Augustine was kind of a tough guy to bend, both because of his deep desires, and for his intellectual pride, but God's Love is invincible. To this day, we can still use Augustine's clarity on spiritual matters to block most of gnostic thinking, although I must confess that to me he is not 100% safe in this regard. Still, to me his philosophy is much better then lots of the later medieval christian thinking, like in Aquinas etc. I hope you get well soon, but the video was just fine.
@@wagraham Augustine just seems a more wide and open spirit. He learns with any philosopher, but keeps the Christian perspective stronger and totally free, at least to my taste. Aquinas goes too deep into natural theology, following what appears to be, from his part, an unrestricted trust in Aristotle's guidance. Lots of critics pointed out the problems in doing that through history, because of the limitations of any natural law before the real freedom of the Christian spirit regarding God's Creation. To me the Franciscans like Bonaventure, Duns Scot, and Ockham are far superior. Curiously, and not by accident, they all remained loyal to Augustine's wisdom in some way, despite the immense growth of the aristotelian influence in medieval Europe. In short: of course I can be wrong, but in my reading of Augustine I see Nature as a mere sign of God's Glory, and as the background scenario to the moral experience of the human soul; but in Aquinas, I see Nature becoming an emiment source of Truth and Law in itself, what would be forever excusable to any ancient mind, like in Aristotle's case, but never to a Christian Philosopher that received the true freedom of the Gospel. To any pagan cosmology, to see Nature as somehow divine is kind of fair, but Christians should know better. Sorry for the lenght, but I love this subject and couldn't help myself.
Could I please ask you to consider something. Is it possible that the Apostles had a different foundation that requires both Trinitarian and Unitarian terms? Bear with me please. Occurring at the same time and after Nicea is a little remembered (if at all) debate about the origin of souls, Traducianism v Creatianism. If you're not familiar with it please review it so I can keep this short. The material should trace Traducionism at least back to Tertullian. Now, here's something that is a bit harder to find, but there were two different types of Traducionism, Stoic and Biblical Hebrew (Tertullian was a Stoic Traducion and this is why he developed his Logos theology of the Trinity, with the Logos as an emanation like a soul). Other Greek philosophers also held to reincarnation and creatianism (that God creates a soul for the body at or after conception). Creatianism is now the dominant Christian and Muslim view, and it's the necessary for the Trinity of persons, on the one hand, but logically denies the Divine Person of the Son and that logic actually agrees with the Qaran (which I will show). Biblical Hebrew Traducionism is explicitly stated in HEBREWS (imagine that) chapter 7. LEVI PAID TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK WHILE IN ABRAHAM, therefore Jesus is, like Melchizedek, a greater high priest than Levi. Why does Paul use the phrase "so to speak"? Is this statement about Levi analogy? Obviously not, because Paul is using it as a factual basis for his argument and he presents it as if the hebrews he is writing already understand this. The "so to speak" indicates that Levi's will while in Abraham's loins was Abraham's will. We can restate this, LEVI WAS WITH ABRAHAM AND WAS ABRAHAM PAYING TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK (sounds familiar). This is also where the doctrine of original sin comes from, WE WERE WITH ADAM AND WERE ADAM IN EDEN. This logical consequence of Traducionism was a big problem for creatianism because sin then had to be imputed to a new soul otherwise the baby would not be subject to death. SO, there's the "analogy" the Apostles were drawing from, the Traducion origin of souls, not shamrocks and triangles, for understanding the consequences of the virgin birth and Jesus as the son of God. He was in the beginning God and with God in the same way we were Adam and with Adam and Levi was Abraham and with Abraham. A second consequence is that THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. A son's right to the name and inheritance of the Father in based on his having his Father's blood (in law it's called CONSANGUINITY). Jesus is born from a virgin, but his life, soul, and blood are from his Father, God, because he was "conceived of the Holy Spirit". 1 John 5 THESE THREE TESTIFY ON EARTH THE SPIRIT THE WATER AND THE BLOOD AND AGREE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. This must be referring to the virgin birth (although recapitulated in the baptism and crucifixion) because there's no way that the blood can testify except in the sense of a blood (paternity) test. Notice that he didn't come by water only (which would have been the case IF he was only the product of Mary, the concept of blood from male seed/sperm was univocally attested throughout Scripture), but he CAME by water AND blood. This is why John 3:16 calls him MONOGENAES, the only generated. Traducionism is also called the "genetic" origin of souls. Trinitarians and Unitarians will usually say God the Father has no blood, he is a Spirit, and Jesus had Mary's blood. Ok, then he is not the son of God, and they agree with the Qaran, which is at least consistent with the logic of creatianism, and say Jesus is the son of Mary and Allah has no son. Adoption doesn't square with MONOGENAES, but is also based on creatianism and consistent with the Qaran calling Jesus the Messiah of the Jews. I'm entirely satisfied with DIVINE TRADUCIONISM. Just making you aware if you want to explore it further.
Could I please ask you to consider something. Is it possible that the Apostles had a different foundation that requires both Trinitarian and Unitarian terms? Bear with me please. Occurring at the same time and after Nicea is a little remembered (if at all) debate about the origin of souls, Traducianism v Creatianism. If you're not familiar with it please review it so I can keep this short. The material should trace Traducionism at least back to Tertullian. Now, here's something that is a bit harder to find, but there were two different types of Traducionism, Stoic and Biblical Hebrew (Tertullian was a Stoic Traducion and this is why he developed his Logos theology of the Trinity, with the Logos as an emanation like a soul). Other Greek philosophers also held to reincarnation and creatianism (that God creates a soul for the body at or after conception). Creatianism is now the dominant Christian and Muslim view, and it's the necessary for the Trinity of persons, on the one hand, but logically denies the Divine Person of the Son and that logic actually agrees with the Qaran (which I will show). Biblical Hebrew Traducionism is explicitly stated in HEBREWS (imagine that) chapter 7. LEVI PAID TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK WHILE IN ABRAHAM, therefore Jesus is, like Melchizedek, a greater high priest than Levi. Why does Paul use the phrase "so to speak"? Is this statement about Levi analogy? Obviously not, because Paul is using it as a factual basis for his argument and he presents it as if the hebrews he is writing already understand this. The "so to speak" indicates that Levi's will while in Abraham's loins was Abraham's will. We can restate this, LEVI WAS WITH ABRAHAM AND WAS ABRAHAM PAYING TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK (sounds familiar). This is also where the doctrine of original sin comes from, WE WERE WITH ADAM AND WERE ADAM IN EDEN. This logical consequence of Traducionism was a big problem for creatianism because sin then had to be imputed to a new soul otherwise the baby would not be subject to death. SO, there's the "analogy" the Apostles were drawing from, the Traducion origin of souls, not shamrocks and triangles, for understanding the consequences of the virgin birth and Jesus as the son of God. He was in the beginning God and with God in the same way we were Adam and with Adam and Levi was Abraham and with Abraham. A second consequence is that THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. A son's right to the name and inheritance of the Father in based on his having his Father's blood (in law it's called CONSANGUINITY). Jesus is born from a virgin, but his life, soul, and blood are from his Father, God, because he was "conceived of the Holy Spirit". 1 John 5 THESE THREE TESTIFY ON EARTH THE SPIRIT THE WATER AND THE BLOOD AND AGREE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. This must be referring to the virgin birth (although recapitulated in the baptism and crucifixion) because there's no way that the blood can testify except in the sense of a blood (paternity) test. Notice that he didn't come by water only (which would have been the case IF he was only the product of Mary, the concept of blood from male seed/sperm was univocally attested throughout Scripture), but he CAME by water AND blood. This is why John 3:16 calls him MONOGENAES, the only generated. Traducionism is also called the "genetic" origin of souls. Trinitarians and Unitarians will usually say God the Father has no blood, he is a Spirit, and Jesus had Mary's blood. Ok, then he is not the son of God, and they agree with the Qaran, which is at least consistent with the logic of creatianism, and say Jesus is the son of Mary and Allah has no son. Adoption doesn't square with MONOGENAES, but is also based on creatianism and consistent with the Qaran calling Jesus the Messiah of the Jews. I'm entirely satisfied with DIVINE TRADUCIONISM. Just making you aware if you want to explore it further.
Augustine was kind of a tough guy to bend, both because of his deep desires, and for his intellectual pride, but God's Love is invincible. To this day, we can still use Augustine's clarity on spiritual matters to block most of gnostic thinking, although I must confess that to me he is not 100% safe in this regard. Still, to me his philosophy is much better then lots of the later medieval christian thinking, like in Aquinas etc. I hope you get well soon, but the video was just fine.
Thanks, Rodrigo for the kind encouragement.
What would you say your complaints with Aquinas are? I’m curious to know!
@@wagraham Augustine just seems a more wide and open spirit. He learns with any philosopher, but keeps the Christian perspective stronger and totally free, at least to my taste. Aquinas goes too deep into natural theology, following what appears to be, from his part, an unrestricted trust in Aristotle's guidance. Lots of critics pointed out the problems in doing that through history, because of the limitations of any natural law before the real freedom of the Christian spirit regarding God's Creation. To me the Franciscans like Bonaventure, Duns Scot, and Ockham are far superior. Curiously, and not by accident, they all remained loyal to Augustine's wisdom in some way, despite the immense growth of the aristotelian influence in medieval Europe. In short: of course I can be wrong, but in my reading of Augustine I see Nature as a mere sign of God's Glory, and as the background scenario to the moral experience of the human soul; but in Aquinas, I see Nature becoming an emiment source of Truth and Law in itself, what would be forever excusable to any ancient mind, like in Aristotle's case, but never to a Christian Philosopher that received the true freedom of the Gospel. To any pagan cosmology, to see Nature as somehow divine is kind of fair, but Christians should know better. Sorry for the lenght, but I love this subject and couldn't help myself.
Please @Wagraham Where can I get the Story of Saint Augustine please Suggest a Book for me that Is Free too 🤲🤌
@@henrymanas8577 you can read his book titled Confessions. Editions are around $12. Or you can find an older version online for free.
Could I please ask you to consider something. Is it possible that the Apostles had a different foundation that requires both Trinitarian and Unitarian terms? Bear with me please.
Occurring at the same time and after Nicea is a little remembered (if at all) debate about the origin of souls, Traducianism v Creatianism. If you're not familiar with it please review it so I can keep this short. The material should trace Traducionism at least back to Tertullian.
Now, here's something that is a bit harder to find, but there were two different types of Traducionism, Stoic and Biblical Hebrew (Tertullian was a Stoic Traducion and this is why he developed his Logos theology of the Trinity, with the Logos as an emanation like a soul). Other Greek philosophers also held to reincarnation and creatianism (that God creates a soul for the body at or after conception). Creatianism is now the dominant Christian and Muslim view, and it's the necessary for the Trinity of persons, on the one hand, but logically denies the Divine Person of the Son and that logic actually agrees with the Qaran (which I will show).
Biblical Hebrew Traducionism is explicitly stated in HEBREWS (imagine that) chapter 7. LEVI PAID TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK WHILE IN ABRAHAM, therefore Jesus is, like Melchizedek, a greater high priest than Levi. Why does Paul use the phrase "so to speak"? Is this statement about Levi analogy? Obviously not, because Paul is using it as a factual basis for his argument and he presents it as if the hebrews he is writing already understand this. The "so to speak" indicates that Levi's will while in Abraham's loins was Abraham's will.
We can restate this, LEVI WAS WITH ABRAHAM AND WAS ABRAHAM PAYING TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK (sounds familiar).
This is also where the doctrine of original sin comes from, WE WERE WITH ADAM AND WERE ADAM IN EDEN. This logical consequence of Traducionism was a big problem for creatianism because sin then had to be imputed to a new soul otherwise the baby would not be subject to death.
SO, there's the "analogy" the Apostles were drawing from, the Traducion origin of souls, not shamrocks and triangles, for understanding the consequences of the virgin birth and Jesus as the son of God. He was in the beginning God and with God in the same way we were Adam and with Adam and Levi was Abraham and with Abraham.
A second consequence is that THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. A son's right to the name and inheritance of the Father in based on his having his Father's blood (in law it's called CONSANGUINITY).
Jesus is born from a virgin, but his life, soul, and blood are from his Father, God, because he was "conceived of the Holy Spirit". 1 John 5 THESE THREE TESTIFY ON EARTH THE SPIRIT THE WATER AND THE BLOOD AND AGREE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. This must be referring to the virgin birth (although recapitulated in the baptism and crucifixion) because there's no way that the blood can testify except in the sense of a blood (paternity) test. Notice that he didn't come by water only (which would have been the case IF he was only the product of Mary, the concept of blood from male seed/sperm was univocally attested throughout Scripture), but he CAME by water AND blood. This is why John 3:16 calls him MONOGENAES, the only generated. Traducionism is also called the "genetic" origin of souls.
Trinitarians and Unitarians will usually say God the Father has no blood, he is a Spirit, and Jesus had Mary's blood. Ok, then he is not the son of God, and they agree with the Qaran, which is at least consistent with the logic of creatianism, and say Jesus is the son of Mary and Allah has no son. Adoption doesn't square with MONOGENAES, but is also based on creatianism and consistent with the Qaran calling Jesus the Messiah of the Jews.
I'm entirely satisfied with DIVINE TRADUCIONISM. Just making you aware if you want to explore it further.
Could I please ask you to consider something. Is it possible that the Apostles had a different foundation that requires both Trinitarian and Unitarian terms? Bear with me please.
Occurring at the same time and after Nicea is a little remembered (if at all) debate about the origin of souls, Traducianism v Creatianism. If you're not familiar with it please review it so I can keep this short. The material should trace Traducionism at least back to Tertullian.
Now, here's something that is a bit harder to find, but there were two different types of Traducionism, Stoic and Biblical Hebrew (Tertullian was a Stoic Traducion and this is why he developed his Logos theology of the Trinity, with the Logos as an emanation like a soul). Other Greek philosophers also held to reincarnation and creatianism (that God creates a soul for the body at or after conception). Creatianism is now the dominant Christian and Muslim view, and it's the necessary for the Trinity of persons, on the one hand, but logically denies the Divine Person of the Son and that logic actually agrees with the Qaran (which I will show).
Biblical Hebrew Traducionism is explicitly stated in HEBREWS (imagine that) chapter 7. LEVI PAID TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK WHILE IN ABRAHAM, therefore Jesus is, like Melchizedek, a greater high priest than Levi. Why does Paul use the phrase "so to speak"? Is this statement about Levi analogy? Obviously not, because Paul is using it as a factual basis for his argument and he presents it as if the hebrews he is writing already understand this. The "so to speak" indicates that Levi's will while in Abraham's loins was Abraham's will.
We can restate this, LEVI WAS WITH ABRAHAM AND WAS ABRAHAM PAYING TITHES TO MELCHIZEDEK (sounds familiar).
This is also where the doctrine of original sin comes from, WE WERE WITH ADAM AND WERE ADAM IN EDEN. This logical consequence of Traducionism was a big problem for creatianism because sin then had to be imputed to a new soul otherwise the baby would not be subject to death.
SO, there's the "analogy" the Apostles were drawing from, the Traducion origin of souls, not shamrocks and triangles, for understanding the consequences of the virgin birth and Jesus as the son of God. He was in the beginning God and with God in the same way we were Adam and with Adam and Levi was Abraham and with Abraham.
A second consequence is that THE LIFE IS IN THE BLOOD. A son's right to the name and inheritance of the Father in based on his having his Father's blood (in law it's called CONSANGUINITY).
Jesus is born from a virgin, but his life, soul, and blood are from his Father, God, because he was "conceived of the Holy Spirit". 1 John 5 THESE THREE TESTIFY ON EARTH THE SPIRIT THE WATER AND THE BLOOD AND AGREE THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD. This must be referring to the virgin birth (although recapitulated in the baptism and crucifixion) because there's no way that the blood can testify except in the sense of a blood (paternity) test. Notice that he didn't come by water only (which would have been the case IF he was only the product of Mary, the concept of blood from male seed/sperm was univocally attested throughout Scripture), but he CAME by water AND blood. This is why John 3:16 calls him MONOGENAES, the only generated. Traducionism is also called the "genetic" origin of souls.
Trinitarians and Unitarians will usually say God the Father has no blood, he is a Spirit, and Jesus had Mary's blood. Ok, then he is not the son of God, and they agree with the Qaran, which is at least consistent with the logic of creatianism, and say Jesus is the son of Mary and Allah has no son. Adoption doesn't square with MONOGENAES, but is also based on creatianism and consistent with the Qaran calling Jesus the Messiah of the Jews.
I'm entirely satisfied with DIVINE TRADUCIONISM. Just making you aware if you want to explore it further.