or even for a "divine status" for Jesus. I've heard someone before make the argument that Jesus may have a derivative "divinity." I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean, or it may mean different things to different people, I'm not sure. I personally just think the term is imprecisely defined, and it can be confusing. But the term could be massaged to align with godliness or holiness, and if one uses it that way, it could work, I think. I guess I would always have to start out by asking what one means by the term. Sorry for being long-winded.
You understand that Unitarian beliefs are a great heresy? You understand it's heresy against the authentic historical Christian Church? That this heresy has been condemned for centuries. You know this and understand this and still push this ideology? Why?
@@dvforever Isn't that H word great? You can throw it around and feel extra spiritual, knowing that you have put the false believer in his place. It sure is easier that actually listening to the arguments and drawing conclusions. Us or them, black and white, no room for the Grand old Church to go wrong. Perhaps though, Sam has examined the doctrines of the Church, found that they aren't nearly as ancient as they would have you believe. A doctrine produced by a "church" in 381 from politicians and theologians, forced to be believed by the government, doesn't seem to hold the same weight as something that came from the mouth of Jesus.
One cannot be convicted of something that they cannot understand - if your doctrine requires so much speculation and esoteric philosophy, chances are salvation is not contingent upon such a trajectory of thought. That is, you'll never be saved with such a comprehension of God, Jesus, and the Atonement. God is indivisible, unconfused, one person, and one in all aspects of His being and ontology. He is one in personhood, just as each human is one in personhood, and this is what our relationship is based on: a meaningful and logical dialogue and intimacy, knowing that all petitions and prayers are directed at the Father, and that all responses are communicated by the Father.
@@pamphilus3652 After you, smart guy, explain to me the ontology of God and Jesus and the logistics of the Atonement, in trinitarian terms. Sorry, one caveat: you have to make sense, and not sound like a fool. After you....
@@MichaelTheophilus906 I think that you're getting a little a head of yourself. But then that is just like all trinitarians: screaming heretic before the debate's even started. Obviously you're not up for the rational challenge that I posed to @pamphilus3652 - what else is new?
One thing that I don’t love about Tuggy’s arguments are when he appeals to “perfect being theology” or classifying what a god is or what sort of properties it must or can’t have. I find that all highly speculative. You can identify attributes attributed to the God named YHWH, and see if someone else has or doesn’t have those attributes. But it seems to me like the idea of what a “God” is is much broader, historically. There might be a bit of a Beard Problem there… in most cases it’s obvious whether or not a fella has a beard. But when you try to pin point the exact moment face hair goes from being shadow, or scruffy, to being a “beard”…. Everyone could have their own pet criteria for what makes a Beard “fully beard” or “beard in a lesser sense.” But comparing the qualities of the facial hair on Person A to the qualities of the facial hair on Person B… now we’re getting somewhere.
25:00 well the difference is that you don't have the belief in the end product, i.e., the Trinity, prior to the processions. whereas the belief in the existence of God is always presupposed.
In discussing Branson's view you identify a lack of concern for individual rational faculties in each person, and it was fascinating to see that. There's a totally different idea of what personhood even is to you compared to the Cappadocians. Mullins even says he doesn't know what could make them three persons if they don't have separate wills! That shocked me a lot. It really does display a giant disconnect between the issues you're concerned with and the conversations that were happening within the undivided church. Personhood's important to get right.
Sam you need to do an episode on "two powers in heaven" thing. Trinitarians overrely on this to make their theology more palatable but the evidence for it is very thin. Its supposedly only based on like a single story in thalmud where Enoch gets elevated to the right hand of God
What makes it worse, is that I'd argue the Two-Powers is more of a Subordinationist or Arian notion. Since the Second Power was stated to be, an agent of God with his name operating on the "Shaliah principle", not a second part or person of God himself. On this, Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin says: “[The idea that] Metatron (the second lesser-Yahweh), came into the world as an answer and imitation of Jesus the Christ seems to me equally impossible maintain… Both Jesus Christ the Son of Man of the Gospels, and Enoch-become-Metatron, proceed from closely related, very ancient sources, within the mythology of the people of Israel … ... these representations neither in their non-Christian nor in their Christian, do not violate Second Temple notions of monotheism, which always allowed for subordinate divinities“. - Daniel Boyarin, Lecture on Two Powers in Heaven and Early Jewish Monotheism" And even the late Heiser admitted (despite trying to force his views of Trinitarianism into it): "“…the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council… a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal)… The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs-one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form… During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels ...“ - Michael Heiser, Two Powers in Heaven
On Dale tuggy, is Jesus divine... i hold to that he is divine in a lesser sense, because he used the verse "ye are gods" in application to himself as his proof text it was ok he could call himself the son of God. He is undoubtedly theos, for "ye are theoi"
I'd probably say something like the Trinity is philosophically essential for a creative, relational God. That is to say creativity and relation are intrinsic to God, therefore relational persons are within the closedness. Concretely if creativity is part of God's unchanging nature, the essence of embodiment if of the nature of God. We call that the Son and we call the communal/relational the Spirit. You get both the Son from the beginning but also the full embodiment of God within creation. The Persons don't exist outside relationship with each other. So the Father is not the Son, but the Father is never without the relationship with the Son. The Son never leaves communion with the Father and Spirit in His humanity.
Aseity means the negation of "from another". The existence of another is a prerequisite for this term having any meaning, thus aseity is extrinsic and can be the hypostatic property of the father and the son lacking it just means he is not the Father and not that he lacks the divine nature
Good question! That would take way longer a youtube comment to answer. Look for a video of mine called "In Biblical Unitarianism what is the relationship between the divine and the human?" for my discussion of this topic
I enjoyed this! The points about aseity were great. I personally wouldn't use the language of saying that - since the son doesn't have aseity he lacks two qualities to be divine (even though it's true) i'd say it just shows the Son can't be fully and equally God with the Father.
Am part way through. At the moment I think the Father's logical desire for logical relations of justice is logically, obediently expressed by and through the Logos (the second person); a united division would be an ontologically first desire, secondly an expression of the desire with the personal desire and personal expresser of desire being both absolute and absolutely distinct; and Im not so sure how the Spirit relates. If the Spirit is involved in the sustenance of creation then I think He is sustaining a logical judgement of created aspects that exists through the Logos. I think the Logos made flesh is how the Logos logically relates as a human faced with dilemma in relation to logic. It may be that God logically desires that experience to be more limited so the actual experience of Jesus may be limited and yet a logical expression of God; I think it was both logical to not want to suffer, to ask about alternatives that may intervene whilst going ahead with what He believed to be a uniquely, logically qualified sacrifice, if that was the way it occurred. Some Greek manuscripts do not have the idea that the Son doesn't know the day or hour; it may be that He has as much knowledge present as His more extended ontological being and source as the Logos. Not sure if the following needs to be said but I think in general, in the created order the idea that a part could come apart is hypothetical and not necessarily the case; what is revealed is always revealed as itself and not a division of itself, unless and until it is divided. It may be that every identity is a holding together of aspects that are united. Even the revelation of the colour blue is held together over a revealed space, such that it has a north, south, east and west. That the absolute, arguably unchanging, could be revealed as unchanging to a changing person doesn't seem impossible to me because it would be a revelation in each case not an approach independent of revelation. Additionally I think the Father can reveal a changing avatar of Himself alongside the incarnation of Christ.
The Trinity is needless contradictory psychobabble arguing in circles. Trinitarians must explain “Why” an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent GOD the Father needs additional co-equal, co-eternal, handmaiden Gods to help HIM do what HE is already perfectly capable of doing all by HIS itty-bitty self? The Holy Spirit is nothing more, and nothing less, than Creator GOD YHVH’s own personal “Holy Spirit” that transforms itself into whatever form, or forms, it needs to in order to fulfill the plans, will and desire of Creator GOD YHVH. And Yeshua is nothing more, or less, that Creator GOD YHVH’s actual Created “Divine” Son who sits at HIS right hand.
If the Eternal Father doesn’t have an Eternal Son then He isn’t the Eternal Father. If his Fatherhood is just a potential then it seems to call into question His personhood. Idk, I’m not theologian or philosopher
God doesn't "need" anything or anyone, so trinitarians don't really have to explain such need. What God does or doesn't do outside of creation is only for us to speculate. Some trinitarians speculate that a possible reason for God to be multi-personal is that his love is expressed inter-personally as opposed to self-love, which would be insufficient to express God's love at its fullest. That does concern us christians terribly, for we aim to love as God loves, not selfishly in isolation.
@@ChumX100 --- [01] Trinitarians *falsifies their own beliefs* by repeatedly calling their “They”/”Them”/”We”/”Our” “Being” thingamajiggy Trinitarian God composed as a consequence of the amalgamation of three God persons” ----- > “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; when it is 100% impossible for an “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My” single Person to be a Trinitarian “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” multiple persons. [02] Creator GOD YHVH identifies HIMSELF over 32,000 times with first person singular pronouns, i.e. “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; it is 100% impossible for a “He, Him, I, Me, My” single Person to be “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” multiple persons. Creator GOD YHVH never once calls HIMSELF a an “IT” “DEI They/Them” thingamajiggy Being. [03] When Trinitarians say “Jesus is God.” what they mean is they believe their God is a non-person, “IT”, “They/Them”, “Divinely Simple”, glob essence, thingamajiggy, object, composed of a multitude of spiritual God consciouses, incapable of surviving independently on their own accord. .
Ryan mullins seems to ignore the the fact that creedal trinitarians believe that aseity is extrinsic. Not relying on someone else is determined on the existence of someone else. Why does he ignore this?
@@KhalilAndani With all due respect Dr Andani i disagree. In the spirit of mutual understanding i have a question for you. Does your neoplatonic view of eternal creation affect your view of aseity being intrinsic/extrinsic? With eternal creation there is no "time" when God is alone, aseity in light of this will always be God not depending on the other( nous/soul) that has always been there. In the christian framework that denies eternal creation there is a state of affairs where God is truly alone and nothing else exists. In this paradigm it seems weird to talk about the negation of depending on other things. What other things? There is no concept of other things. Aseity only has meaning if there are others and that is why the Son lacking it does not mean he lacks the divine nature
It is a common trope ... if Scripture X uses more than one name for G-d, it isn't poetic license ... it is evil polytheism ;-) Seven epithets og God are considered sacred in Judaism ... Tetragrammaton, Adonai, El, Elohim, Shaddai, Tzevaot and Jah. Seven gods or not?
Beau Bransons view(wich is the historic view) challenges ryans view and makes problems for social models and it seems this is why ryan doesnt like Bransons work
1:21:38 Id be curious to hear Ryan unpack why he thinks that part of the “basic Christian story” is a triune God before creation? Wouldn’t the basic Christian story be the things that are just on the face of the New Testament story, the things repeated and emphasized by the Jesus and his Apostles? Like… there is one God who loved the world and sent his Son to redeem it?
Agreed.
My first thought is triune God is basic bcuz it identifies which God.
Christian God of the Bible is the only triune God, to my knowledge.... So seems pretty obviously fundamental and basic to 'the christian story'
🤷♂️
@ in that sense, that’s fair. Yeah, insofar as the Trinity is an idea about… how should we say it… the mode/nature of the One God’s existence? Insofar as the Trinity has something to do with who/what the One God is, yeah it could be considered a basic part of the story.
But to the extent that we’re trying to describe the “basic story” told by Jesus and his Apostles, then the Trinity is just not a primary (and certainly not a “basic”) component of the story *as they articulated it* (or as it’s articulated in the Bible).
@@transfigured3673 how about simply the significance of "three"? Some have tried to amateurishly deal with it, hamfisting love into it, like as if you require at minimum three to have perfect love.
...and yet, that which God loves, which FINISHES His creation, He CREATES at the End --- almost as if His love (if He IS love) did that
Mile Licona did an interview on Inspiring Philosophy where he argued that Mark often tells stories of Jesus in a way that mirror OT stories and put Jesus in the place of YHWH. N.T. Wright also argues that Paul reworked the Shema with Jesus in the place of YHWH and gives other arguments that Paul saw Jesus as YHWH in the flesh.
47:56 this is what I currently think. Jesus was what humanity was supposed to be, and is now what [redeemed] humanity will be. In the end we will be exactly like him (we will even be like the Father in terms of “what” sort of thing we are), but the Father will still have authority/preeminence over the Son, and the Son will have authority/preeminence over us as the Firstborn.
Makes sense to me
@@transfigured3673Standard LDS theology.
1:17:58 this is my goal as well, Sam, love and appreciate your efforts on this. I think I am more concerned with the problem of the Trinity as essential dogma than I am with the Trinity is true/false.
Amen. Hard to even have a productive conversation about the trinity being true or false without have the conversation about it being essential first. Almost no one will change their mind if they are convinced hellfire awaits them for wavering on the trinity
And why is THIS the essential dogma after which all else is negotiable? If it is that important why isn't that reflected in the early teachings?
@@Steelblaidd excellent question!
@@Steelblaidd Maybe most evangelicals feel like they have to cling to whatever tradition they still have at hand.
This was an interesting discussion. Using the proper definition of the word "God/god" would make all discussions about God/god even more beneficial. The proper definition is "Placer," from the Greek theos. "God" is a functional word, not a nature word. You hardly ever hear the word defined, even when people debate about "God" for several hours.
I am by profession an engineering modeler (UML, SysML, UAF, etc.) and this conversation makes me want to try and draw each of these models.
Please do! I’d be curious to see it
From a Biblical Unitarian perspective, I don't see the benefit in attempting to apply the term "divine" to Jesus, even in a derivative or secondary sense (which it seems Dr. Mullins was making the point that if he is lesser than God the term shouldn't be applied to him, and I would agree with him on that). Of course, Jesus is magnificent, but trying to find a way to use the term "divine" seems unhelpful and perhaps counterproductive. His greatness isn't found in some sort of divinity (however one may define the term or apply it to him), but in the fact that he accomplished what he did as a fully obedient man, full stop, and is still a man, albeit now an immortal man, in his exalted state.
Why does that bother you? In a certain sense is it that different from saying Jesus is godly or holy?
@transfigured3673 It depends on how the term is being used, I suppose, so it could be like that, but it doesn't seem like it was being used that way in this conversation (I do appreciate your conversations by the way). We are told that without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (this has to do with moral character). We aren't told that we can't see the Lord without divinity (if the term is being associated in some way with how a being is classified). Admittedly, it can be easy to misunderstand what one means when the term is used because it doesn't appear to me that it gets used consistently. If one uses the term divine about Jesus to refer to his character, this would be acceptable, in my opinion, and I think that is exactly what is meant in 2 Peter 1:4, for example, i.e., it is referring to us partaking in God's "moral" nature. This, to me, is the same as becoming partakers of his holiness (Heb. 12:10).
In Ephesians 2:3, for example, I agree with the argument that it isn't saying we are by nature (by human constitution) the children of wrath, but by our nature in the sense of our character. *Thayer's, c. - "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature."
God's intentions for us are for us to become partakers in his moral (in this sense, I think we can indeed use the word divine, but it seems that most of the time the word is used as a synonym for deity, or even a lesser deity, which the "lesser deity" idea runs into some of the same problems, I think) nature - the way he is, the way he acts, etc.
But, again, in the conversation in the video, it doesn't seem this was how the word was being used, which is why Dr. Mullins said the term shouldn't be used of someone lesser than God (if I understood him correctly) - it appears the word was being used in a sort of constitutional sense, and I don't think we have to argue for any kind of divinity (something that separates him from the rest of mankind, unless we are merely saying he was divinely empowered - but would that make him divine? Not in my mind, but maybe it can be said in some kind of sense along those lines and I'm just wrong) or even for a "divine status" for Jesus. I've heard someone before make the argument that Jesus may have a derivative "divinity." I'm not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean, or it may mean different things to different people, I'm not sure. I personally just think the term is imprecisely defined, and it can be confusing. But the term could be massaged to align with godliness or holiness, and if one uses it that way, it could work, I think. I guess I would always have to start out by asking what one means by the term. Sorry for being long-winded.
@@transfigured3673 It's a extra-biblical word that then has to be defined without biblical context.
You understand that Unitarian beliefs are a great heresy? You understand it's heresy against the authentic historical Christian Church? That this heresy has been condemned for centuries. You know this and understand this and still push this ideology? Why?
@@dvforever Isn't that H word great? You can throw it around and feel extra spiritual, knowing that you have put the false believer in his place. It sure is easier that actually listening to the arguments and drawing conclusions. Us or them, black and white, no room for the Grand old Church to go wrong.
Perhaps though, Sam has examined the doctrines of the Church, found that they aren't nearly as ancient as they would have you believe. A doctrine produced by a "church" in 381 from politicians and theologians, forced to be believed by the government, doesn't seem to hold the same weight as something that came from the mouth of Jesus.
Excellent video Sam. I liked Ryan's conclusions the best of the whole thing. My biggest hope is a reconciliation of the Body of Christ.
One cannot be convicted of something that they cannot understand - if your doctrine requires so much speculation and esoteric philosophy, chances are salvation is not contingent upon such a trajectory of thought. That is, you'll never be saved with such a comprehension of God, Jesus, and the Atonement.
God is indivisible, unconfused, one person, and one in all aspects of His being and ontology. He is one in personhood, just as each human is one in personhood, and this is what our relationship is based on: a meaningful and logical dialogue and intimacy, knowing that all petitions and prayers are directed at the Father, and that all responses are communicated by the Father.
Just because your not smart enough to get it doesnt mean its not true. Thats ironically a really dumb argument
@@pamphilus3652 After you, smart guy, explain to me the ontology of God and Jesus and the logistics of the Atonement, in trinitarian terms.
Sorry, one caveat: you have to make sense, and not sound like a fool.
After you....
Matt 7.21-23
@@MichaelTheophilus906 I think that you're getting a little a head of yourself. But then that is just like all trinitarians: screaming heretic before the debate's even started.
Obviously you're not up for the rational challenge that I posed to @pamphilus3652 - what else is new?
One thing that I don’t love about Tuggy’s arguments are when he appeals to “perfect being theology” or classifying what a god is or what sort of properties it must or can’t have. I find that all highly speculative. You can identify attributes attributed to the God named YHWH, and see if someone else has or doesn’t have those attributes. But it seems to me like the idea of what a “God” is is much broader, historically. There might be a bit of a Beard Problem there… in most cases it’s obvious whether or not a fella has a beard. But when you try to pin point the exact moment face hair goes from being shadow, or scruffy, to being a “beard”…. Everyone could have their own pet criteria for what makes a Beard “fully beard” or “beard in a lesser sense.”
But comparing the qualities of the facial hair on Person A to the qualities of the facial hair on Person B… now we’re getting somewhere.
Does a perfect being have a beard?
@ definitely
@ the heretical teaching that perfect beings do not have beards was condemned by Pilosus of Hairimathea in 472.
Obviously. How could I have forgotten!
I’d love to see Mullins and Branson dialogue on this.
Good idea
Hi, Sam. Maybe consider a Trinity conversation with Seraphim Hamilton. I think you would opponent process each other effectively.
That’s a good suggestion. I’ve interacted with him some in comments sections before. I think we could have a good conversation.
25:00 well the difference is that you don't have the belief in the end product, i.e., the Trinity, prior to the processions. whereas the belief in the existence of God is always presupposed.
Good point
In discussing Branson's view you identify a lack of concern for individual rational faculties in each person, and it was fascinating to see that. There's a totally different idea of what personhood even is to you compared to the Cappadocians. Mullins even says he doesn't know what could make them three persons if they don't have separate wills! That shocked me a lot. It really does display a giant disconnect between the issues you're concerned with and the conversations that were happening within the undivided church. Personhood's important to get right.
I'll be talking with Branson soon and I will certainly bring this point up.
Sam you need to do an episode on "two powers in heaven" thing. Trinitarians overrely on this to make their theology more palatable but the evidence for it is very thin. Its supposedly only based on like a single story in thalmud where Enoch gets elevated to the right hand of God
You’re right, I should address that more clearly
What makes it worse, is that I'd argue the Two-Powers is more of a Subordinationist or Arian notion. Since the Second Power was stated to be, an agent of God with his name operating on the "Shaliah principle", not a second part or person of God himself.
On this, Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin says:
“[The idea that] Metatron (the second lesser-Yahweh), came into the world as an answer and imitation of Jesus the Christ seems to me equally impossible maintain… Both Jesus Christ the Son of Man of the Gospels, and Enoch-become-Metatron, proceed from closely related, very ancient sources, within the mythology of the people of Israel …
... these representations neither in their non-Christian nor in their Christian, do not violate Second Temple notions of monotheism, which always allowed for subordinate divinities“. - Daniel Boyarin, Lecture on Two Powers in Heaven and Early Jewish Monotheism"
And even the late Heiser admitted (despite trying to force his views of Trinitarianism into it):
"“…the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council… a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal)… The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs-one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form… During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels ...“ - Michael Heiser, Two Powers in Heaven
Bro has NOT read the Book of Enoch, or Jubilees, or 4QMelchizedek 💀🫵
When Christians say only the Father is asei, they might as well say only the Father is G-d at all.
Makes sense to me
The Father is the only true God according to Jesus. John 17.3 Jesus has a God. John 20.17, Rev 1.5-6, Rev 3.2 & 12.
On Dale tuggy, is Jesus divine... i hold to that he is divine in a lesser sense, because he used the verse "ye are gods" in application to himself as his proof text it was ok he could call himself the son of God.
He is undoubtedly theos, for "ye are theoi"
I'd probably say something like the Trinity is philosophically essential for a creative, relational God. That is to say creativity and relation are intrinsic to God, therefore relational persons are within the closedness. Concretely if creativity is part of God's unchanging nature, the essence of embodiment if of the nature of God. We call that the Son and we call the communal/relational the Spirit. You get both the Son from the beginning but also the full embodiment of God within creation. The Persons don't exist outside relationship with each other. So the Father is not the Son, but the Father is never without the relationship with the Son. The Son never leaves communion with the Father and Spirit in His humanity.
Aseity means the negation of "from another". The existence of another is a prerequisite for this term having any meaning, thus aseity is extrinsic and can be the hypostatic property of the father and the son lacking it just means he is not the Father and not that he lacks the divine nature
False. X does not need to exist for me not to have a relationship with X.
I agree with Jacob. Even the father existing alone would still be ase
I went to St Andrews University once in 1980 but just to watch the band Cheap Trick.
Sam, how would you define divinity?
Good question! That would take way longer a youtube comment to answer. Look for a video of mine called "In Biblical Unitarianism what is the relationship between the divine and the human?" for my discussion of this topic
@@transfigured3673 Thank you, I'll search for that video and watch it. Additionally, I'm honoured to get a response from you 🙏
@@abdullahimusa9761 I’m honored anyone listens to my channel at all times
I enjoyed this! The points about aseity were great. I personally wouldn't use the language of saying that - since the son doesn't have aseity he lacks two qualities to be divine (even though it's true) i'd say it just shows the Son can't be fully and equally God with the Father.
I agree
Am part way through. At the moment I think the Father's logical desire for logical relations of justice is logically, obediently expressed by and through the Logos (the second person); a united division would be an ontologically first desire, secondly an expression of the desire with the personal desire and personal expresser of desire being both absolute and absolutely distinct; and Im not so sure how the Spirit relates. If the Spirit is involved in the sustenance of creation then I think He is sustaining a logical judgement of created aspects that exists through the Logos. I think the Logos made flesh is how the Logos logically relates as a human faced with dilemma in relation to logic. It may be that God logically desires that experience to be more limited so the actual experience of Jesus may be limited and yet a logical expression of God; I think it was both logical to not want to suffer, to ask about alternatives that may intervene whilst going ahead with what He believed to be a uniquely, logically qualified sacrifice, if that was the way it occurred. Some Greek manuscripts do not have the idea that the Son doesn't know the day or hour; it may be that He has as much knowledge present as His more extended ontological being and source as the Logos.
Not sure if the following needs to be said but I think in general, in the created order the idea that a part could come apart is hypothetical and not necessarily the case; what is revealed is always revealed as itself and not a division of itself, unless and until it is divided. It may be that every identity is a holding together of aspects that are united. Even the revelation of the colour blue is held together over a revealed space, such that it has a north, south, east and west.
That the absolute, arguably unchanging, could be revealed as unchanging to a changing person doesn't seem impossible to me because it would be a revelation in each case not an approach independent of revelation. Additionally I think the Father can reveal a changing avatar of Himself alongside the incarnation of Christ.
The Trinity is needless contradictory psychobabble arguing in circles. Trinitarians must explain “Why” an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent GOD the Father needs additional co-equal, co-eternal, handmaiden Gods to help HIM do what HE is already perfectly capable of doing all by HIS itty-bitty self? The Holy Spirit is nothing more, and nothing less, than Creator GOD YHVH’s own personal “Holy Spirit” that transforms itself into whatever form, or forms, it needs to in order to fulfill the plans, will and desire of Creator GOD YHVH. And Yeshua is nothing more, or less, that Creator GOD YHVH’s actual Created “Divine” Son who sits at HIS right hand.
It is a little confusing
Tldr?
If the Eternal Father doesn’t have an Eternal Son then He isn’t the Eternal Father. If his Fatherhood is just a potential then it seems to call into question His personhood. Idk, I’m not theologian or philosopher
God doesn't "need" anything or anyone, so trinitarians don't really have to explain such need. What God does or doesn't do outside of creation is only for us to speculate. Some trinitarians speculate that a possible reason for God to be multi-personal is that his love is expressed inter-personally as opposed to self-love, which would be insufficient to express God's love at its fullest. That does concern us christians terribly, for we aim to love as God loves, not selfishly in isolation.
@@ChumX100 --- [01] Trinitarians *falsifies their own beliefs* by repeatedly calling their “They”/”Them”/”We”/”Our” “Being” thingamajiggy Trinitarian God composed as a consequence of the amalgamation of three God persons” ----- > “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; when it is 100% impossible for an “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My” single Person to be a Trinitarian “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” multiple persons.
[02] Creator GOD YHVH identifies HIMSELF over 32,000 times with first person singular pronouns, i.e. “He”, “Him”, “I”, “Me”, “My”; it is 100% impossible for a “He, Him, I, Me, My” single Person to be “They”/”Them”/”We”/“Our” multiple persons. Creator GOD YHVH never once calls HIMSELF a an “IT” “DEI They/Them” thingamajiggy Being.
[03] When Trinitarians say “Jesus is God.” what they mean is they believe their God is a non-person, “IT”, “They/Them”, “Divinely Simple”, glob essence, thingamajiggy, object, composed of a multitude of spiritual God consciouses, incapable of surviving independently on their own accord.
.
How are you doing Sam?
Doing pretty well thanks for asking
Ryan mullins seems to ignore the the fact that creedal trinitarians believe that aseity is extrinsic. Not relying on someone else is determined on the existence of someone else. Why does he ignore this?
That’s complete nonsense and entails that aseity is dependent on another which contradicts aseity
@@KhalilAndani
With all due respect Dr Andani i disagree. In the spirit of mutual understanding i have a question for you. Does your neoplatonic view of eternal creation affect your view of aseity being intrinsic/extrinsic? With eternal creation there is no "time" when God is alone, aseity in light of this will always be God not depending on the other( nous/soul) that has always been there. In the christian framework that denies eternal creation there is a state of affairs where God is truly alone and nothing else exists. In this paradigm it seems weird to talk about the negation of depending on other things. What other things? There is no concept of other things. Aseity only has meaning if there are others and that is why the Son lacking it does not mean he lacks the divine nature
If the father existed alone, as I mentioned, he would still be ase
Sweet
Let me know your thoughts
It is a common trope ... if Scripture X uses more than one name for G-d, it isn't poetic license ... it is evil polytheism ;-) Seven epithets og God are considered sacred in Judaism ... Tetragrammaton, Adonai, El, Elohim, Shaddai, Tzevaot and Jah. Seven gods or not?
Beau Bransons view(wich is the historic view) challenges ryans view and makes problems for social models and it seems this is why ryan doesnt like Bransons work
I’ll hopefully be talking to Beau soon
I’ll hopefully be talking to Beau soon
Oh boy.
Let me know your thoughts
46:15 Jesus is the last human male that God created and Adam was the first. You are created by humans. Adam and Jesus were not.
Much ado about nothing