Ah, how did I miss this one! Very enjoyable - thank you kindly. I also grew up in a very traditional religious society. I fled to Theravada Buddhism, but I now live in a Mahayana country - just as I was once an Anglican who lived in a Calvinist community. I feel like I have lived two paradoxical lives in one lifetime, and it has been wonderful. Namo Buddhaya, you two. And Dr. Hart, speaking as a Buddhist…. Roland in Moonlight - gosh.
As someone who is attracted to religious beliefs and practices but grew up in a secular home, so feels like an outsider to all religions, I very much appreciate David’s syncretism. I would love to see him have more conversations with Vedantists.
I will say that if I were to interview you (not that I'd ever be fortunate enough to do so), I'm not sure it would be made possible unless I were to be able to get my hands on something that would chill me out (increasingly, for lack of better wording, without saying too much). One day though, it might be plausible. Hope is a strange and mysterious thing, and generally vastly undervalued (something I'd never fully be able to abandon). I only try to articulate, and often I fail at it, but my attempts aren't in vain, even though I feel they are the majority of the time. I have so much I'd like to ask you, but I feel I can never time any of it as well as I'd like. I can't imagine how unnerving and overwhelming it must be in attempting to set up a potential interview with you (seeing tracers and blacking out is all I can imagine!) Wait a second, I didn't really write all this; It was someone else (Ha!).
On a separate note, I do often exchange with many unaware Thomists. I'm constantly learning of such things but it usually requires much effort to persuade them to the likes of the full victory of Jesus Christ. For myself it always reverts back to - the savior of the world (cosmos/all of mankind), but it's so often, "yeah, but only if one believes" as many in opposition respond. It's frustrating as I'm sure many others who understand the salvation of all to quite clear, especially if common sense even slightly resonates. I think my wife will be convicted of this eventually, which I hope she will be some day.
1 Corinthians 15, yeah. If Christ isn't raised, then there is no resurrection of the dead. Fundamentalists have a HUGE problem understanding this verse, including those I know personally. "To be absent from the body is the be present with the Lord" (the famous misquote from 2 Corinthians 5:8 (We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. KJV), the version I grew up with (but forgot about for years), then yours: --and we are confident and think it better to depart from home, out of the body, and come home to the Lord. This is a well refined and beautiful rendition of this sentiment that Paul speaks on. I need to read both of your New Testament renderings soon. My adhd is real but I will read it fully and give you my thoughts in the future, not that my thoughts mean much (but maybe they'll mean more later on but who really knows, it's late at night/early morning).
Hey David, what do you think about the idea that Christ was a failed eschatological prophet, which is the mainstream view of historical-critical scholarship?
@@leavesinthewind7441 Well the big names in the historical-critical world like Bart Ehrman and Dale Allison seem to think that Christ was an eschatological prophet that was convinced the consummation of the age would arrive within his own generation, and he was wrong. This has sort of been nagging at me as a Christian for the past view months, and I ask myself “well what’s the point of following some failed prophet?” Wouldn’t Christ’s eschatological outlook being incorrect be pretty damning for the Christian faith as a whole? I’ve been curious to hear your thoughts on the delay of the parousia, perhaps you have touched in this in one your books, forgive me I do not remember.
@@davidshoesmith3780 Those are two minor scholars among many thousands. A method is not the same thing as the conclusions drawn by some who employ it. Others in the same school see Jesus as a sapiential prophet using metaphors from the prophets to warn against an approaching historical calamity (such as the Temple’s destruction).
What do you think of the idea that Paul didn't mention the women at the tomb because of an androcentric bias? As Dale Allison notes, Justin Martyr doesn't mention them when defending the Resurrection in the Dialogue, despite the fact that he knew the canonical gospels. And of course, pagan critics (like Celsus) used the fact that women were the first (only?) witnesses to the empty tomb as an argument against it. So perhaps it's not surprising that 1 Cor. 15 doesn't mention them.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Do you find the typical arguments in defense of the tomb story (e.g. that it's unlikely for anyone to have invented a story which relies on the testimony of women) to be unconvincing? I thought Allison's most recent book on this matter was quite good, personally. I do think it seems implausible that Paul believed in Jesus' burial (which he clearly did) without having any sort of narrative about it. And if his narrative differed from that given by Mark, then why is there no trace of it in the sources?
@@jamesreilly7416 That is not relevant to what I said. I did not call the tomb story into question. I merely remarked that one could not tell from Paul’s extant texts what stories he was aware of.
@@jamesreilly7416 Ah. I think there's at least a powerful inferential case that the testimony of women would not have been adduced as a fabrication. If one were making something up, the tradition of the women visitors to the tomb being the first witnesses would not--one would think--be the natural choice.
Slavoj Zizek’s latest book is about Christian atheism apparently. He’s been sharing some interesting interpretations of scripture, like that The Holy Spirit is the first instance of a communist party. It would be interesting to listen to David and Slavoj discuss Christian Communism.
I wonder to what degree you posit the unbinding nature of the councils, Dr. Hart. I ask this because, though I am and forever shall be one of your fans and admirers, I find it confusing to confess Christianity without at least some grounding in the conciliar confessions (Chalcedonian & Nicene confessions). Despite the plasticity with which I treat the "definitional" boundaries (if we can even call them such) of religious identity, I would hesitate to call one's theology* (and not necessarily their devotion) Christian if he/she did not affirm at least some formulation of Christology and Trinitarianism that resembled that of Christian orthodoxy (lowercase "o" intended). With that said, I have come to understand the 7 Ecumenical Councils as historical contingencies in the living tradition of Orthodox Christianity w/the same very "bare-bones" scope of authority and influence that Scripture, being a part of said tradition, fundamentally possesses. I do not think it's invalid to call into question or even outright dismiss conciliar anathemas, especially given the sometimes heinous and poorly informed nature of their formulations, on well reasoned grounds. The 5th Ecumenical Council immediately comes to mind; to put it simply, the anathemas against Origen(-ism?) are really stupid and worthless and should be forgotten about now, ever, and unto ages of ages. The Byzantine political backdrop of that council's history just cannot be effectively separated from its products without depriving it of actual contingencies, and so it must be scrupulously analyzed for which elements should be orthodox and which may be dismissed. That's how I see it, and it allows for a less complicated view of ecumenical relations to see it that way. I have recently fallen in love w/Schmemman's insistence on Christianity as a sacrament and the church as that which flows out from that sacramental reality; this means that Oriental, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians all fall within the fold of the "true church," and that this boundary extends, perhaps in a more qualified or at least less obvious fashion, as far outward as the truth and beauty of other traditions may allow. In accepting at least the first part of this, though, you more or less sacrifice the absolute, comprehensive authority that the 7 Councils have over all matters of their dealings. You have to see them as historically contingent tools in the life of a living tradition, subject to error and gnomic influence, but still somehow grounded in a set of inspired truths (2 natures in 1 hypostasis, co-equality of persons, etc). The marginalia surrounding conciliar materials and their interpretation I think are fairly plastic according to this scheme. That is my understanding of the matter, and, at times, it seems also to be yours, but then you'll say something very provocative, like heresy being in its essence (and not in its contemporary popular usage) a childish term, and I'll lose sight of it, haha. I wouldn't engage in the childish game of calling like an Armenian Apostolic priest or, idk, Jordan Daniel Wood a heretic (because 1. they're not and 2. that's not helpful), but I see absolutely no issue in calling Mormonism heresy. The distinction here is between popular usage (often childish) and proper application. I'm not sure if such a distinction endures in your thought at the moment or if you were just being provocative, haha. God bless and thank you for reading if you do! I hope you enjoyed your travels in the ANZAC.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Okay, I can agree with that (though, at the risk of being pedantic, I wouldn't say "at most" at the end). I would also ask if you posit a distinction between syncretism and perennialism; it would seem as though syncretism involves the blending of devotional practices whereas perennialism deals more with drawing on different schools of metaphysical / religious thought. I would argue that Orthodoxy has always been the latter (it would be impossible to separate St. Paul's philosophical background from his writings).
David, do you see a real (ontological) distinction between God’s essence and energies? It seems that if one does, then theosis results in a pseudo, energetic union with God and not real ontological union.
@@leavesinthewind7441 In the church’s teaching of such a real distinction, doesn’t theosis contradict the incarnation, and in effect, teach two contradictory models of salvation?
@@Aaron-xb4rq That's certainly a valid argument. The patristic teaching is that theosis is a direct participation in the Son's place in the Trinitarian life (as in John's Gospel); the neo-Palamite teaching turns theosis into an extrinsic relation to the Trinity.
@@leavesinthewind7441 So the patristic teaching, taken to its logical conclusion, would be that man’s entire life is a “direct participation in the Son’s place in the Trinitarian life,” that there never was, is, or could ever be any ontological separation between God and man, and why Christ, the Psalms, and your book title says, “You are Gods.” It’s a shame the church has drifted so far in its understanding of this. The implications are practical and profound.
I prefer to say that all creation is divine manifestation. The word "incarnation" is problematic for two reasons, neither of which is the one you might suspect.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Ah, yes. Creation as divine manifestation is more accurate. Creation isn’t simply God “en-fleshed” but more so “made known” through all that is. Why do you see “incarnation” as problematic?
Risking being less opportune can you, David Heart, share your insight on why you feel the christian religion to be more of a way on helping changing our perceptions than the oriental’s systems
Mr. Hart can you please recommend some literature that will help me understand words like "aion" and others words Paul uses (powers and principalities) in their original sense?
Are there any syncretic writers, thinkers, mr Hart can recommend? I just looked up the gentleman mentioned, Francisco Tiso, and am so fascinated. I wish to have this experience again.
I doubt I'm alone in thinking that this may be your best video interview to date, David, and I suspect that anyone who embraces universalism and socialism, as I do, will find enjoyment and stimulation. But I have questions: (1) To admit you are not a mystic is surprising, since you champion Nicolas of Cusa and Meister Eckhart and others (as do I). Given that you speak of eradicating the line between nature and grace (as mystics experience it daily), I was flummoxed to hear your admission, and I wonder if you would care to elaborate. (2) It's a strange logic to call the word "pantheism" meaningless because somebody (let's say Berdyaev) is critical of the content, but it's an efficient way to not answer Ross's question. I've been re-reading von Balthasar, and perhaps you would want to set him straight (for the benefit of us all): "As Christians it is too easy for us to say that pantheism is false. In so doing we overlook the fact that what Christians have to say is not something LESS than pantheism as a systematic conception, but that it must take the step BEYOND pantheism which can be prompted only by God's free revelation and which delivers the pantheistic conception from its interior contradiction. (...) The pantheistic TAT TVAM ASI [Brahmanic formula] which identifies subject and object in their depths, can be resolved only by virtue of the unity between God and man in the Son, who is both the ARS DIVINA MUNDI and the quintessence of actual creation (see Book III of Nicolas of Cusa's DOCTA IGNORANTIA), and by virtue of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from this incarnate Son in his unity with the Father." (From "The Glory of the Lord, Volume 1." I used all-caps for italicized words.)
It's subtle, but just after hrs 8 minutes you can find the evidence to show that Hart is certainly a Beatles person and not necessarily an Elvis person. What a relief!
David, you should interview Gospel Simplicity here on UA-cam. He has interviewed a variety of different guests spanning the Christian tradition. I think it would be a really great interview. God bless.
@@leavesinthewind7441His real name is Austin, he has a channel of the name Gospel Simplicity which you’ll find by searching the title. He has a large Catholic and Orthodox audience because his channel’s purpose is a Protestant seminary graduate irenically learning about and speaking with Catholic and Orthodox figures.
I've been hoping to hear your opinion on the virgin birth for a long time, its a shame the conversation got shifted at that point! David I'm very interested to hear your opinion, its a question that sometimes troubles me, as Paul seems to have no awareness of it, and the gospels which do record it have irreconcilably different versions of it, and it looks like its possibly being written to 'fulfill' various prophecies and/or old testament passages
Dr. Mary B Cunningham's work on the Theotokos is important important. Further, I wouldn't take scattered testimony in the Gospels as reason to worry. If there's an inspired reading of them, then it's not in their consumption as precise , forensic historical record. Indeed, they do tell us of material truths, but in their capacity as documents written within history about historical events, they - if they do anything at all - reflect a profound and effortful series of attempts to make sense of the mystery of Christ - particularly that which defies explanation (Virgin Birth, Pascha). The risen Christ is the mystery snd revelation upon which this all hinges, and i believe the texts and their history reflect as much. It would in a sense be a bit more confusing and suspicious to me if a single coherent and precise account of the virgin birth existed in our books, as nothing extraordinary is ever recalled by its witnesses with perfect and unamazed narrative fidelity.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Ah, how did I miss this one! Very enjoyable - thank you kindly. I also grew up in a very traditional religious society. I fled to Theravada Buddhism, but I now live in a Mahayana country - just as I was once an Anglican who lived in a Calvinist community. I feel like I have lived two paradoxical lives in one lifetime, and it has been wonderful. Namo Buddhaya, you two. And Dr. Hart, speaking as a Buddhist…. Roland in Moonlight - gosh.
men can only hope to near Rolands wisdom
“How are wou?”, Heheee.
One of my absolute favorite interviews!!
As someone who is attracted to religious beliefs and practices but grew up in a secular home, so feels like an outsider to all religions, I very much appreciate David’s syncretism. I would love to see him have more conversations with Vedantists.
It's not so much syncretism as it is what I believe he calls "crypto-perennialism," which I would argue is just Orthodoxy.
there's lots of room in Orthodoxy to dance :)@@chanting_germ.
I will say that if I were to interview you (not that I'd ever be fortunate enough to do so), I'm not sure it would be made possible unless I were to be able to get my hands on something that would chill me out (increasingly, for lack of better wording, without saying too much). One day though, it might be plausible. Hope is a strange and mysterious thing, and generally vastly undervalued (something I'd never fully be able to abandon). I only try to articulate, and often I fail at it, but my attempts aren't in vain, even though I feel they are the majority of the time. I have so much I'd like to ask you, but I feel I can never time any of it as well as I'd like. I can't imagine how unnerving and overwhelming it must be in attempting to set up a potential interview with you (seeing tracers and blacking out is all I can imagine!) Wait a second, I didn't really write all this; It was someone else (Ha!).
On a separate note, I do often exchange with many unaware Thomists. I'm constantly learning of such things but it usually requires much effort to persuade them to the likes of the full victory of Jesus Christ. For myself it always reverts back to - the savior of the world (cosmos/all of mankind), but it's so often, "yeah, but only if one believes" as many in opposition respond. It's frustrating as I'm sure many others who understand the salvation of all to quite clear, especially if common sense even slightly resonates. I think my wife will be convicted of this eventually, which I hope she will be some day.
1 Corinthians 15, yeah. If Christ isn't raised, then there is no resurrection of the dead. Fundamentalists have a HUGE problem understanding this verse, including those I know personally. "To be absent from the body is the be present with the Lord" (the famous misquote from 2 Corinthians 5:8 (We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. KJV), the version I grew up with (but forgot about for years), then yours: --and we are confident and think it better to depart from home, out of the body, and come home to the Lord. This is a well refined and beautiful rendition of this sentiment that Paul speaks on. I need to read both of your New Testament renderings soon. My adhd is real but I will read it fully and give you my thoughts in the future, not that my thoughts mean much (but maybe they'll mean more later on but who really knows, it's late at night/early morning).
Hey David, what do you think about the idea that Christ was a failed eschatological prophet, which is the mainstream view of historical-critical scholarship?
There is no single mainstream view of historical critical method.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Well the big names in the historical-critical world like Bart Ehrman and Dale Allison seem to think that Christ was an eschatological prophet that was convinced the consummation of the age would arrive within his own generation, and he was wrong. This has sort of been nagging at me as a Christian for the past view months, and I ask myself “well what’s the point of following some failed prophet?” Wouldn’t Christ’s eschatological outlook being incorrect be pretty damning for the Christian faith as a whole? I’ve been curious to hear your thoughts on the delay of the parousia, perhaps you have touched in this in one your books, forgive me I do not remember.
@@davidshoesmith3780 Those are two minor scholars among many thousands. A method is not the same thing as the conclusions drawn by some who employ it. Others in the same school see Jesus as a sapiential prophet using metaphors from the prophets to warn against an approaching historical calamity (such as the Temple’s destruction).
@@davidshoesmith3780If you have to choose between trusting Jesus and Bart Ehrman, I’d go with Jesus personally.
What do you think of the idea that Paul didn't mention the women at the tomb because of an androcentric bias? As Dale Allison notes, Justin Martyr doesn't mention them when defending the Resurrection in the Dialogue, despite the fact that he knew the canonical gospels. And of course, pagan critics (like Celsus) used the fact that women were the first (only?) witnesses to the empty tomb as an argument against it. So perhaps it's not surprising that 1 Cor. 15 doesn't mention them.
It’s possible, but that’s the point: we can’t tell.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Do you find the typical arguments in defense of the tomb story (e.g. that it's unlikely for anyone to have invented a story which relies on the testimony of women) to be unconvincing? I thought Allison's most recent book on this matter was quite good, personally. I do think it seems implausible that Paul believed in Jesus' burial (which he clearly did) without having any sort of narrative about it. And if his narrative differed from that given by Mark, then why is there no trace of it in the sources?
@@jamesreilly7416 That is not relevant to what I said. I did not call the tomb story into question. I merely remarked that one could not tell from Paul’s extant texts what stories he was aware of.
@@leavesinthewind7441 I know, I was just curious regarding your thoughts on the matter.
@@jamesreilly7416 Ah. I think there's at least a powerful inferential case that the testimony of women would not have been adduced as a fabrication. If one were making something up, the tradition of the women visitors to the tomb being the first witnesses would not--one would think--be the natural choice.
Slavoj Zizek’s latest book is about Christian atheism apparently. He’s been sharing some interesting interpretations of scripture, like that The Holy Spirit is the first instance of a communist party. It would be interesting to listen to David and Slavoj discuss Christian Communism.
I wonder to what degree you posit the unbinding nature of the councils, Dr. Hart. I ask this because, though I am and forever shall be one of your fans and admirers, I find it confusing to confess Christianity without at least some grounding in the conciliar confessions (Chalcedonian & Nicene confessions). Despite the plasticity with which I treat the "definitional" boundaries (if we can even call them such) of religious identity, I would hesitate to call one's theology* (and not necessarily their devotion) Christian if he/she did not affirm at least some formulation of Christology and Trinitarianism that resembled that of Christian orthodoxy (lowercase "o" intended).
With that said, I have come to understand the 7 Ecumenical Councils as historical contingencies in the living tradition of Orthodox Christianity w/the same very "bare-bones" scope of authority and influence that Scripture, being a part of said tradition, fundamentally possesses. I do not think it's invalid to call into question or even outright dismiss conciliar anathemas, especially given the sometimes heinous and poorly informed nature of their formulations, on well reasoned grounds. The 5th Ecumenical Council immediately comes to mind; to put it simply, the anathemas against Origen(-ism?) are really stupid and worthless and should be forgotten about now, ever, and unto ages of ages. The Byzantine political backdrop of that council's history just cannot be effectively separated from its products without depriving it of actual contingencies, and so it must be scrupulously analyzed for which elements should be orthodox and which may be dismissed.
That's how I see it, and it allows for a less complicated view of ecumenical relations to see it that way. I have recently fallen in love w/Schmemman's insistence on Christianity as a sacrament and the church as that which flows out from that sacramental reality; this means that Oriental, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians all fall within the fold of the "true church," and that this boundary extends, perhaps in a more qualified or at least less obvious fashion, as far outward as the truth and beauty of other traditions may allow. In accepting at least the first part of this, though, you more or less sacrifice the absolute, comprehensive authority that the 7 Councils have over all matters of their dealings. You have to see them as historically contingent tools in the life of a living tradition, subject to error and gnomic influence, but still somehow grounded in a set of inspired truths (2 natures in 1 hypostasis, co-equality of persons, etc). The marginalia surrounding conciliar materials and their interpretation I think are fairly plastic according to this scheme.
That is my understanding of the matter, and, at times, it seems also to be yours, but then you'll say something very provocative, like heresy being in its essence (and not in its contemporary popular usage) a childish term, and I'll lose sight of it, haha. I wouldn't engage in the childish game of calling like an Armenian Apostolic priest or, idk, Jordan Daniel Wood a heretic (because 1. they're not and 2. that's not helpful), but I see absolutely no issue in calling Mormonism heresy. The distinction here is between popular usage (often childish) and proper application. I'm not sure if such a distinction endures in your thought at the moment or if you were just being provocative, haha.
God bless and thank you for reading if you do! I hope you enjoyed your travels in the ANZAC.
Not non-binding. Merely largely devoid of content. Rules of grammar at most.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Okay, I can agree with that (though, at the risk of being pedantic, I wouldn't say "at most" at the end). I would also ask if you posit a distinction between syncretism and perennialism; it would seem as though syncretism involves the blending of devotional practices whereas perennialism deals more with drawing on different schools of metaphysical / religious thought. I would argue that Orthodoxy has always been the latter (it would be impossible to separate St. Paul's philosophical background from his writings).
David, do you see a real (ontological) distinction between God’s essence and energies? It seems that if one does, then theosis results in a pseudo, energetic union with God and not real ontological union.
No, absolutely not. Neo-Palamism is rubbish.
@@leavesinthewind7441 In the church’s teaching of such a real distinction, doesn’t theosis contradict the incarnation, and in effect, teach two contradictory models of salvation?
@@Aaron-xb4rq That's certainly a valid argument. The patristic teaching is that theosis is a direct participation in the Son's place in the Trinitarian life (as in John's Gospel); the neo-Palamite teaching turns theosis into an extrinsic relation to the Trinity.
@@leavesinthewind7441 So the patristic teaching, taken to its logical conclusion, would be that man’s entire life is a “direct participation in the Son’s place in the Trinitarian life,” that there never was, is, or could ever be any ontological separation between God and man, and why Christ, the Psalms, and your book title says, “You are Gods.” It’s a shame the church has drifted so far in its understanding of this. The implications are practical and profound.
David, would you say all of creation is incarnation?
I prefer to say that all creation is divine manifestation. The word "incarnation" is problematic for two reasons, neither of which is the one you might suspect.
@@leavesinthewind7441 Ah, yes. Creation as divine manifestation is more accurate. Creation isn’t simply God “en-fleshed” but more so “made known” through all that is. Why do you see “incarnation” as problematic?
@@Aaron-xb4rq That requires a very long answer. I will cover it in a forthcoming book.
@@leavesinthewind7441 I look forward to reading it. Thank you for your replies.
Risking being less opportune can you, David Heart, share your insight on why you feel the christian religion to be more of a way on helping changing our perceptions than the oriental’s systems
I’ve never said I do. I’m not sure how one can compare them on those terms.
Following can you help me with same texts that enhance the universal carater on the christian tradition. That is what i tried to ask, rudely
Just to comment that i have a clue. Teilhard de Chardin 'The Divine Milieu'
1:12:58 bookmark
Mr. Hart can you please recommend some literature that will help me understand words like "aion" and others words Paul uses (powers and principalities) in their original sense?
I’ll think about it and try to get back to you in a timely manner.
Illaria Ramelli’s 2012 book on the history of that word. Frankly, anything by Ramelli. I’m sure Hart would agree.
Are there any syncretic writers, thinkers, mr Hart can recommend? I just looked up the gentleman mentioned, Francisco Tiso, and am so fascinated. I wish to have this experience again.
I doubt I'm alone in thinking that this may be your best video interview to date, David, and I suspect that anyone who embraces universalism and socialism, as I do, will find enjoyment and stimulation. But I have questions: (1) To admit you are not a mystic is surprising, since you champion Nicolas of Cusa and Meister Eckhart and others (as do I). Given that you speak of eradicating the line between nature and grace (as mystics experience it daily), I was flummoxed to hear your admission, and I wonder if you would care to elaborate. (2) It's a strange logic to call the word "pantheism" meaningless because somebody (let's say Berdyaev) is critical of the content, but it's an efficient way to not answer Ross's question. I've been re-reading von Balthasar, and perhaps you would want to set him straight (for the benefit of us all): "As Christians it is too easy for us to say that pantheism is false. In so doing we overlook the fact that what Christians have to say is not something LESS than pantheism as a systematic conception, but that it must take the step BEYOND pantheism which can be prompted only by God's free revelation and which delivers the pantheistic conception from its interior contradiction. (...) The pantheistic TAT TVAM ASI [Brahmanic formula] which identifies subject and object in their depths, can be resolved only by virtue of the unity between God and man in the Son, who is both the ARS DIVINA MUNDI and the quintessence of actual creation (see Book III of Nicolas of Cusa's DOCTA IGNORANTIA), and by virtue of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from this incarnate Son in his unity with the Father."
(From "The Glory of the Lord, Volume 1." I used all-caps for italicized words.)
It's subtle, but just after hrs 8 minutes you can find the evidence to show that Hart is certainly a Beatles person and not necessarily an Elvis person. What a relief!
Please have a discussion with Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett. I'd watch what. Or read it.
Pharmacological adjustment for Thomists?😂🎉
David, you should interview Gospel Simplicity here on UA-cam. He has interviewed a variety of different guests spanning the Christian tradition. I think it would be a really great interview. God bless.
I’m afraid I don’t know who that is.
@@leavesinthewind7441His real name is Austin, he has a channel of the name Gospel Simplicity which you’ll find by searching the title. He has a large Catholic and Orthodox audience because his channel’s purpose is a Protestant seminary graduate irenically learning about and speaking with Catholic and Orthodox figures.
what is the word that DBH uses at 4:03?? 👀
Recherché.
I've been hoping to hear your opinion on the virgin birth for a long time, its a shame the conversation got shifted at that point! David I'm very interested to hear your opinion, its a question that sometimes troubles me, as Paul seems to have no awareness of it, and the gospels which do record it have irreconcilably different versions of it, and it looks like its possibly being written to 'fulfill' various prophecies and/or old testament passages
Dr. Mary B Cunningham's work on the Theotokos is important important. Further, I wouldn't take scattered testimony in the Gospels as reason to worry. If there's an inspired reading of them, then it's not in their consumption as precise , forensic historical record. Indeed, they do tell us of material truths, but in their capacity as documents written within history about historical events, they - if they do anything at all - reflect a profound and effortful series of attempts to make sense of the mystery of Christ - particularly that which defies explanation (Virgin Birth, Pascha). The risen Christ is the mystery snd revelation upon which this all hinges, and i believe the texts and their history reflect as much. It would in a sense be a bit more confusing and suspicious to me if a single coherent and precise account of the virgin birth existed in our books, as nothing extraordinary is ever recalled by its witnesses with perfect and unamazed narrative fidelity.