The Filioque Controvery w/ Erick Ybarra

[@orangutan8617]

It's always a delight to see Erick the Beautiful. For clarity, charity and balance he can't be beaten!

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Obviously, I agree : )

[@Mkvine]

Erick breaks this topic down masterfully

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

He really does!

[@trnslash]

Can we get E. Michael Jones to talk about Logos?

[@GavJ_81]

Erick is a top geezer

[@seanrodrigues12]

Pat this was great thanks. You said you’d put links I think

[@PhilosophyforthePeople]

Thanks, and thanks for the reminder. Uploading video description now...

[@jzak5723]

The Catholic teaching of John 16:13-15 is it, period. If we interpret the whole Bible in the way Photius interprets this passage, we're all in trouble.

[@soulcutterx13]

I've got the book on my Kindle, but I am curious, if Erick happens to read this, does he address in it the question of his defense of it as not a canonical crime? I don't recall if it came up in the introduction so far and it hasn't risen back to the top of my reading list yet.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Hi Nathan, I do not go into that in the book. I hope to do a course on this book. Just follow me on facebook for coming updates

[@soulcutterx13]

@@Erick_Ybarra That's very exciting! I was mainly interested when I bought it in the theological question, but even the introduction seemed to assuage some of my immediate worries; but while I'm comfortable living in the world where the Catholic Church did something naughty (they unfortunately do so in much more public ways than adding a word to the Creed) I was interested to see if I had that to look forward to as well. Anyways, thank you for the answer, sir!

[@seekingtruth5637]

The Roman catholic church has so compromised even with the filioque and the rest of us are suppose to take the church seriously

[@claudiozanella256]

"Baptize them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." They are three divine NAMES, not three divine PERSONS! No trinity exists! Who are they? 1. the FATHER : " so that they may behold that glory of mine, which you have given to me, for you loved me BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. 25"O righteous Father, indeed THE WORLD HAS NOT KNOWN YOU, but I HAVE KNOWN you, and these have known that you sent me." The Father is NOT here, He was NEVER here, the world did NOT KNOW Him at all! He still is absent, indeed Jesus HAS KNOWN HIM (i.e. in the past). This is why "No man HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME." INVISIBILITY is not the real reason, the actual reason is that GOD (i.e. the Father) IS ABSENT! 2. the SON: He is the Son, the ONLY KING of heaven...(to be continued) 3. the HOLY SPIRIT: you see in 1. that the Father IS ABSENT. However - even if personally missing - God is able to be here IN THE FORM OF A SPIRIT. This means that you have a GOD'S PRESENCE here, He is PRESENT here with his feelings, his words, his actions, but actually NOBODY IS HERE. He is the "SPIRIT OF GOD" ( "God is a spirit" Jn. 4:23,24). The "Spirit of God" is synonymous with "Holy Spirit" (see Mt. 3:16). In other words, Jesus has a "FATHER who is a SPIRIT" and calls Him sometimes "Holy Father", sometimes "Holy Spirit" according to circumstances. Thus, Jesus never says He is "with 1. the Father AND WITH 2. the Holy Spirit" because they are just TWO EQUIVALENT NAMES for the SAME ONE SPIRIT. Jesus says "I am not ALONE because the Father is with me", i.e. just Father and Son: Jesus doesn't even KNOW what a triune God is! This means the Spirit only comes from the Father, no filioque.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

l'eresia non è una cosa bella sai

[@claudiozanella256]

@TR Even "before the foundation of the world" the Father was able to make ALL HIS WORK because He was able to see into his future and to INTERACT with it. AND HE DID IT. This means at that distant time He was able to see the Son: HIMSELF, but now in the form of an ABSOLUTELY NORMAL MAN, WITH NO POWER AT ALL. For example the Father was able to see "Himself" at the Jesus' baptism. The Father at that event said "...my beloved Son". This happened "before the foundation of the world" from the Father's point of view, thus He indeed loved the Son "before the foundation of the world" . The words spoken by the Father arrived at destination a long time later.

[@claudiozanella256]

@TR Unfortunately the trinity doctrine has KILLED any serious attempt to understand God, by stalking people trying to do that...But now times have changed! The gospels and all of Jesus' statements must make sense when TAKEN ALTOGETHER, it is clear that: 1. Jesus is the ONLY KING of heaven. This means when He is the King it's nonsensical that the almighty God be there too, how could Jesus be the real King? Indeed Jesus claims to be next to the POWER (a thing); 2. Jesus has NO OWN POWER, He is like a normal person, reiterated several times by Him, 3. Jesus is together with the Father, but He is IN THE FORM OF A SPIRIT ("God is a spirit"), in other words this means that there exists ONLY A RELATIONSHIP with the Father, who however is ABSENT, NOBODY is here. 4. If the Father is actually not here, this means that He must dwell in a "different dimension". Most probably in a different TEMPORAL dimension as stated by Jesus "the world has not known you". 5. Was the Son actually the almighty Father in a distant past? Yes, Jesus annoyed replied to Philip " Have I been with you so long and still you do not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father."

[@claudiozanella256]

@TR Unfortunately the false trinity doctrine has basically poisoned the whole theology and even partially philosophy. My theory holds even if Jesus is distinct from the Father, in other words they are TWO. In this case the Father - before the foundation of the world - can do ALL his work and then is free from any further burden, He could even "go away". Then his Son, Jesus, inherits everything. But I believe Jesus when He claims "I and the Father are ONE", not TWO! This means that the Father - free from any burden - could get rid of his omnipotence to become like a normal man: the Son of God. "Son" only means He DERIVES from God. Logic: logic tells us that God CANNOT be here now. The reason is that if God knows the ACTUAL future - the future that really shall take place - then He cannot decide anything anymore because that future must simply come true. If on the contrary God is free to make a decision, this means that He doesn't know the future, because the future is still DEPENDENT on that current free decision. Thus, God here would either be "BLOCKED" or with NO KNOWLEDGE of the future. Immutability of God: this is false too. It is clear that God took many actions in our universe. It is clear that those actions must have been decided by God. Thus, surely God experienced a phase of actively DECIDING those actions. That deciding phase cannot last forever, this means God experienced also a phase where his decisions were made, completed. Thus the God's existence CHANGED, so that God is not immutable.

[@paulthomas955]

​@@claudiozanella256exactly, your THEORY! I'll stick with the Church, the one Christ gave the authority to Bind and Loose, who has the keys, and is the "pillar and foundation of truth"