Thank you Justin, You have broken down the neoplatonic and gnostic concepts so clearly, that it is now easy for me to pass it down onto others when doing further teaching. God bless you.

@happierabroad

10 ай бұрын

Actually the best videos on Neoplatonism are by Professor Eric Steinhart. He has many KZread videos breaking it down that are easy to understand.

26:00 Wouldn't most Gnostics resist the idea that Jesus became physical?

@justingrove5190

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah that is probably true. Thanks for pointing that out. Commenting much on percentages however is outside of my wheelhouse. It would be interesting to read Against Heresies and see if it's possible to keep a running tally. However, Valentinus (or at least his followers) seems to have some sort of differently motivated "protoNestorianism" (I'm coining that here so take the implication of the term with a grain of salt) which admits an incarnation.

@justingrove5190

4 жыл бұрын

The general principal of a sort of covert reaching down into the material world is fair though.

@happierabroad

10 ай бұрын

Some types of Gnostics yes. There are many types. At higher esoteric levels in secret societies and mystery schools, they reveal that Jesus is an archetype and so are God and Satan too. And that God and Satan are two sides of the same coin and work together as a duality that holds the 3rd dimension together, but they exist in the 4th dimension.

Thanks for connecting the dots between Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. That was helpful. What is your take on St. Augustine? Specifically his understanding of the doctrine of original sin as inherited guilt from Adam and total inability to respond to God as well as his views on concupiscence. Could these teachings be understood as coming out of a Neoplatonic/Gnostic/Manichaean philosophical framework?

@justingrove5190

3 жыл бұрын

I think that they "could" be seen as coming out of this, but I think that would be a false representation. I mean you "can" do a lot of things ;-) which don't seem wholly ridiculous. I think it would be more accurate to say that they come out of Paul and are understood by him within a NeoPlatonic/Manichean framework. I think that the best way to understand Augustine is that his conversion is gradual, continuing to take place long after his baptism and thus his theology gradually developed out of where he started which was a nonChristian dismissing Christianity as a silly superstition held to by an overbearing mother. During his Monastic period he was a wholehearted Pelagian (though he had never heard of Pelagius) and gradually abandoned the attempt after being forced into a clerical role later in life. Therefore, I think that to associate his later theology (which is what you are talking about) with the things he associated himself with before his conversion is misguided. In fact, what I would say is that NeoPlatonism and Gnosticism are wholly Pelagian in nature (I'm less sure about Manichaeism . . . but I'm inclined to assert it about them as well). So if we are going to “blame” these three schools for his stances on these subjects it might be more accurate to say that he is reacting against them not in favour of them. I tried looking over the bibliography of an old thesis I wrote to remember what books to read on this progression (alas it has been too long). I know I can suggest: Rombs, Ronnie J.. Saint Augustine & the Fall of the Soul: Beyond O'Connell & His Critics. By CUA Without saying with certainty that the following would be of value, I can say that I also referenced the following in the section of that thesis where I laid this out. Gioia, Luigi, OSB. The Theological Epistemology of Augustine's De Trinitiate. 2009, Cary, Philip. Outward Signs:The Powerlessness of External Things in Augustine's Thought. OUP, 2008. Portalié, Eugene. 'Life of St. Augustine of Hippo'. In Vol. 2 of The Catholic Encyclopedia published at the beginning of the last century. Mendelson, Michael. 'Saint Augustine'. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Le, Christine. Certainty: Augustine and Modern Epistemology. Unpublished MSt. Dissertation, University of Oxford, 1999 (no idea if you could get access to that one). If Augustine goes too far in his assessments here I think it would be more accurate to say it is a result of his tendency towards anxiety and his interaction with Cicero and the Academic Skeptics. Augustine is intimately concerned with the problem of evil and this precedes his conversion to Christianity. I know that I'm stealing this from someone but I don't know who (maybe Rombs . . . it sounds like him), but I think it would be fair to say that for Augustine that the world is a fallen broken place and that humanity is not at all like it ought to be is the most self-evident truth that anyone has ever thought. He didn't get it from any school of thought he got it from his direct experience of the world. He sought out schools of thought that proposed to deal with it.

That may be the best explanation of neo-Platonism I've ever heard. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that gnosticism is the foundation for much of western occultism, although there are a few other traditions that can be traced back to other origins. But the major traditions, such as the Order of the Golden Dawn, seem to go straight back to gnosticism (with some Kabbalah and Jewish midrashes thrown in for good measure.)

@andrewmarinelly5838

2 жыл бұрын

almost all western occult trace back to hermetic traditions and Platonism does as well.

@happierabroad

10 ай бұрын

Actually the best videos on Neoplatonism are by Professor Eric Steinhart. He has many KZread videos breaking it down that are easy to understand.

How does one know if a priest is a true catholic or if he is an modernist?

@justingrove5190

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is that a lot of them don't even know. You have to talk to and listen to them and then intuit their meaning. Just looking at behavior will not do. There are Modernists which are traditional in liturgical norms (although such people tend it be Anglican rather than Catholic) and there are people who are into all kinds of (sometimes highly problematic) liturgical innovations who are not. A Modernist is someone who reinterprets the meaning of Christian words, phrases, and doctrines so as to do away with the distinction between the natural order and the personality and freedom of God. Pius X said this leads to a Pantheism in its truest form, but I think it is more properly speaking (maybe just at the present) a closeted Atheism which finds religion nonetheless necessary for some reason. If you see someone doing this, then they are a Modernist. The tricky thing is that while they are distinct there is also an obvious relationship between the natural order and the personality/freedom of God and so its not always clear where someone is going too far in equating them and even if someone is going to far how far they have to go before it is fair to refer to them as a Modernist. The other tricky element is that they are using Christian words in a way which sounds like how Christians would use them, so it is not always clear how they mean the words. That is why I started with saying that many of them do not realize they are Modernist and it is also the case that many priests/faithful adopt certain ideas from Modernists without realizing they came from Modernists and not understanding the extent to which this matters (if it does in the particular instance). I'd add though, that there are more ways to not be a true Catholic than by being Modernist. So just because a priest is not a Modernist doesn't mean they are truly Catholic. Moreover, "true Catholic" is also an ambiguous term. Most (nearly all) Catholics -- my self included -- who are not Modernist and are sincerely trying to live the faith are far from the ideal of Catholicism either theologically or morally.

@ostrio

2 жыл бұрын

@@justingrove5190 tank you very much and belive that it truly comes froom heart for you gave me an idea how to act tank you

Protestantism is very confused--- presbyteroi means priest yo and when in the blue hell did Saint James endorse judaism? In James 2:24? So works of charity and sacraments are judaism? I ditched protestantism and thus ceased being gaaay and suggest everyone does too! God bless

@sleepwalker7755

4 ай бұрын

Please try and read the Bible when you get a chance.

@Cata-Holic_Doode

4 ай бұрын

@@sleepwalker7755 Read history bruh... -what Bible did the Christians of the first 3 centuries read? ... King James? NIV? the Jehovah's witness version? How come 2nd thesolonians 2:15 is different in certain translations? Why is tradition a bad word to we protestants? Why did Saint Ignatius of Antioch endorse the Catholic church verbatim? Why did Martin Luther want to burn the book of James? Why was king James a blatant lecherous homo? Why is the deutero canon mentioned in the new testament repetitively? I don't mean to be a jerk but I was born protestant... Watch Orthodoxy debate us (especially Jay Dyer) They make us look utterly ridiculous God bless