Visit our website: www.kingdompresbyterians.com/ Make a donation: donorbox.org/presbyterians-fo... Theology Matters: www.theologymatters.com/ Find a church: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi...
Hopefully this isn’t too long but I started watching this channel because I have a passion for history of all kinds. I was interested in religious history and the history of the Bible. I’m not a Christian , I guess I just consider myself a realist. But watching this channel has made me question my beliefs. I’m still not sure yet but this channel has really made me question myself. So thank you for opening my mind up. Maybe one day I’ll convert
"these days people argue about silly things like healthcare and taxes, but back in the day people argued about important things like how to talk about Christ". The most epic part of this is that I can't even tell if you're serious or not xD
Those things are not silly in the material mindset. But in a truly Christian society, heavy tax or no tax, people-mandated healthcare or donation-run healthcare work either way.
Just to be clear and so you can throw a fit, I am an atheist and the way I see this quote is: "these days people argue about silly things, like things that actually matter, but back in the day people argued about important things like how to talk about a fairy tale character". The epic thing here is that this is ridiculous regardless of whether he's serious or not. - if he is serious, he proves to me how toxic religion is to human mind. You stop thinking about important things that could reduce human suffering and focus on fairy tale bs. - if he's being sarcastic, then this is an amazing self-burn. Either way, for a believer to say such a thing is just gold 🤌
My mom is a devoted Christian and all she knows is God became flesh and He is fully man and God called Jesus. She worships Him, she loves Him and she adores Him. She does not know all of the above. If you tell her, she will understand none of it.
Now I'm imagining a Lutheran, Reformist, and Baptist in communion together and as they eat the bread the Lutheran goes "you're a heretic" to the reformist but the reformist says "no he's the heretic" pointing at the Baptist and the Baptist says "you're both heretics"
I imagine an ecumenical meet up where the Pentecostal is writhing on the floor saying "'gobleneetherbath gabal!" while the catholic stands over him chanting "Crux sancta sit mihi lux, Non draco sit mihi dux, Vade retro satana, Numquam suade mihi vana, Sunt mala quae libas, Ipse venena bibas!" and the baptist is shouting "someone stop him! That warlock is summoning demons into that poor man!" while being held back by a cessationist who is telling him its all just a show.
@@CliffCardi Reminds me of why you should always take two Baptists fishing. If you take just one Baptist, he will drink all of your beer. If you take two Baptists then they won't drink anything.
I know you don’t like/recognize Reformed Baptists but I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate your content. The Mastering RT series is amazing work. Great job and thank you.
He met a Freewill Baptist early on and uses them to judge all Baptists by. One day he is going to meet a strongly Calvinist leaning rural Baptist from the south or midwest who is going to hear him try to paint them as an Arminian and get very upset.
@@alan_e_ is this a "Arminius was closer to Calvin than most modern Arminians" thing, a "tHeY eItHeR aGrEe Or DiSaGrEe WiTh Me No InBeTwEeN" thing, or a "we're all the same thing MOMMY DADDY STOP FIGHTING" thing?
The more I watch of this series, the more I am glad the Apostles didn't overcomplicate things in their epistles. If they had, the gospel might have been revealed more fully to the wise and learned, and hidden from the simple and uneducated. Kind of the opposite of what makes Christianity so unique.
god died with the constitution, a quick reminder that the first amendment conflicts with the first commandment "thou shalt worship whoever you want" and that the declaration of human rights gives ME more rights than god. and a history lesson cos the USA is a secular nation, not many people seem to know that, and the founding fathers were at best deists and certainly not christian. hitchens became a naturalised american purely because of the constitution. the UK is officially christian, the US is officially secular. is it annoying that the satanic temple has the SAME RIGHTS as the church
@@HarryNicNicholasyeah kinda the only exception being that the constitution was written with freedoms in mind. freedoms which rely upon countrymen doing what ought to be done instead of whatever they want to do. Problem is man is sinful so it doesn’t work.
Please keep making these videos. These videos have strongly aided me in my theological journey, and I hope you continue making even more! Thank you, Redeemed Zoomer!
RZ, even as a secular leftist and sharing a ton of fundamental disagreements with you, I really appreciate your channel and I often recommend it to friends who want to learn more about Christian theology and history. Keep making great videos like this.
Taxes make countries possible. Taxes are what pay for the roads you drive on, the army that protects you, and a lot of imported materials necessary for our life as well.
I have learned a lot watching these videos in just 3 weeks, why they don't teach these things in the church? Thank you for your effort and your passion Brother, greetings from Mexico.
It sounds like every Christian church would do well to have both Antiochian and Alexandrian preaching cycled regularly. We all need both Direction and Inspiration.
Actually Alexandria was very bad, because they didn't simply try to interpret the Bible in a more “philosophical” way, they actually interpreted it allegorically, distorting the Word of God. With this method of interpretation you would be able to defend any absurd doctrine. That is why the Reformed tradition rejected the Alexandrian exegetical method and Calvin continued the Antiochian method, solidifying the historical grammatical method.
Wow! I am very grateful for your efforts in putting this series together! As someone who rejects a forensic view of atonement because of the implications it has on the character of God and instead embraces a "larger view" or "trust-healing model of atonement" (way more theological language than anyone should ever use instead of just using simple terms) I'm left with a profound sense of why the term 'hocus pocus' was coined! The rhetoric and politicization of something that was supposed to be simple truth would be comical if it weren't such an intentional distraction!
Romans 4:5 However, to the one who does not work, but rather trusts in God who justifies the ungodly, their faith will be credited to them as righteousness. Sola fide and imputed righteousness in one verse😬
It strengthens your Roman Catholic faith that bishops are supposedly infallible when they come together to define doctrine at an ecumenical council, yet the Second Council of Nicea directly contradicted the Council of Hieria? The church cannot be infallible if it declared and defined doctrine at an ecumenical council that was later was condemned at a following council.
@@Nonz.MSpeaking of ecumenical councils….It would be great to see a video from Zoomer with a history lesson on the first 4 councils and what doctrines were discussed, accepted, not accepted and why.
Good presentation on the whole, thanks. One thing which consistently gets missed out from the Mono//Dyo debate of Christology concerns the way in which Jesus acted while He was in our human form here on Earth. Since He has to be as we are in order to redeem us, He also has to act as we do in order that the whole thing isn't just a charade (godly infallibility isn’t human), and to give us a perfect example to follow. He worked miracles not through his use of the Divine energy, but through prayer through the Holy Spirit to God the Father that the Divine energy might be used in a specific way, in accordance with the will of the Father. If it works in any other way, then Jesus endowed with the Holy Spirit was doing things that we cannot do endowed with the Holy Spirit. _Perfect God, and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal with the Father as touching His Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood._ Greater things that I have done shall you do, because I go to the Father.
Brother zoomer, I want to tell you that your videos have been such a blessing to me, keep making such god glorifying content! Small critique: during this video I felt a little lost on what exactly was the view was you were presenting as biblical. Maybe saying from the beginning the the Presbyterians believe X and here is the history of how they got to the conclusion, I would find something like this helpful.
I recently heard about the ideas of Provisionism. I had trouble understanding what it is they believe and couldn't find many sound arguments and prooftexts of why they are wrong. I love your explanations of things and if you had time, that would be a topic I would appreciate if you could cover, especially as I have friends who are persuaded by it.
Hey, even though I disagree with most of your views in general (not talking about this video in particular, only a few minutes in... nor do I think you're expressing any views here either), I end up watching your videos anyways because you have a great way of stating your views in a way that's not disrespectful. Your channel is a breath of fresh air and gives me hope for humanity, as I'm sure the vast majority of people I disagree with are just like you and only the assholes are vocal.
When you talk about the two "schools of Christology", it reminds me if Jordan B Cooper and his Christology series - the way you said it sounds rather similar to how he said it. Nice
Actually Antioch tradition of interpreting the Bible is more in line with the Reformed Tradition with is the grammatical- historical method (I'm also a Presbyterian). The Alexandria method is like Catholics often like to read it and It was condemned in the reformation because of its disonesty to the meaning intended by the biblical author.
Could you do a video on the different things that have been added to or cut from the Bible? And the origin/validity of old testament changes from Judaism, and all the extra stuff that gnostics add in? That gets very very confusing fast.
5:36 Fun fact: some fancy writers in fact do personify a part of one's body. I was reading a tale by Machado de Assis this week where he personifies people's parts of the body. But that's a silly resource for fancy people, not something we do in real life
I do love your interest in theology, and your zest for being right as right can be. I too, have had this zest. And, still do. However, recently Mark:38-40 shushes me. When "I" think someone's theology being slightly different than mine is either going to condemn them or they just haven't learned enough to understand my view yet, may be distracting me from reaching more lost . Jesus is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. If we could help more in getting that down pat, then we would really be getting somewhere. Don't take this as me pointing fingers, or disagreeing, because I too just want to do what's right. Our righteousness is filthy rags to GOD. Without Christ, it doesn't matter what we say, or do. You are a very smart, blessed young man. I enjoy your content. Just another comment. Just kinda wanted to bounce this at you to see what you thought. Keep up the great work.
I know we can't save anyone of course, it's the Holy Spirit that reveals this truth to believers, but I don't want to hender or place a stumbling block in the way of anyone. I'm just learning I suppose best sums it up. I do know Jesus Christ is the answer and Christ is sufficient in all things.
It's worth noting that Nestorius himself probably wasn't actually a Nestorian, as we think of the heresy today. If you read The Bazaar of Heracleides, his objection to saying theotokos ("mother of God") wasn't an objection to the idea that Jesus is a single person, it was an objection to the implication that "mother" suggests that Jesus was a creation. He was largely concerned about propagating the heresies of Arius. Most of our characterisation of Nestorius as a heretic is based on what others said about him, not what he actually said. I think he missed the mark on theotokos, but he did it from a place of trying to wrestle with a very difficult topic and avoid affirming Arianism, not from a place of trying to radically separate Jesus' natures.
Dyophysite: my personal belief from hard think. Miaphysite: needlessly complicating nature and person. If Christ has 1 nature and 1 person, you are describing the person of Christ as 1 nature. So they are not exclusively separate within those definitions. (Using his analogy, the script of a website is useable and describes the page perfectly. But the website is the better way to view it, unless you specifically need something from the script. In which case, if you are in that deep, you wouldn’t mind switching languages.) Nestorian: needlessly complicating the relationship of essence and nature. If you describe two essences and two natures then you then you have effectively described two things that relate to each other as disconnected. To say that “the person” combined the two is a mistake in definition. (Again using the analogy, you have two scripts that both describe the website. They are in two different languages, so you have to effectively choose one of them to run it properly. If so, you have decided that in one nature with two essences, and now you are a miaphysite).
We are made in the full image of God. We’re a mental, spiritual, and physical being. God is also a mental, physical, and spiritual being. The spirit and body must submit to the mind. The mind, not the brain, must be at the head of oneself. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God, Jesus Christ is the physical nature of God, and God the Father is the mind of God.
8:11 It’s Mark 6:5, talking about Jesus’ time during His ministry when He went back to Nazareth and the people didn’t believe He was the messiah because they knew him as a boy. (Basically)
@@redeemedzoomer6053 ah if you say so. Theyre a level below you guys if you ask me. They get the advantage of taking the arminianism side of synergistic salvation. James white vs michael brown is a good one though i think DMB is a word of fire evangelist not Lutheran or Anglican
@@redeemedzoomer6053 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ByOJx1n0jCU.htmlsi=EmlUTU0lpOwij22A. Favorite debate moment of 2023 googles not gonna save you! So funny!
Dear RZ, I started reading the Bible last Sunday (NLT, halfway through Genesis at this moment). How does one study the Bible? Do you always have to read it cover to cover?
You should start from the New Testament and then go to the Old Testament since most of the Old it is only explained in the New. Or you can anternate between them (which is great), like reading 1-3 chapters of the Old (because it is bigger) and then Reading 1 of the New. Whatsmore, you should also read it thinking in the actual meaning the author intended to his public (a study Biblical can really help) and just after it you think about how it can apply to you now ( while respecting the author original intention).
The old Testament is understood better through the lense of the new testament, but the new testament makes many references to the old testament, that assume the reader is familiar with the old testament. If this is your first time reading the bible, sure, feel free to read it cover to cover - you wouldn't be the first to do so. Just be aware that you won't understand everything immediately. Also, if you're feeling stuck on certain passages, it's ok to skip ahead. You don't have read multiple repetitions of genealogies or specifics of how the tabernacle/temple was to be constructed. When reading the Bible for the first time, just try to get a big picture overview. This will help you understand more specifics later on :)
@@erikabutterfly well I do know Matthew makes good on Old Testament references. In fact, Matthew 5:17 says “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.” Most of what the Old Testament set us up for is what Jesus fulfilled.
RZ, thank you as a Christian RU-vidr for actually discussing relevant things instead of talking about aliens, celebrity gossip, and other dumb conspiracy theories like some others in Christian RU-vid.
Hey Zoomer, I noticed that Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were all blue in your '16 electoral map. They flipped red in '16 but reverted to blue in '20. Or did you pick the '20 map and accidentally mislabel it as the '16 map?
@redeemedzoomer6053 great video! However, you made a small mistake. At 8:13 you wrote mark 5:6 for the unable to do miracles reference when it’s actually mark 6:5!!
Hiiii I have a question, is water baptism important? cause I've been a Christian for a year, but I haven't got baptized yet, I only got baptized by the holy spirit (if it means praying to accept Jesus to be my savior and accept the holy spirit to come into my life), and if my church doesn't have water baptism, should I leave the church and be in other church instead? thank you so much for the answer :) (I'm a non-denominational protestant)
Yeah, I would say it is. I’m a Catholic so I have a pretty different view of what baptism is then what you do. Basically it’s supposed to wash away original sin, so you can truly be saved. If I were you I’d probably become Catholic, but something tells me you wouldn’t be open to that idea, so just find a Baptist church or something that does water baptisms.
If the hypostatic union is correct, and there is no division between the human nature and divine nature in Christ, then he should have known the time of his return, which he said he didn't know. But Scripture shows us he was indeed God in the flesh, the Logos (Word) made into a man. But "being found in the form of a man" meant he no longer had his miraculous attributes of deity. In fact, Jesus states that his miracles were from the Father, who was in him and he in the Father. That would mean he still had the spiritual identity as the Word of God, but now made a man, doing miracles by the Holy Spirit, the Father dwelling in him. So he was and always is divinity.
😹Dioscorus was a heretic Imagine getting punched by a girl and your heretic theology destroyed by a female martyr. This happened more than a thousand years ago and I use this incident to mock the Misogynists and Feminists
- Jesus/God died on a cross - Mary is the mother of Jesus/God - Jesus/God was tempted - Jesus/God learned stuff - Jesus/God was baptized by John in the Jordan - Jesus/God was betrayed by Judas - Peter denied Jesus/God three times - Jesus/God was judged by Pilates and found innocent I'll be stoned next Sunday -
Just for clarification - the dyophysites say that Jesus is one person but two essences, and thus two natures. The miaphysites say that Jesus is one person and one nature but two essences, and that his one nature is truly divine and truly human at the same time. Does the word "nature" here basically mean what we colloquially mean by "being"? Can I summarize the dyophysite view as saying that Jesus is one person who unites two distinct beings?
Is there an error at 8:12. Because Mark 5:6: But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him. doesn't say that Jesus was unable to perform miracles, or am I missing something?
This is extremely helpful in confirming my atheism. As a 76 year old who is fascinated with religion the contradictions in your narrative are the clearest I have ever experienced. This is pure therapy for me and I will recommend you to the atheist channels that I visit every day.
8:13 You cited mark 5:6 for Jesus having a limited power or being unable to do miracles. But that doesn’t show in the text did you mean to cite something else?
