Arianism vs the Trinity

[@langreeves6419]

Better watch out, better not pout In the Trinity better have no doubt Santa Claus is coming to town He sees you when you're sleeping He knows when you're awake You'd better be trinitarian, Or he'll slap you in the face!

[@ObjectiveEthics]

🎅 🧑‍🎄 BRILLIANT 👏 👌 👍 😂

[@MathumaTao]

Don't eat meat, I repeat don't eat meat. Every Friday in the Lenten season, that's once a week

[@LogosInsula]

The word "Trinity" is NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE.

[@LogosInsula]

God made the Father, The Father made Jesus

[@donmilland7606]

I don’t get it. lol@@danielswan2860

[@GeorgeCostanzais10.]

John Hamer gives great lectures, the absolute best on KZbin!

[@centre-place]

Thank you!

[@johntafoya3597]

The name Jesus came from the Jesuits Latin saviours name in Hebrew is YAHshua which today would be Joshua in English. YAHshua means Yahweh is salvation. Yeshua is Arabic. Now they have the chosen using the Aramaic name Yeshua . And the chosen is 5% scripture from the Bible

[@adanaltamirano2244]

Yes John is the best on KZbin for sure!!

[@victorsanchez5336]

​@@centre-placeHello. would like to inquire if Licinius the Co-Emperor of Constantine in the issuing of the Edict of Milan, also converted to Christianity?

[@marymagnuson5191]

I am addicted to listening to him.

[@ObjectiveEthics]

Mr Hamar you have an incredible gift for teaching. You are always offering substantial scholarship and historically verified accounts during your lectures. In spite of the academic substance you have a gift for presenting the information in a way that is both tangible and entertaining for the listener. Thank you.

[@dropkick69able]

This channel is underrated. I'm impressed with the knowledge being shared here

[@garymensurati1631]

Agree 💯💯

[@Ahasverus92]

Oh wow, this has to be one of the most logically and historically comprehensive videos about theology and specially this thorny topic on the whole internet. The mindblows-per-minute are off the charts. Congrats and Thank you for putting this and yourself out there (here) Dr. Hamer!

[@mark11967AD]

The Santa aside about St Nicholas just shows how down to earth and decent Mr Hamer is essentially wiping away any confusion and answering what might be distracting curiosities. A genuinely considerate person and one of the reasons he is a great teacher/lecturer. And all for free. We need more people like this who are about enlightening and enriching without it always being about money. A form of Charity you could say his lectures. Bravo.

[@garymensurati1631]

Yes, Agree 💯💯

[@canisronis2753]

Thanks!

[@centre-place]

Thank you so much for supporting the channel!

[@CrisisOfFaith]

What a fantastic lecture!

[@centre-place]

Many thanks for supporting the channel!

[@grandmaroxie2210]

Thank you for these lectures. They are so interesting. Thank you, John, for all you do.

[@jillwild8515]

Your lectures are always so enlightening Dr Hamer..thankyou ..

[@hamnchee]

Arius getting bitch slapped by Santa Claus was not something I expected today.

[@Robb3348]

LOL. well, you experienced it so widen your purview of consciousness and take it in...b-tch! 😛 (sorry)

[@poi2lkj3mnb]

Thanks for your lectures. Despite how prevoked I am by my disagreements I always find them to be engaging and illuminating.

[@centre-place]

Thank you for your thoughtful engagement. It's always refreshing to hear from individuals who can appreciate a perspective even while holding different views. 🌟

[@LogosInsula]

"prevoked' is interesting, never seen it before. Does that come across as a verb or present participle maybe? Adjective?

[@andrewisjesus]

another slam dunk. hate i missed the live but absolutely amazing channel. been around years now. Don't sleep on the oldest lectures either, the ones with the live audience I always have really appreciated

[@centre-place]

Thank you! We're hoping to have some in-person lectures in the future but the questions from the audience will have to be more organized 😉

[@Kaz.Klay.]

Despite the interruptions and sometimes elementary questions... Not a Mormon and disagree with some of his points but generally he's pretty good

[@Abrown2048]

Always the best lectures of KZbin. Simply blown away.

[@theophiluslikhi7890]

Wow! This is tremendous eye opening information. Thank you very much. I couldn't have heard that there was ever a Christianity before Constantine Christianity. Amazing! This is great work, Sir. I appreciate you to the max.

[@DiscipleToki]

Long ago when I was a Christian, I studied intently the early church, the scriptures, councils, and more. My own developed view on the Trinity was that the Living God's Word (Logos) was the spoken Words of the Father as such eternal being the very language used to create reality, Birthed when the Father first spoke. The Spirit was the Father's breath, in this way they are God as God is the essence of Living, and as such all that comes from his actions in the body live and move and have to be, since the Father is eternal so too are the Father's words and breath and in this way the trinity made sense to me. Father essence, Son Word, Spirit Breath. As such it is one God but that which emanates from the Father. Birthed in the sense of words spoken. Since the Father is unchanging and eternal so too are his words and breath.

[@ezkl9424]

Trinitarians burned people at the stake for not accepting their belief. Non Trinitarians have never been known to burn anyone for not accepting Oneness or the one God.

[@maciiol2]

Matt 5:11 & Matt 10:22 says those whom preach the truth will be hated and persecuted.

[@Backswell]

Amen

[@44preds]

I really enjoy the indepth analysis of these vids. Well thought out and presented in an open minded way

[@andrewsuryali8540]

Arianism DID sort of become the Roman state religion for a while. Constantine near the end of his life started favoring Arianism because the closest bishop he had was his relative Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was Arian through and through. Constantine didn't reverse his policies but he listened to Eusebius and exiled many of the anti-Arius bishops (including St. Nick in some accounts). Similarly, the "Church historian" Eusebius of Caesarea who was his main chronicler and one of his main panegyrists was a sympathizer of Arius who tried to reconcile the two parties - he was one of the people who proposed homoiousion as a compromise. That's why the Orthodox never made Eusebius a saint despite relying heavily on his "History of the Church" interpretation. Constantine in the end was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia and this technically made him an Arian. After his father's passing, Constantius II went all the way and basically reversed Nicaea, exiling many of the anti-Arius bishops who survived and effectively making Arianism the official form of imperial Christianity. Julian's reign was actually the start of the Nicene Christians' return to power, not the Arians', as Julian deliberately equalized the two branches again to make them fight each other.

[@andrewsuryali8540]

@@obaaneatyThe establishment of Christianity as a state religion is usually marked to the Theodosian Edict. However, what most people don't realize is that Theodosius ONLY ISSUED AN EDICT. In reality, the Constantinian Dynasty was when the organization and hierarchy of the Church, as well as its establishment at the center of imperial power, occured. In particular, the establishment of dioceses under the bishops happened under Constantine himself, and it was also Constantine who granted the dioceses legal powers so that Christians were allowed to transfer civil lawsuits into religious courts (the beginnings of canon law). This act of legal favoritism was what really turned Christianity into the state religion. The paroikia (parishes) were further established under Constantius II to increase the governing power and reach of the Church. Julian tried to reverse this by removing the legal powers of the religious courts, but he didn't reign long enough to make it stick. All Theodosius actually did was bring back the Constantinian era organization and powers of the Church. Christianity was already a state religion under Constantine and Constantius II in every aspect of its function. However, the Constantinians were still tolerant of other religious expressions. This is another thing people usually misunderstand about Theodosius' edict. Theodosius didn't set up a state Church. That was already available to him. What he actually did was suppress all competitors to that state Church. That's what the Theodosian Edict was really about. The only post-Constantinian emperor who contributed to the organization and expansion of power of the Church in any significant manner was Justinian I with his establishment of the Five Patriarchates. This is the real historical basis for the authority of the Popes of the Catholic and Coptic churches today.

[@alanpennie8013]

​@@obaaneaty It's complicated, as they say. My understanding is that Constantius II (like his father) was not committed to any particular Christology but simply wanted The Church to be harmonious and united. So he looked for inclusive formulae which anyone should be able to accept and this suited the surviving Arians who were a small and stigmatised minority until the barbarian kingdoms took up their ideas for political reasons.

[@str.77]

Largely true except of one detail: Constantine always favoured reconciliation and thus was quite lenient to Arian bishops who pretended to accept the Nicene creed. They then influenced him recall other Arians (Arius himself however was prevented by a very ignoble death) and banish those "die-hards" who refused to reconcile them - sounds familiar! On his deathbed, Constantine was baptised by one of those Arian bishops, Eusebius of Nicomedia. But this did not "technically make him an Arian". That sentence, like most sentences involving the word "technically", is absurd. Constantine never wavered in his commitment to the Nicene creed itself. As long as he lived, those Arians and others that were uncomfortable with the creed couldn't dare oppose it. Once he was dead, under Constantius II, the attack on the Creed began, with synod after synod drawing up different alternatives and one group of non-Nicenes fighting - and banishing - the other. It was then - only then - that words like "homoios" (similar), "anhomoios" (dissimilar) and "homoiusios" (similar in substance") were brought up. It was ironically this turmoil that convinced many Easterners that had opposed the Nicene creed that this was the best wording after all. Especially the "homoiusian" camp mostly joined the pro-Nicene side. What also helped were the several banishments: bishops from the East were exiled to the West and vice versa, thereby gaining an inside into how the other part of the Empire saw things. The result was the reworked creed that we know today.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

​@@str.77interesting!

[@carmelo1509]

Mr. Hamar's lectures are extremely informative and comprehensive.

[@andrewsuryali8540]

About the Arian baptistry: Arians don't use halos for their imagery of Jesus and the holy people. That's the most common and distinguishing feature.

[@EricToro-ef4hr]

the halos are agnostic symbolism.

[@laurencecox2657]

One feature of the Council of Nicaea that doesn't usually get mentioned, but is remarked upon by Geza Vermes in his book "Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea AD30-325" is that almost all the participants were from the eastern part of the Roman Empire; I think it was just six bishops from the western part and even the Bishop of Rome did not attend, but sent one of his priests. The argument between the Arians and Trinitarians was of little interest to almost all Christians in the western part of the Roman Empire.

[@pianosonata5029]

Well, of course, the western part Christians weren't at all Christians. They had made a mixture of paganism with Christianism. The three main gods of every culture found home in the Christian Trinity. This was just a power grab. A certain sect of Christianism was chosen by the politicians, so the rest of the Christians were doomed. Nothing else mattered.

[@josepheridu3322]

I'm surprised Arian Christianity died off after being so popular for so long in so many places, as if it never existed, even in places where they were not prosecuted.

[@alanpennie8013]

You have to remember that as late antiquity went on Arianism was increasingly associated with hicks who knew nothing about philosophy, or in other words uneducated people. Any one who received a higher education would receive a lesser or greater exposure to Platonism and from their pov Trinitarianism would look like common sense.

[@str.77]

It was never that popular to begin with., more a thing of bishops and courtiers. In the East - and it was a purely Eastern thing - some had issues with the Nicene creed and especially the condemnations attached to it. Terminology wasn't yet totally clear as well. The ensuing turmoil convinced many Easterners that the Nicene creed was good after all and the result was the updated version that we have today. Arianism then got an imported revival because Germanic peoples had become Christians when Arianism was dominant and now brought it with them when they invaded the Empire. Some, like the Goths, were mainly tolerant, others, like the Vandals, persecuted the Catholic Roman population, but it always was a foreign element. A large reason for the success of the Franks was that they adopted Christianity in the version common among the Roman population in Gaul.

[@JonBrownSherman]

Arianism wasn't at all "mostly Eastern" and it was the primary form of Christianity first preferred by most Germanic peoples until the 8th century, including the Vandals, Goths, and Langobards. It stopped being prevalent due to political reasons and influence by the pope.

[@JonBrownSherman]

The tenets of Arianism are actually how many modern protestant Christians conceptualize the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God The Father. They don't know anything about it by name due to the lack of rigorous theological thought and discussion in modern protestant Christianity, but when surverys ask them descriptive questions about this stuff, it very often goes against the Nicene Creed and the Trinity.

[@josepheridu3322]

@@JonBrownSherman It seems to me that the closest Protestants to Arianism are the Jehovah Witnesses, who believe in Jesus as Son of God, but not as God incarnated. A lot of Protestant theology is very Catholic, they are just not aware of it, tho.

[@bgp001]

In regards to the holy spirit, some of the early Christian groups identified the holy spirit as female and could be interpreted as the mother aspect of the monad.

[@veronica_._._._]

Gnostic heresies you mean.

[@bgp001]

@@veronica_._._._ Some would be identified as that, but the "gnostic" groups are not so easily identified as we, in the modern world, believe they could be categorized. Early Christianity was much more varied than most are willing to admit.

[@veronica_._._._]

@@bgp001 Of course their are a 1001 errors and one 🎯 Defining my terms here specifically? l'm using gnostic, in the "emotional catharsis " pagan sense of "god becoming" and the disgust lust continuum. acted out in dionysian mutilation or, masochistic mutilation. The first ends in disgust the second begins in disgust. Christianity was inward focused, the opposite of the pagan "venting" periodic safety valve.. Many early texts were also satires, parodies, some were the equivalent of fanfic even, and the text version of attacks like the crucified mule headed figure seen in the graffiti.

[@bgp001]

@@veronica_._._._ ok

[@veronica_._._._]

@@bgp001 Are you really ok tho?

[@mercelloveras7453]

Congratulations! Your explanations about the Trinity clear me up about this holy mystery. I'm happy that, finally, I can comprehend such important principle of Christianity. Thanks a lot

[@jamstawildman]

Fantastic lecture. I very much loved the final section - My own 21st Century Christology ❤

[@yungkakashi2447]

Santa Claus slapping Arius across the face is crazy, lol

[@carytodd7211]

Excellent lecture. Well-organized, informative, and tantalizing historical analysis.

[@Cp6uH_]

Arianism makes sense to me. Trinity not.

[@lewisjohnson8297]

Theoretically, "understanding" is not what is required of Christians. "Belief" is supposed to be the cornerstone of faith.

[@Cp6uH_]

@@lewisjohnson8297 Believe based on something. You must have some pointers. If you just believe, you can worship Mickey Mouse in that way.

[@junramos2002]

​@@lewisjohnson8297Yup, typical of god. He forbade Adam and Eve from having "knowledge of good and evil". What did he want? Obedience. In John 3:16, it says "whoever believes will have everlasting life"... in John 3:18 it says "whoever does not is already condemned". Believers are proud to say "they go by faith, not by sight". So even if we already see something, even if there already is evidence for something, the believer can ignore it and just walk by faith. God made believing so important... believing in things without proof... even if it goes against what the human mind is supposedly capable of understanding. And if you refuse to believe because the doctrine seems illogical/inconsistent, then what? You are doomed?

[@ienjoyapples]

If an explanation of God, who is incomprehensible, makes sense to you, then it's probably a bad explanation.

[@lewisjohnson8297]

@@junramos2002 , according to what is claimed to be His word, yes! You're doomed ...unless you repent. That is the Jesus part: If you "believe" in him and repent your past mistakes, you need no longer be Jewish as a prerequisite to avoid Hell.

[@lordosouls]

Incredible video. And the lecturer is excellent.

[@TarpeianRock]

Thanks yet again John Hamer ! It takes real courage explaining the Holy Trinity ! I missed a word or two about the Nestorians, they’re still around as a write this.

[@johnelwoodclarke5366]

Very interesting lecture I enjoyed it.

[@berendharmsen]

Found you again! I used to really enjoy his lectures and then one day, I realised they didn't show up inb my feed anymore and no matter how I tried, I couldn't find a name for him, or his church and I completely forgot and found that it can be surprisingly difficult to look for someone if all you can search is 'some minister guy from a rather groovy, possibly Canadian church that does quite scientific lectures about religion.' Somehow, that doesn't bring him up.

[@karenlankford8558]

This was helpful to me in understanding how modern Christians came to accept this really crazy sounding idea of a 3 in 1 god.

[@Theclap94]

To me the idea of the 3 in 1 thing is the basic human inability of God's infinite Ness. He is creator of all things . He is everything at all times all the time

[@marknaj3026]

​@@Theclap94 God said he is one. Never said I am 3 or 4.

[@meryemnesli3643]

Really enlightening. Thank you.

[@annasalko]

Oh man, I can't stop laughing at Santa punching Arius in the face. This lecture is awesome. 🤣🤣🤣

[@brendanwilson5745]

Thank you for these lectures. I always learn and enjoy.

[@GizmoFromPizmo]

This is why Catholic Trinitarianism is such a mess. Why can't Jesus have been the begotten Son of God. The two persons of the trinity could have been in heaven together prior to Jesus' birth. What's wrong with that? The Father didn't become the Father until He conceived in that woman His Son. What is so hard about that? Jesus prayed that He would rejoin the Father in heaven when He prayed: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (Jn. 17:5) So, Jesus was with God in the beginning and shared His glory. In fact, "before the world was", He was with God. Catholicism doesn't think through its doctrines very well at all.

[@deborahdean8867]

Yes, and jesus was 'slain before the foundation of the world '. Meaning his purpose as savior was established from the beginning. Just like a parent knows before the child is born, they're willing to die for it if need be. And of course God knew what adam/people would do .

[@doughylkema2920]

I've watched some of your lectures. I come from the Roman Catholic belief and very much appreciate your detailed, thorough, thoughtful insight and explanations into the history and background of Christianity and Judeo-Christian religions.

[@johnschuh8616]

Very useful, but differ basically because you seems to “buy” so much of the historical critical method. That method elevates the scientific method by attributing to it too much explanatory power. For instance, the dispute within physics. The 20th century saw an abandonment of the classical atomic theory. Since the word atomic is latinized as indivisible, then the concept of atomic particles along with the Einsteinian equivalence of matter and energy, means that philosophic materialism seems to loose its utility as a basis for naturalism. Forget everything that Hume said. Miracles can happen.

[@suryatchandra]

Hi, thank you for your wonderful videos ! Even if these topics are not new, you manage to explain everything very well, and personnaly I've learned a few things, especially what you have explained about the eucharist. In my opinion, the main problem in the christian trinity is the concept of "the Son", opposed to "the Father", as this implies an idea of generation.... The concept of logos is much more clear, as we can understand that the mind of God, or his intelligence, or his speech can manifest in his consciousness, so it is begotten, but not different in substance from the spirit that God is. It is like the supreme Spirit and his activity. When you said that the Son is always created, this makes perfect sense here. So we got this description of the trinity : - the principle, who is self-conscious - the logos / intelligence / speech - the holy breath, which is the divine power of action, and the source of life Now, the concept of "the Son" seems to come from another system, as when we talk about the father and the son, it implies that there should be the mother as well... In this case, we have this descritpion of the trinity : - the father : the principle, who is self-conscious, - the mother : the logos / intelligence / speech, the power of manifestation - the son, who is an union of the two : the spirit of the father starts to be fascinated by a concept created by his creative mind (the mother), then he unites himself with it, so that this concept becomes self-conscious and can experience itself. As a consequence, his divine freedom becomes a bit limited, but he can "expand himself" into a self-conscious creation, so to speak. I think that this second understanding of the trinity is the one of the gnostics ? In this view, we can uderstand why the son is the same as the father, it is the same consciousness and the same person, but limited to a certain form created by the mother. Besides, I don't understand why you discard all the miracles which are narrated in the gospels. Of course, we cannot be sure of that which really happened two thousands years ago, but, many christian saints "performed" some miracles, so I don't know why Jesus himslef would not have been able to produce some of them as well ?

[@andrewisjesus]

see we are the son of God. Great lecture. all time great

[@IsraelShekelberg]

Very informative review which will help my research. John Milton (at least as I recall from college) incorporated some Arian features into his masterwork 'Paradise Lost'.

[@vickitallant2121]

Wow thank you this explains so much to me I will forever be grateful to you for your knowledge.And sharing this knowledge.God Bless You.

[@adelaperezdelviso1]

Excellent lecture !! Thank you !! from San Luis, Argentina.

[@StephaniJohnson-o8t]

When I was twelve, while attending a question answer session at my cousins' Southern Baptist Church, a parishioner asked the pastor a question that I still remember. He had been reading the

[@StephaniJohnson-o8t]

the bible and asked about the "Son of Man". The pastor replied that it was Jesus and that he preferred to be called that.

[@kimfleury]

Thank you for clarifying the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I'm Catholic, and understand that Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, I know it in my heart, but I could only say, "I don't know how it's true, it just is." You've explained the concept more clearly than I've ever heard. I'm going to suggest to my parish priest that this explanation should be taught in religious instruction for Catholics and those who are seeking to know what the Church teaches.

[@Ldgreggbell]

The irony is what he said is closer to the view of Lutheranism.

[@ScottyMcYachty]

Thanks John. Another awesome and educational video!

[@Anarchy_NZ]

Thank you for these very important discussions on Christology. I really enjoy these lectures especially the ones relating to Gnostic Theology regarding Sophia, The Demiurge (Yaldabaoth) and the world being a cosmic mistake yet still only an illusion. I see the Christ as the Eternal Creation not born (begotten) in time but in Eternity and The Father the I AM, the First Cause, the Prime Mover, The Source of all Creation and The One True Un-begotten. I believe nothing exists outside of this Holy Relationship and The Holy One refers to the binding of Father and Son whom are not one but also not two. Forever Creating Infinitely together in Eternity. Many blessings to you and all who read this 🙏 ❤

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Thank you. I look forward to the braided ponytail

[@TarekFahmy]

amazing video.. greetings from Egypt

[@avg8or]

I’ve watched so many of these lectures and they are really good. I was wondering if you could provide more detail as to your certainty that Mark (traditionally a child during Jesus’ life) was not written by a “witness.” My understanding is that after his time with Paul, he accompanied Peter and wrote down a combination of what he witnessed and what Peter witnessed. I don’t see the temple destruction argument overcoming the possibility that Mark wrote “his” gospel. (ESP if he was a child)

[@michaelhenry1763]

You have correctly identified Mark’s authorship as according to Church tradition especially according to second century church fathers. However, according to Biblical scholarship, the book of Mark was written anonymously in 70 CE after the destruction of the Temple.

[@avg8or]

@@michaelhenry1763 Yes, thank you. That is the point of my post. Dating of authorship after temple destruction works to rule out Matthew and John. It does not seem to rule out Mark (or Luke-separate discussion). Furthermore, if it wa sufficient to rule out part of Mark (who’d only be 42-55 years old at 70 CE), it would only mean that the temple prophecy part was ruled out. I don’t see the scholarly reason to rule out the tradition that Peter taught Mark and the Mark authorship, but I’d love to understand it.

[@michaelhenry1763]

@@avg8or Yes, I agree with you. Why could not Mark write the first gospel in 70 CE? It is ruled out mostly because of the unreliability of Papias in the early second century. He is the first one to suggest that the gospel of Mark was written by Mark the companion of Peter. He says that Mark wrote the recollections of Peter the best he could. However, this claim by Papias does not fit with the Mark we have. Mark writes about many things Peter is not witnessed to. Additionally, Mark appears to be Pauline and a Greek speaker. To be charitable, we could say that Mark wrote a gospel we both longer have.

[@avg8or]

@@michaelhenry1763 Thankyou. I think you are correct in some of your logic bc the unreliability of Papius is a sound reason for questioning some of the source, but not strong enough to rule it out. We certainly don’t know if he’s the first to source Mark-Peter for the gospel, just the first we know of. The Greek part seems not very sound, since he was supposedly in a wealthy family from Cyprus that owned the home in Jerusalem. At least, he and his family seem to be one of the wealthiest followers that we could fairly attribute some literacy to (unlike some other disciples or members of the “12”). As far as the parts Peter was not present for, I think the multiple source theory synchronizes with that issue. Sayings gospel, Signs gospel, Peter narrative, and Mark narrative seems like a four source theory at a minimum to form my opinion. It seems to me that rather than rule out Mark, we should probably give a statistic of greater than 50% chance the vast majority of the first 85-95% of the gospel of Mark we have today was composed/compiled by the one we know as John Mark.

[@michaelhenry1763]

@@avg8or Yes, you are correct, Papias is the first we know of. However, what he describes as Mark is not our Mark. I have never heard anything about Mark’s background. Where did you hear Mark was from a wealthy family from Cyprus and had another home in Jerusalem? Mark is not using sources in the multiple source theory because his gospel is one of the main sources for Matthew, Luke, and John ( less so). The Sayings gospel, or “Q”, is a hypothetical gospel devised by scholars to explain the similarities between Matthew and Luke that disagree with Mark. The only sayings gospel we have is the gospel of Thomas written in the early second century. The Signs gospel is another hypothetical document devised to explain the signs material in the gospel of John. What is the Peter narrative? We have nothing from Peter. The best we have is what Paul says about him . The Mark narrative is his entire gospel. The gospel of Mark was written by an unknown second generation Greek-speaking Christian writing outside of Judea and after the destruction of the second temple. I think he was a follower of a Pauline tradition. I believe he got the idea of the Lord’s supper from Paul, for example, and also invented the empty tomb narrative to try to align his story with Paul’s vision narrative in 1 Corinthians 15. I think that may be one reason why his gospel ends abruptly at 16:8.

[@RobertEFiedler]

The relation >is< in the diagram at 31:35 is not used like >is identical to< in 'normal language For example, >The Son is (identical to) God< is meant to be a true statement in this context, whereas the inversion >God is (identical to) The Son< is an unwanted statement, as it would reduce God to the Son only, etc. Other than in normal language, the attribution of identity works here only in one direction. If it would work symmetrically, >Son = God = Father = God = Holy Ghost< would follow - without the use of transitivity. What seems to be an even more severe problem is, that the diagram only works if in addition to Father, Son and Holy Ghost, a fourth logical variable is introduced: God. Unfortunately, according to the diagram, God is even more than one of the three individual components, which can be understood as a degradation of the Father to the level of the Son / Holy Ghost. Somehow, the guys in Nicea were not able to find a way out of the dilemma.

[@poi2lkj3mnb]

Im rather sceptical as to what extent the common Roman pesant was committed to the Trinity. I know historians say that the Goths subjects were Trinitarians, but is this a justified belief about the common people, or an assumption that they agreed with the church hierarchy?

[@str.77]

The Goths' Roman subjects were Orthodox/Catholic Christians - and thus "Trinitarians". It was the Arians who made a big fuss about being different.

[@maxsonthonax1020]

I am sure the average goth, vandal, etc was supremely indifferent to such finnicky questions. 😃

[@str.77]

@@maxsonthonax1020 The average Goth maybe But it was Ostrogoths and Vandals that even instituted a separate baptism, with the Vandals eben persecuting the Orthodox Christians. Way to make sure a kingdom stays divided.

[@PhiloLogos777]

I would love to understand how the Holy Spirit got thrown into the trinity. Can easily see how the biblical cannon contradicts itself on whether Jesus is God (capital G) or not but can’t figure out what scriptures would lead any ancient Christian to conclude it was also a third person of God

[@Greenfrog777]

On the contradiction about God creating the universe at a point in time: Aristotle argued that the cosmos must be eternal for this very reason - his Prime Mover creates eternally, not at a specific point

[@ezkl9424]

How absurd to think that the Bible is something less than God's word, and that the Protestants are wrong to believe that. Jesus said in the Book of John that he had come to make his father's name known. He came to make his father's characteristics known. The record of that event is recorded in the Bible. To imply that Protestants are wrong to believe that is absurd.

[@SeriousPOV]

Wonderful scholarship

[@TheNikean]

15:00 How is Jesus dispassionate in John? "Jesus wept" is from John. I've heard he's very emotionally removed in Luke.

[@quackcdable]

John, as someone who grew up in the JWs and has studied theology since, I can confirm that your categorization of their theology as Neo-Arianism is factually correct. They hold Jesus to be a created being, specifically identified with Michael the Archangel, who was made incarnate and imbued with God’s power and authority through the Holy Spirit, which is itself held to be the noncorporeal vital force that emanates from the Father “Jehovah”, but is not considered a distinct person as such.

[@Old_Patriot]

Thanks for your explanation of the JW view on the divinity of Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah) and of the Holy Spirit. I studied a little with a JW friend years ago and I've thought about this topic a lot. Never really knew what the full explanation was until now. Thank you for your concise and very clear explanation.

[@prayunceasingly2029]

Is it possible original arianism held Christ to be more than just a created being but still less than God? Or am I thinking of semi Arianism?

[@hereweare9096]

Well Jesus was created. He is literally called Gods Son in scripture. Was the first of creation..

[@benneal9309]

​@@prayunceasingly2029exactly, hes the begotten son of God, since before time existed, who created all as 1 Corinthians 8 v 6 tells us, If you really want to look into arianism from our view as opposed to a trinitarians view look up Nader Mansour, I have never seen him lose a single debate against trinitarians

[@steveflorida8699]

@@benneal9309 the begotten son is surely the Creator Son of 🌎🌍 and the life that dwells there on. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life".

[@skyefarnam7857]

Why were some Gospels hidden, lost , rejected? I have blamed Constantine and the bishops but get the impression it's more complicated than that. For some reason they were rejected and perhaps for that reason some were hidden to be discovered later. Thoughts? A whole lecture?

[@str.77]

Constantine did not reject any gospels nor did the Council even discuss the Bible canon. The canon developed over a lengthy stretch of time (late 1st to late 4th century) but by 300 it was largely settled, with only a handful of books still disputed (they eventually all made it into the Bible). The alternative gospels you mention were all way younger than the four canonical ones and also were restricted to certain groups. E.g. one gnostic group hat their own gospel, another group another gospel.

[@skyefarnam7857]

@@str.77 so they were younger? That means they were closer to the time of Jeshua? Ok no wonder they are so good

[@str.77]

@@skyefarnam7857 No, younger means closer away from Jesus. None of them would have called Him Jeshua as they were thoroughly non-Jewish.

[@Greenfrog777]

It might be interesting to do a lecture on monism in Polytheist traditions. Even in Greek tradition, the Stoics held the First Principle as nature, identified it directly as Zeus, and then the other Gods are created by Zeus as that divine fire separates out into different elements and divine principles. Meanwhile, Proclus's Neo-Platonism denies that The One is a particular god, but is instead the Principle of Godliness which all of the Gods/Henads/Ones participate, in the same way that Humanity is not a human, but is the principle which all humans participate.

[@edbrown6188]

Is not the father a metaphor for earlier reflections on life which projected one’s current situation?

[@joanapira365]

Swastike is the symbol of the sun. It exists in Thibetian temple , in Acropolis Athens temple, also on hand tattoos of hindoeuropean people around West Balkans.

[@EricToro-ef4hr]

the swastika is a symbol of spirituality. and good luck it can be Christian or Hinduism anything that is positive. It's an Aryan race symbol. which was adopted by other cultures and races? The Aryans have mixed with. it's not a negative symbol like our communist schools and media tells us.

[@luigigarciasaavedra655]

Regarding what you said about the eucharist, about transubstantiation, could it be said that since it is the purpose that changes, that what is happening (or taken as happening) is a symbolism? All the presentation was great. This part was illuminating as was the centre of a exchange I had with a person on a religious group some years ago.

[@jeffreyelliottcruz8095]

Professor John Hamer you just gave one of the best lectures , I have experienced re Tritariasm and the nature of the divine. Thank you Now having said this I believe the epherial fluidity of triantarism is an excellent methodology to attempt to absorb the mystery of the infinite divine from the perspective of a finite coporeal material world. I especially enjoyed your salient points regarding the somewhat diminished distinction, most particularly, the unnecessary rivalry between polytheism versus monotheism. In actuality, your clarification of what some ancient people believed re the idols, that is , the idol was not the divine God, but rather an conduit or portal, or Stargate , wherein, the divine would transfer supernatural energy via the idol to the material world. Thus, when one ponders upon this the ancient monotheistic culture such as the post polytheistic Israelites also utilized their temple structures in similar fashion. That is, like the philistine idol the temple was a gateway, a conduit , a portal for the incorporeal divine to manifest power through the material edifice of the Israelite sacred temple. In some cases, the polytheist demanded sacrifice; so did the ancient Leveriate deity . However, a moral distinction was annunciated quite early, in that the Caanite God Molech demanded child and virgin human sacrifice. While the ancient Leveriate manifestations of Diety developed to require animal sacrifice. The holy man, Joseph Smith, as a restorationist also required his people to erect holy edifices as sacred temples. And as you often state in your lectures, the nature and purpose of these Latter Day Temples would change. A truism, nonetheless, the foundational fundamental purpose of the Latter Day Temples remained constant, in that, as the ancients the temple functioned as a conduit, a portal, a Stargate wherein the varied manifestations of the divine connected to the material world. ( Is the many manifestations of divinity and exalted celestial beings at the dedication of the Kirkland temple) Your point regarding the concept of the prophet Joseph, in relationship, to the nature and development of his progressing and transformative nature of divinity was well articulated. ( As highlighted and manifested via the very Pauline view of divinity oft cited in the Book of Mormon and thus the articulation and development of notions of the epherial and also corporeal nature of Diety in D&C 132 and other sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. Given legitimate inquiry into the historicity of the scriptures and the potent argument that the metaphysical energy and transformative healing process actually centers in gospel concepts such as love, mercy, forgiveness, grace and compassion. The prophet Joseph should be viewed favorably as a holy one that also uplifted and contributed to the metaphysical advancment and progress of humanity. As I have alluded too on earlier occasions. The account of Lehi's vision or dream of the tree of life deserves to take it's place among similar manifestations in Daniel, Ezekiel and revelations. Joseph Smith's work, therein, is a gifted masterpiece. In addition, as another illustration, the divine notions , he outlined , in DC 132 are amazingly stunningly pronunciation of his view of the divine nature of God, community , marital bonds, and the ancient Leveriate laws of procreation , marital union and celestial musings. Thus , this too earns him a place among the great contributors to celestial theology. As so often the case, it is not the quiet conformist that rises to greatness, but the thinker, the philosophers, the idealist, the innovator which rises from humble beginnings to a unique voice among the conventional and ordinary conformist. As in the case, of Christ, Socrates, Julius Caesar, Gandhi, Smith these men are martyred for their innovations . For example, Julius Caesar immersion in equitable land reform, diversity in granting Roman citizenship, providing more representation to the plebian class and conversely limiting the power of the patrician class guaranteed Cesaor a death sentence ( just as it did the Gracchi brothers) So it was with the Rabbi Christ and the scholar and professor Socrates. The prophet Joseph suffered the same fate for teaching a non Victorian view of marriage, an innovative , non Orthodox viewpoint of the divine. The rationale , trial and murder of these individuals of distinction always purport legitimate rationale for heinous crime, polygamy, corrupting the youth, granting citizenship to barbarians, land reform which steals from the patrician class and feeds the sloth of the plebian class, so forth and so on. Any and every rationale is supplied to justify murder , except for the trusm. That is, the extraordinary contribution each has made to the extension of human understanding, insight and development of thought. And yet, their discipleship often continues to grow long after the assassins knife extinguished the corporeal body because the divine spark is eternal and lives on in some methodology, concept and manner. This is true, whether , it is building a new Zion or building a new constitution including land reform.

[@equinoxswine9132]

Jesus was at least an enlightened being, however I think he gained that enlightenment through travels and gaining wisdoms from multiple ideologies, and combining them with his own roots. Last we see of him before he's 30 in the Bible is when he's 12, debating with philosophers. He was certainly thirsty for knowledge, and there are 18 unaccounted for years of Yeshua's life. I believe he gained enlightenment and tried to spread that enlightenment to his own people.

[@str.77]

Topic starts at 7:05. BTW, the Y in Aryan is a purely English thing.

[@poi2lkj3mnb]

To me the Trinity seems like an obvious absurdity, Jesus clearly didn't teach that he was at the same level of the father and neither did Paul. I find the Muslim criticism that the Trinity is mearly occulted paganism to be persuasive.

[@gow2ilove]

Unfortunately the scripture is contradictory. At times Jesus claimed directly to be God, whilst at others he claimed very clearly that he was not God. I agree with you that the Trinity is absurd, but it appears to be the only way to square the circle of scriptural contradictions

[@jamesregiste960]

Where does Jesus claim to be god? The Trinity was introduced to the Bible by Philo of Alexandria, A Hellenic platonic philosopher, a pagan.😊

[@exoplanet11]

@@jamesregiste960 I think the passages in the later gospels like "I and the Father are one" are what @gow2ilove was thinking of. Apparently when Erasmus translated the Bible from the Greek, he didn't include trinity because it wasn't there. Later versions added it in. The Trinity seems to have been created to solve a theological/ Christological problem we don't have today, and a political problem that Constantine had to resolve in order to unify the empire.

[@ΓραικοςΕλληνας]

@@jamesregiste960 many times but first tell me which is the main word that shows deity in the original language text of the NT

[@str.77]

@@gow2ilove @jamesregiste960 Actually, Jesus never once claimed (let alone "very clearly") that he was not God.* Showing your humaniy is not the same as claiming not to be God. He however did say that "I and the Father are one", thus claiming to be God. Trinitarian theology is the synthesis of all these statements - not contradictory ones but complex ones. *Or else, show the verse where Jesus claimed not to be God.

[@skepticalbaby7300]

Great lecture. However, as a muslim (just to be upfront), i do think u misrepresent the sunni view of the uncreatedness of the Qur'an. It is viewed as the literal speech of Allah. That is, it is an attribute that is of Him, like His sight. That is not analogous to the christian view of Jesus in relation to the father. Allah has Sight to see and Speech to speak. But God doesn't need Jesus to be God, but he does need a son to be a father. So i think the difference in views really comes down to the christian view that one of God's attributes is "The Father" which muslims reject. This attribute necessitates a "Son" or "Daughter" and the subsequent theorizing on the relationship between the two and the further extension of "sonship" being anothe attribute of God. I would also note that shia muslims do believe in a created Quran. Ur description implies that sunni muslims engage in similar activity but just don't acknowledge it. I think that's overstating the situation. I would be interested to know why trinitarism prevailed?

[@michaelhenry1763]

Thank you for the greater clarity. Trinitarianism came to dominate simply because of the power dynamic in the Roman Empire.

[@deborahdean8867]

The view of God as father refers to God's relationship with man. Adam is called a son of God because God created him. We are known as children of God because God created us. Jesus was known as the last adam prophetically. But that's a different discussion. I just wanted to point out that the reason God is called father is because He is the creator of all. Not because of a special and peculiar biological relationship to certain people. God is also called father because of His relationship to mankind.........protector, guide, teacher. He could have been referred to as mother , IF His sole relationship to mankind was simply nurturer .

[@Zersetzor]

1:55:00 The question is probably referring to Arianism getting a second chance after Nicaea because the Germans were Arians.

[@Brian-----]

One way I explain Catholicism in part to others who ask, is that the Catholic concept of God indeed defies "Greek logic" (32:00) because logic does not bind God, but instead is God's gift to us so we can make sense of God's creation. All-powerful God can be as illogical as God wants. The heresy of Arius was not in the idea, it's hardly a bad idea, but in his persistence in placing logic before God after being shown otherwise. Heresy requires persistence in error, not merely error or speculation. Heresy really can be a flavor of the sin of pride.

[@TobiramaRock]

“ If you say something against our beliefs we will slap you ! “ - the religion of love.

[@kentpaulhamus2158]

Arianism is a belief concept by a man, the Trinity (Godhead) is from God's Word. [GODHEAD IN THREE PERSONS (1 Joh. 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. Ac. 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Col. 2:9 For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Ps. 19:1-6 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Day into day utters speech, and night into night shows knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voices not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them has he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.) The Father, Son and Spirit are called God. FATHER (Joh. 6:27); SON (Joh. 1:1-3; 8:58; 20:28; Ac. 20:28; Heb. 1:8); SPIRIT (Ac. 5:3-4) All three persons are mentioned together in the same passages. 1. The baptism of Christ (Mt. 3:16-17). 2. The promise of the Comforter (Joh. 14:16). 3. The Kingdom Commission (Mt. 28:18-20). 4. Paul's apostolic benediction (2 Cor. 13:14). 5. The unity of the spirit (Eph. 4:4-6). The Trinity working in unity as the Godhead. 1. Creation - The Spirit moved (Gen. 1:2). God spoke, Christ (the Word) created all things (Joh. 1:1-3); God said, "Let US make man in OUR image (Gen. 1:26; 1 Th. 5:23) 2. Incarnation - The Father gave (Joh. 3:16-17), the Spirit placed the seed (Mt. 1:18; Lk. 1:35), and the Son was born of a virgin (Mt. 1:18-25) 3. Resurrection (Ac. 13:30) - Father (Gal. 1:1), Son (Joh. 10:17), Spirit (Rom. 8:11) 4. Salvation (Eph. 1:3-14) 5. Prayer (Eph. 3:14; 5:20; 6:18)]

[@maciiol2]

Quoting the johannine comma 1 john 5:7 is embassing. It does not exist in the original koine greek manuscripts, it was inserted into scripture doing the reformation era. Try reading it in any other modern translation than the KJV, as you'll find it won't be there. If you want people to take you seriously, try not to include it next time you post a wall of scripture, especially not at the very top atleast lol

[@kentpaulhamus2158]

@@maciiol2 1 John 5:7 (1599 Geneva Bible) For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the [1]Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are [2]one. [1] See John 8:13, 14. [2] Agree in one. The koine Greek manuscripts are not found in the many early church letters copied from the Apostle's inspired Word of God. 1 John 5:7 is not embarrassing to me! 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[@maciiol2]

@@kentpaulhamus2158 I call the koine greek manuscripts the original ones since they're the oldest we've found, (refering to the parpyrus documents) ,as we do not have the actual aramaic originals written by the apostles. It's called the greek NT for a reason. And of those greek manuscripts exist approximately 5900, and only 10 of them has the johannine comma. They all appeared after the conclusion of the first millennium. It is also totally absent in the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Georgian, Arabic written manuscripts. Pre-1000 CE it only seems to appear some couple of hundred years earlier in latin. The first one being 4th century Latin homily Liber Apologeticus. It is easy to see here that this was inserted and not legitimate. I'm always eager to accept a challenge for a real trinitarian vs unitarian debate, with the single condition that people stick to the divinely inspired canon written scripture and not apocryphal texts.

[@kentpaulhamus2158]

@@maciiol2 The most important truth is that you know, believe and trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. What we need to know about ourselves from God's Word and our only hope of being justified before a Holy and righteous God: [WHY WE HAVE NO HOPE IN OURSELVES: Mk. 7:20-23 And he (Jesus) said, That which comes out of the man, that defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things (sins) come from within, and defile the man.] [WHY WE NEED A SAVIOR: Rom. 3:10-28 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things so ever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his (God's) sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Joh. 3:16 For God so loved the world (us), that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Joh. 14:6 Jesus said to him (us), I am the way (salvation), the truth (assurance), and the life (eternal): no man comes to (God) the Father, but by me (God the Son). Rom. 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:]

[@maciiol2]

​​@@kentpaulhamus2158 Care to explain Deu 6:4, John 1:1, John 8:58, and Col 1:15 to me?

[@hiddebekaan2396]

I think, once the fact that God is not tied down to time and space is considered, then a lot of the arguments dissolve. You mentioned it only very briefly.

[@skyefarnam7857]

Wow. Your definition of the holy Spirit sounds a lot like what The New age spiritual movement describes as the oversole

[@brucekern7083]

As regards your question @ 22:32, I would say that our own broken and sinful nature is the only reason that question seems to have any merit. The Jesus I know did not think it robbery to equate oneself with God.

[@xirtus]

Saint Arius did nothing wrong.

[@michaelhenry1763]

Thank you for an amazing lecture. Regarding monotheism, I do not think any religion is truly monotheistic. I think Jews, Christians, and Muslims simply redefine what a god is and relabel lessor gods as angels, demons, Satan, and saints. I think a better way to label Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as different variations of henotheism.

[@wilsontexas]

God is an uncreated being who created all things. Created beings can be called gods but are not the uncreated being who created all things.

[@wilsontexas]

I think the words are confusing you but i think the ancient jews knew very well the difference between the creator and created beings. Dr michael heiser talks about the use ofvthe word gods and the meanings based on hebrew and ancient worldview.

[@michaelhenry1763]

@@wilsontexas Ok, sounds good. Sounds like henotheism. In many mythologies, gods or god creates other gods.

[@michaelhenry1763]

@@wilsontexas - Yes, in the Hebrew Bible there is a tension between, polytheism, henotheism and monotheism. Most of the time, ancient Jews up through the second- temple period were either polytheistic or henotheistic. Monotheism appears only occasionally in the Hebrew Bible and is even rarer in the New Testament. For example, Philo of Alexandria is not a monotheist. The early Christian writers were not monotheist if they believed that Jesus was a god, either adopted or born or pre- existent. Christians, Muslims and Jews are better defined as henotheists.

[@wilsontexas]

@@michaelhenry1763 the biblical god is uncreated, other so called gods are not real gods and were craeted.

[@garymensurati1631]

Thank you John !

[@patrickkrueger8768]

I had to finish watching , again your an excellent teacher , but it still remains that the image of God , is the truth. the son comes out of Father / Mother , they nurture the Born son to the The spirit of God , the spirit of wisdom, understanding knowledge, power , council, and the fear of the Lord. Teaching , guiding raising up the sons, which always come from and after the father and mother. Such an important part of reality said not to be relevant to God , that he would come and die for Mankind , to restore that Image , wow amazing.

[@MrDuvinci]

This was thorough

[@EnginAtik]

There is no Byzantine Empire: the empire that has Constantinople as its capital city is the Roman Empire itself. Constantine the Great named the new capital city “New Roma” not Byzantium. Citizens called themselves Romans not Byzantines. Hieronymus Wolf invented the term “Byzantine Empire” in 1551 to claim that “Holy Roman Empire” was the real the continuation of the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Emperor should be the Emperor of the Romans and not Mehmet the Conqueror who declared himself Kayser-i Rûm ("Caesar of Rome") after capturing Constantinople. “Byzantine Empire” term was invented because of the Ottoman-Habsburg rivalry and it had no historical basis.

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

Actually....They called it ' Nova Roma ' (or ' New Rome' ) When one nit-picks one needs to be accurate ;).

[@EnginAtik]

@@spiritualanarchist8162 You’re right on nitpicking etiquette but this is not nitpicking. Most people really think that there was a Byzantine Empire founded by Byzas of Megara.

[@HermeticPatriot1776]

Do you think the use of “Son of God” by Joseph Smith instead of “God” in John in the Inspired Version has Arian implications? This was written well before the Nauvoo theology.

[@jccklh]

Curious about Unitarians. How are they compared to Trinitarians?

[@henrycobb]

Whataboutism comparing the Christian trinity to conceptions of quantum mechanics?

[@astropiote]

Saint Nicolas was trying to teach Arius how to properly give the other cheek.

[@OlivierPoplin.5607]

Strange that Constantine, though he favoured Athanasius at Nicea, asked for a friend of Arius, Eusebius to baptize him on his deathbed! Also, easliy forgotten in that Arius was reinstated by Constantine as well as accepted as right by a considerable portion of the church, especially in the east of the kingdom.

[@andrewisjesus]

5:25 now I do have to critique this because this is the myth of the current Zion estate,. The reason that Jews are currently recognized as the proto-canaanite people as far as the modern state of Israel is because of their current claim to the land. Meaning if it Go by the biblical account that would mean that they were consummate Invaders. So not to dismiss whatsoever the fact that many of them probably are nativescque- BUT the reason that mainstream archaeology and anthropology points to the idea that the Hebrew people were the proto-canaanite people is a political thing to do with the claim to the land. It's ironic because the entire claim to the land is supposed to be based off of the biblical account, which as my guy John Hamer points out it's absolutely not what the Bible says. The Bible says that God gave that land to the Canaanites initially, but now he's going to give it to these foreign people. Calling the ancient Hebrew people the Proto Canaanite people is what I called having your cake and eating it too

[@mdharvey1985]

@31:42 Heavenly Mother? No where in the Bible is God the Father referred to as Heavenly Mother.

[@StanKindly]

I always imagined the first set of tablets Moses brought down had some of what we are talking about here - the mysteries of the cosmological and ontological nature of his being. But, the people obviously weren't ready for it ( worshiping golden calf and so on..). So he (Moses) broke them, went back and had to carve out the Ten Commands. Sort of a way of saying " just follow these rules." It's an very interesting event/story if you think about it... Christ added two more - love God and your neighbor - saying these are the main ones which all other commandments hang upon. It makes sense to me. Humans are still a long way off (collectively) to have God reveal these mysteries, albeit some receive insights

[@gamejew38]

He didn’t add them. Those are also commandments in the Torah by the hand of moses

[@rickfarwell4110]

At 42:30 your reference should read Proverbs 8:12, 17, 22-23. Not Proverbs 7.

[@laurencecox2657]

The chapter numbers in the Bible were added in medieval times and those in English Bibles don't always correspond to those in Hebrew Bibles.

[@rickfarwell4110]

@@laurencecox2657 True, but he was not referring to a Hebrew reading, it was a common English Bible he was quoting from, and he got the chapter wrong.

[@lamontholm]

I wondered what your thoughts are on the Filioque. The upside down triangle is how Roman Catholic views the Trinity but the Eastern Orthodox has a triangle with the pointed upwards. With the same explanation of is and is it god. But it represents god emanates Jesus and then god and Jesus emanates the Holy Ghost. Thanks for these sessions. I’m enjoying them a lot.

[@DrBahiruLegesse-SCIsurvivor]

Thank you for intellectual honesty...Though you identify with Traditional Trinitarianism to understand Godhead,you did not lose your integrity in delivering the historical context of d/t views...Am oneness pentecostal & always open to better understand Godhead......1) One question for everyone,tho...(If jesus is the biological son of Mary,how did her 23x become 46xy of the son Jesus & how do you interpret this in the light of the verse saying " The word became flesh"??....)

[@sebolddaniel]

I have always wanted to go to Iznik (Nicaea), not just for the Christian history, but for the Islamic. Maybe I could find those kiln sites where that high quality Iznik ware, beautiful white porcelain vases with red, blue and green, sometimes peacocks, sometimes flowers. You can find them in the museums of Istanbul, or in any good US museum. Groovy stuff.

[@sebolddaniel]

I did go to Ravenna and slept out there on the ground, but shot a lot of photos of those mosaics the next day. I will have to check if I got the one on your screen. I think it really groovy that you cover such things and see nothing abnormal about people who believe in such things, so don't feel bad.

[@andrewisjesus]

I will say to that I'm not 100% sold on the idea of the relationship between Hindu and and some of the other more Eastern languages they get lumped into Indo-European. And that's simply because we can see the obvious parallels in many Western languages, but then when we trying to start looking at Hindi, or Sanskrit, we are making a giant stretch to try to claim that that is a related in the family language. That was a lot to do with British colonialism

[@Sportliveonline]

How do get from the Aramaic vernacular to Greek literature is my question ?

[@marialupal6541]

The Bible was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek as that was spoken too

[@Sphere723]

There's no evidence of the cannonical gospels ever being written in aramaic. They only exist in Greek as far as we know. The best explaination is that early Christian groups had oral traditions that got written down by people that could write in Greek.

[@johnwilbur7707]

Did Athanasius I of Alexandria create another Creede that expands the roll of the holy spirit?

[@donmilland7606]

What about the burning bush? The Father communicated with Moses or the Word or both?

[@hjs9td]

John was not an eyewitness? The Gospel dedicated to explaining the place of Christ in the Cosmos was a report by CNN?