Hi, would you say the reason making Images of God was forbidden in the Commandments was because God doesn't actually have an apperance? In the hypothetical cenario God had a physical appearance would it be idolatry to worship his appearance?
@@igorlopes7589 you're on the right track. A big reason we were not supposed to make images of God in the old covenant is because God had been immaterial and invisible. And since invisible you really can't make an image of him. But since then the second person of the holy Trinity became incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth. The immaterial God became material thus sanctifying matter and making God himself visible. So now it is ok to make images of Jesus, who is God. Now it's important to note that you would never worship an image of Jesus. But you can honor an image of Jesus and by honoring the image you actually honor Jesus himself. It's kinda like how if you honor your country's flag you're not so much honoring the flag itself, but rather honoring your country through the flag.
I like the second part of your argument, but it comes across as an attempt to reconcile the commandments with the trinitarian theology. It is much simpler to see God as God and outside and above reality, and to accept christ as God’s favourite prophet. This places christianity above islam without contradicting islam, it means no more mental gymnastics. Like the mental gymnastics in this video.
@@igorlopes7589 assuming the Father does have a physical appearance of some kind, no one still has seen the Father, only the Son has. So it would still be wrong to worship our idea of his image because we don't know what he looks like.
8:21 Actually imaginary numbers do exist in reality. In power electronics (part of electeical engineering), you have 3 phase power lines which have real power and reactive (complex) power. This reactive power exists and is very important to utility, and it's over your head everytime you go under a power line! It's part of why EEs use j for √-1 as j is the vertical axis unit vector, and the vertical axis in the complex plane is lateral (the term imaginary is stupid, and I dont like to use it) numbers.
Imaginary numbers are useful for calculating the different phases, but when the physicist/engineer writes down his final answer, it is a real number. cos(x) + isin(x) = e^(ix) When you solve a circuit, you need to use differential equations. It is easier to work with the exponential term, than all the sins and cosins being mixed together. That's the only reason the imaginary number is used in this case.
A controversial fact: Islam was influenced a lot by greek philosophy and religion. People who study religions often compare many components of Islam to Gnostic thought( A christian heretical group influenced by Greek religion) and other religions influenced by greek religion and that Muhammad was like a little child picking his favourite stuff out of a box of toys .We know most of this is true because Muhammad was a caravan trader in an area where those religions flourished. So muslims who criticise Christianity for using greek philosophy are huge hypocrites.
It's less Gnostic, more Neoplatonic. You're correct that Muslims cannot attack Christians for usage of Hellenism when their religion is more Hellenistic than ours.
People think of Islam as totally different from Christianity but I think of it more as a reaction, or refinement, or a fixing attempt against Christianity. They are cousins, that are close to each other and thus at each other's throats. In a way as a new religion Islamic doctrine is clearer and the position of God is much clearer there, what in Christianity is only implied more indirectly
just wanted to thank you mate, you really changed my life. you helped me turn to god like a month ago and ever since then my life has improved drasticly. thank you so much
When u talk about people kissing the statues and what not, as a Catholic myself, I've never seen that before. Granted, I've always gone to smaller American churches, but when I went to a confirmation class they explicitly said that the statues, pictures, and crosses were symbols not idol and not to worship them as we worship Christ. That they were pictures of God, not God themselves
With European communities, the line between faith and folk tradition is often very blurred. They'll do things like kiss statues or be superstitious about random things. Even here in Ulster Irish Catholicism is a very folk flavoured form of faith
I was raised Catholic and we live in California. I’ve seen touching and kissing statues in the cathedral but it’s usually done by the older people in the congregation. May be a cultural or generational thing where America is concerned
@@ChristianRo535in my experience it’s much more common in Latin America or places with Hispanic influence. Even I see and hear things I feel go too far, much further than veneration should
So I'm a philosohy major, and I just want to comment one thing. It's hard to understand how you use "idea" here because it's not formally laid out or anything (and I'm not saying it should be lol) but I think it's important to stress thst the Ideas in the World of Forms Plato discussed are different than the ideas people on Earth have, and the relationship between the two is ultimately marked by degradation caused by "materializing the Idea" in the physical world. For example you or I might have an idea about justice, but we don't know the Idea of Justice as the form. We might be able to attain some type of knowledge on the Idea of Justice (through religious, philosophical, lor spiritual exercises, however that is applied)
To paraphrase Augustine, Platonists are just Christians without Christ. As if one ascends to a hill and sees the path to paradise, but refuses to follow the path. And to use that old saying, Plato is just Moses speaking Greek. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the truths of Christ apprehended by faith are wholly defensible by reason. Hmm could He be the way, the truth, and the life, the only way to the Father?
@@Jeemapologetics, after reading the series God is Open by Christopher Fisher, William Biederwolf, and Edwin Hatch, I found out a lot. I'd check it out if I were you. It's definitely the starkest contrast between Hebrew and Greek thought.
I did an exhausting amount of research on Stoicism. It makes a lot of sense, but it's missing several key points that Christianity fills in. And the founder of it committed suicide after stubbing his toe, so take that as you will.
@@mrman5066 He hit his toe, broke it, and he was like "y'know what, I'm old, the only thing left for me is suffering" and then proceeded to strangle himself.
I've been watching many of your videos lately and enjoying the content. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge of theology, we are all laymen here. You got my sub when you said "i could be wrong about anything", as we all, wether believers or non believers, ought to remember that the human intellect is far from perfect.
Your channel has really inspired me to start studying my denomination’s beliefs and history, while also learning to appreciate other denominations and their traditions. It’s a lot of fun, and has been very enriching in my own walk with Jesus. God bless!
22:45 And it is, they deny but we don't need to be a super genius to see. There's no practical difference between latria, dulia and hiperdulia. You can see this on the Círio De Nazaré, a festivity that happens in Belem, Brazil.
hi zoomer, i loved this video. It was very funny to watch you talk about how the staues scare you lol : ). One correction though, ALL catholics worship the eucharistic or at least think its ok (discounting the ones who don’t know what we believe). Other than that it was a good video. God bless
But the "discounting those who don't know what to believe" accounts for nearly half of catholics in America (if we're talking about how they view the Supper). I think this is a problem very denomination faces, not just catholics.
A topic I might suggest talking about if you haven't already is the eucharistic miracles, many have occurred and some even scientifically tested with seemingly consistent results! Hope you have a great day, god bless you
Can you please make a video on worship, specifically the type of worship songs you sing? I’ve heard you mention many times that you don’t enjoy modern worship and instead prefer classic or older worship, but you’ve never said what that means and what you actually prefer. I’d love to hear about it
I'd also like this kind of a video from RZ. I can speak for myself, and I assume I'm like RZ. In my PCA church we sing only hymns and Psalms. The melodies are much more complex than any of the CCW songs. People in the congregation harmonize and, honestly, it is so beautiful to hear that it can sometimes choke me up and I have to refrain from singing. We have 'Early Singing" on Sunday evenings and practice as a congregation. This helps people learn to read the notes and learn where their voice fits in; tenor, alto, etc... If you are exposed long enough to this kind of music, the CCW stuff is almost embarrassingly simple and I think it belittles God. I think that it is better to have the music be a bit of a challenge so that we aspire to expand ourselves intelectually and spiritually, to reach and to strive. In this way, we learn something about the complexity of ourselves and our abilities, and because we are made in God's image, we see a bit of God in our higher abilities. There are some songs that, within themselves, highlight the qualitatve differences between the melodies of the hymns and the modern songs: Hillsong's bastardization; Christ the Solid Rock/Cornerstone and Chris Tomlin's Joy To The World/Unspeakable Joy. Each example transitions from the original, energizing, march-tempo melody into a drab, boring cliché that flattens the soaring original. You know the tunes, right? Read through Issac Watts' words and Tomlin's words and compare the two tunes in your head as you do: Joy to the world, the Lord is come Let Earth receive her King Let every heart prepare Him room And Heaven and nature sing And Heaven and nature sing And Heaven, and Heaven, and nature sing Joy, unspeakable joy An overflowing well No tongue can tell Joy, unspeakable joy Rises in my soul, never lets me go You can do the same thing with Christ the Solid Rock/Cornerstone with the exact same result. In the same way that Presbytarians prefer beauty and complexity in their architecture, we like that in our music too.
Excellent video, thank you for the education. I’m a Catholic mainly because I see doctrinal stability and I of cause believe Catholic doctrines are correct. About the video, couple of things 1. The statues and icons Are meant to lift and remind Catholics of heavenly realities through their physical senses. It’s me at to be a “lift up” not a “drag down”. The daily grind of our lives drag us down, walking into a church is meant lift is up and remind is of God and Heaven. 2. If the Holy Eucharist (both the consecrated host and wine) is truly transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, that is if the Holy Eucharist is truly Christ, The God-man Himself, as Catholics is taught and believe, then it’s not idolatry to knew, bow, kiss, parade the Holy Eucharist around churches and towns. That’s is just worshipping and glorying God. Totus tuus
These videos are great, thank you! That being said, I'm starting to really like the Lutheran "idk, it's a mystery" approach 😅 because my head is spinning!
No way, I just got through the episode of the Crisis in the Church podcast put out by the SSPX where they talk about Nominalism. Talk about a crazy (non) coincidence! :) Another great episode, RZ. Much love from a Trad Catholic brother. Please do, to use your own words, "keep rambling" - you have some of the most interesting and thought provoking "uneducated rambling" I have ever heard.
Had to comment again now that I finished the video - wow, what an insightful look at the differences between Catholicism and Reformed theology through the lens of the material v the higher realms, as contrasted between Aristotelian and Platonic philosophies. The Reformed view of the Lord's Supper makes much more sense to me now. I still think it's lacking as compared to the Catholic understanding for reasons more relating to the view of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice (and less relating to Transubstantiation specifically... I don't feel Transubstantiation strictly speaking needed to have been fleshed out that way theologically, since the entire early Church did not need that level of particular theological granularity in order to celebrate the Eucharist validly; of course as a Catholic I accept the Magisterium's dogmatization of it, and understand the formulation of that Dogma was a matter of historical need and consequence, and indeed believe there is a very material dimension to the Real Presence, as there was in the early Church). However, the Platonic understanding of the Supper seems to be perfectly coherent, if not quite as reverent/impactful.
Brother, thank you for your continued effort with your content. You have helped myself become closer to Christ and my Gen Zoomer children. I totally believe that you are fulfilling your calling. Also as a Baptist I’m learning that we have a lot in common with Calvinists. God bless you
19:40 I'd add Orthodox too, if you've ever read the Cappadocians it becomes pretty evident how much they draw upon Greek philosophy too. In addition, they're literally Greeks
Confucianism as well, pity that the Catholic Church turned against it in the 1720s, and they only fully reversed their prohibitions on Confucian customs in the 1930s.
Another reason of cultural change is the control search engines, scientific studies, communication media, AIs etc.... In countries like Russia they sometimes use the search engine yandex which is a social media that filters other types of content. mojeek is another search engine that doesn't filter controversial content.
The difference between transubstantiation and the Calvinist view of the Eucharist is not so much split along Platonist/Aristotelian philosophy as you implied, St. Augustine was a platonist but held a view of the Eucharist much closer to transubstantiation than the Calvinist view and was a supporter of worship of the Eucharist (Commentary on Ps. 33, Ps. 98)
@redeemedzoomer6053 toward the end you referenced Colossians 3:2 as a defence against icons or more specifically statues. But the Catholic position would be that the images and statues are doing exactly that, since the Saints are in heaven, looking at an image or statue actually fixes your eyes upon the heavenly reality. I hope this helps give some clarity. God bless!
"Looking at statues and thinking about earthly realities". Interesting topic, because my current point of view is that statues, and art in general, can lift one's mind through the use of abstraction (from the word abstractio (“separation”)), instead of urging oneself to indulge in their earthly desires. Can't art be good if the heart of the artist is directed to God ? I feel that many times it has given me an environment to meditate and communiate within the inclosure of the Church. Worship, in the Church, is always directed to God. I could be wrong, I'm not perfect of course, but this is how I understand my catholic faith.
@redeemedzoomer I know this is just an offhand comment you made so I get you are generalizing, but considering what you said at 12:50 I'd love a breakdown of Satan, the fallen angels, Judas, and the Antichrist.
I don't know how much longer I can take RZ's theistic evolution. Does our confession not say in chapter 4 "Of Creation" that the cosmos was made in a span of six days?
Are you ignoring the fact that there are no human fossils that are with dinosaurs? I'm fine with believing that earth was made in 6 days, but if don't call someone out for believing something that couldn't have more evidence.
Young earth creationism is a stain on Christianity, and if it becomes a laughing stock, it's because of ascientific and ahistorical understandings like this. Every time someone thinks like this, it's killing Jesus and his church
@@KoopstaKliccaNot quite from what the bible offers the Earths waters existed before the creation started. It also mentions that ground raisin from the waters when God separated the ground from the sea. This means Earth was created in six days BUT before the creation happened God used a different more water covered planet to make the world we know today. The age of the Earth and how the current continents came to be is highly debated but what is known is the Earth was fully covered in water at least twice in its history.
@@hweiktomeytoThe bible mentions God hovered over the waters of the Earth. This means before God recreated the Earth it existed just in a different form.
Transubstantiation involves a supernatural elevation of natural substances to become in their very being the innermost reality they were meant to signify in the Divine Mind from all eternity
Dietrich Bonnehoeffer (spelling's probably wrong) said something like " Transcendant truthes, not ideals." What I think he was getting at was that truth is coming down to our level from the spiritual. Not that we should project our ideas onto God or spiritual reality. In other words Plato's forms are higher than our physical world (they are the substance. We are the shadows) but our ideas can be wrong. And they are certain to be wrong, if we form ideas about the spiritual to satisfy the physical. But of course this doesn't undermine the physical. The physical is valid because it is an expression of the spiritual. So for me I don't see Plato as Gnostic or Aristole as materialist. I see a balance between the 2, namely that we need to set our minds to try to understand the mysteries of higher things sometimes through the lense of the physical.
I absolutely love your content, but I must say, China during the spring and autumn had an immense amount of philosopher as well. Sure, greece was the center of philosophy in the classical world, but I would argue that spring and autumn China had just as many, if not more major philosophers than Greece did.
Their 'icons' are more like the holy people of the Roman Catholic church than icons like the cross and whatnot I haven't watched the video up untill that point though My church depicts Jesus as a white void bc we'd never be able to depict a devine perfect being with imperfect ink, so take that as you will
Yep there was a civil war in the Roman Empire for this very reason. One of the basic arguements of iconoclasts such as zoomer himself is that we (the ones that want the icons) were too supersticious. And this was true in some cases such as when they rubbed and ate the colour of icon so as to gain divine grace etc. However, such misuderstandings have been cleared in the Second Nicean Sydon.
Plato and Aristotle - I loved the video. You explained it really well, but personally, I think that in the context of Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular, then and now, the two influences have been married together into a cohesive whole. Oh, and I'm not mad that RZ got to get in a Reformed jab at Catholicism. He is respectful. Indulge me in reading a counterpoint. 😉 Eucharistic Adoration or Procession is normal for me as a Catholic, it's a form of communal devotion that has been more emphasised in the past several years along with strong focus on teaching transubstantiation and explaining the Trinity since that infamous survey result. So obviously, it makes sense to me, but...*shrug*. I think that, from a Protestant perspective, Eucharistic Adoration or processions aren't fully understood due to an ingrained historical suspicion of institutionalised rituals that focus on the idea of God directly mediating among us. RZ even aluded to this in the video about Jesus, ascended, is in heaven. The emphasis among Protestants is often very up-down, God is above, humans below, I've noticed. I mean, I don't even strictly disagree with their points (just that it seems a bit like an overreaction most times, but from a genuine place of concern, I can appreciate that). What the Catholic Church basically emphasises more is that God mediates on a more horizontal level with us, too. The act of applying yourself to a ritual like Adoration is important because it a process that focuses you on showing the immense respect and humility in front of Jesus. Protestants are more likely to just say keep your prayers straightforward, I guess. But private prayer is a huge part of Adoration and Processions arguably because it allows people to spend extended periods in silence together between group prayers. Also, the kissing of statues, I've seen that (mainly older generations and kissing fingers and touching the feet). I've only ever seen direct kissing incorporated in Good Friday mass with Jesus on the cross. I've done it for saint statues a couple of times, but that was just an outward sign of inwardly asking for saintly intercession, another thing that generally makes some Protestants frosty. I mean, I get it, I have had my doubts about icons in the past, too, but God assuaged them. I can only continue to hope that he will reunite us in the whole truth someday.
One clear disease vector from greek philisophy was Aristotle's idea of three stages of ensoulment, it argues that a person develops a soul in three stages, first vegetable then animal then human. He also taught that this takes longer for girls than boys. His idea is explicitly mysogynistic and justify abortion up to 120 days gestation for girls, up to 60 days for boys. The catholic church was tainted by thst idea for a while, and islam was infected too, although muhhammed was anti abortion, later muslim scholars innovated on Aristotle's ideas.
Can someone help me with a response to this? Me and my credobaptist friend were debating baptism and he brought up that Jesus wasn’t baptized as a baby. I am knew to theology so their is probably a simple answer but I couldn’t think of one. So if y’all can help me out that would be great.
bth Christ himself was bapized symbolically. When John realized with Whom he was dealing with he explicitly said that he isn't worthy of baptizing Him. However, He ordered John to still do so. What you want to read yourself is chapter 3 of Mattew. Now as for the practical reason as to why babies are baptized is because they need to be admitted to Church in case they pass away shortly after either birth or after a few years but couldn't take such an imprtant descision themselves. Wellcome to Church my brother in Christ I wish you well.
Actually, the answer doesn't really speak to your debate with your friend because 1.) Jesus was Jewish, not Christian. 2.) Baptism is 'for the forgiveness of sins' and Jesus didn't have any sins. 3.) Baptism is a following of Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection... and He hadn't yet done any of that stuff, so... The paedo/credo debate is a good one to have, but Jesus' baptism, or lack of one, really doesn't figure in to it.
Jesus' baptism doesn't disprove infant baptism. If we must all be baptized as Jesus, how far do we take it? Wait until age 30? Only in the Jordan river? Furthermore, where is the evidence that it was immersion only anywhere in Scripture even one time? Immersion only is a new idea as the Didache, one of the earliest church documents, offers 3 different modes of baptism. Mode of baptism isn't prescribed anywhere in Scripture.
I'll be honest, Baptists often base their baptism theology apart from verses about baptism and cherry pick. They are viewing the Bible through their theological lens rather than what it is saying. For example, they often mention the thief on the cross to disprove baptism saves. The thief on the cross isn't about baptism. How about the verses about baptism, such as 1 Peter 3:20-21 and Titus 3:5? It is better to offer them information and leave it be rather than dive deep into debate with them.
As a Catholic, concerning the statues, I'd just like to say that, what I personally think is that we cannot quite "raise our minds to heavenly realities" as you said, which is why we "reduce" them to statues - earthly and human depictions of who or what is holy. Our minds are, in a way, limited to earth, which is why the concept of e.g. the infinite love of our God is hardly feasible and we can't truly imagine how heaven is like. Anyway, this is just my banter and in the end, I'm not qualified enough to go in detail about these things just yet. What's important is that Jesus loves you
If bowing down to a statue of the Virgin Mary or of Christ is idolatery then is bowing down to the Ark of the Covenant idolatery as well? Because that's exactly what Joshua did in the seventh chapter of the Book of Joshua. Was Joshua violating the "Second Commandment" according to you?
There are women with y chromosomes. People who have andorgen insensitivity syndrome are recognized female at birth and are called women when they grown because they have vaignas and uterus. There is even a recent case where one person with androgen insensitivity syndrome got pregnant from ivf and gave birth despite having a y chromosome. The article is called “Pregnancy and delivery in a patient with pure 46,XY karyotype. Summary of actual knowledge about XY women.” Again exception to the pattern but that existence of the anamoly makes it a pattern not a rule. Also math is something we discovered. Imaginery numbers are values in the next demension rather than the current one. Math shows design which means there is a designer. Also spiritually prescence Christ in the bread and wine but not physical presence goes into Gnosticism.
Could you talk about the role of women in the Bible? There’s a lot of biased takes on RU-vid and I’d like to hear a more biblically accurate explanation
The bible says a woman is a slave to her husband and the husband is a slave to his wife. In terms of how this works in practice it means both must take care of the families needs through hard work. Only difference is the kind of hard work each spouse takes on. Biblically the women take on raising the next generation and guarding the homes comfort, while the men do labor such as farming, mining, hunting, and war.
The majority of my Priestley formation is philosophy and personally I don’t find it helpful as what it was over 1000 years ago so we’re things to be easily explained by scripture
How about humanism? Sure humanists are mostly atheists, but God gave us the freedom to live our lives the way we wanted. That also means we are also free to live by the teachings of Christ.
The works of the Roman philosophers Cicero (contemporary of Julius Caesar) and Seneca (contemporary of Christ) were given approvals and endorsements by church figures ranging from Tertullian to St. Ambrose to Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to Melanchthon, and seen complementary to and as filling in some gaps in the teachings of the Bible. If I recall, the Jesuit missionaries also concluded that Confucianism as a philosophy (rather than a religious tradition) was, with some modifications, fairly compatible with Christianity. There are plenty of other schools that grew up within the Christian tradition (e.g. various political philosophies), and those are often compatible.
Last week I had to write an exhaustive essay on Epicureanism versus Stoicism. Interesting concepts, but they missed some key points that Christianity fills in.
Actually, there are biological women who have a Y chromosome. This is caused by mutations in a few of the genes in the Y chromosome responsible for preventing the development of female sex development and causing the male sex development. Females with Swyer Syndrome (what this is called), because they have a Y chromosome, do not properly develop female sex organs, so they are infertile.
Do you have an actual case against icon veneration that hasn’t been addressed in St. John of Damascus? In what sense do you disagree with the arguments he offers? “It’s idolatry” is an argument he addresses in great detail. You should read his writings before trying to respond to iconodules.
I really don't get why you consider Catholic care for the Eucharist as "idolatry". I get that you don't agree with our view, but isn't it a logical conclusion of our dogma? I mean, wouldn't you take such great care if you believed that bread and wine themselves become Jesus's body and blood? I would say that if you regard Catholic care for the Eucharist as idolatry, then you must consider Catholic view on the Eucharist to be idolatry as well, because one comes directly from the other.
I'm non denominational and hold to the Baptist view of the Lord's supper. That being said, the way you explained it from a reformed point of view makes a lot of sense to me, and I would say that it makes far more sense than the ways I've heard Catholics explain their views on the Lord's supper. I still think baptism and communion are mostly (if not entirely) symbolic actions that we are commanded to do simply to show that we are Christian, similar to how circumcision was used in the Old Testament to show that the Jews were God's chosen people set apart from the pagan nations around them. All that being said though, among people who believe that it isn't merely symbolic, I do think that you Presbyterians have the explanation that makes the most logical sense. Great work as always, my brother in Christ!
Many central beliefs of Christianity are in direct opposition to those of men like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Paul, who often debated Greek philosophers (Acts 17:18), indicated that the gospel of Christ was “foolishness” to the Hellenistic (Greek) worldview (1 Corinthians 1:23). In that sense, it would be fair to say that Greek philosophy has not influenced Christianity.
No, sorry. The influence of Hellenistic philosophy on Christianity is beyond accounted for. Paul can say whatever he wants about philosophers of his time, and they can say whatever to Paul, but Christianity is shaped and guided primarily by the conversations that started in Hellenistic philosophy, or shaped in conversation with it. Some skeptical scholars might even say that Christianity was ultimately a religious movement of Jews practicing Judaism in a hellenistic context
@@KoopstaKliccaIt’s not, half the doctrine is literally the old testament laws. (No difference from classic Judaism.) The other half is written by Jesus, the 12 disciples, and Paul. Jesus reaffirms the law and provides a way to salvation through faith alone. Paul and the disciples go more in depth on how the church should function, counter some heresies, and remind the followers of the most important things to do in order to get to heaven.
@@KoopstaKlicca Colossians 2:8 states, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Notice that the Apostle Paul does not say that we should abstain from studying philosophy. Nor does he warn us about philosophy in the general sense of the term. Rather, he warns us not to be taken captive by a particular kind of philosophy. Obviously, Paul is not against philosophy in the general sense of answering questions about the nature of reality, truth, and ethics. When he defended the faith, he did so by answering these very questions (Acts 17:22-31). Rather, Paul is warning us not to be carried away by a particular kind of philosophy. And what kind of philosophy does he warn us about? It is a philosophy that is “according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world.” Yes, Paul is warning us about secular, anti-biblical philosophy. Those who have rejected the Living God will necessarily have a false view of reality, truth, and ethics. Their philosophy is “empty deception” - they deceive not only others but also, to some extent, themselves. The unbeliever tries to convince himself that God does not exist, that the universe is eternal and needs no cause, that man is inherently good. His view of metaphysics is wrong. The unbeliever has various methods he uses to determine what is true, but he deems the Bible to be false. His view of epistemology is wrong. And he does what is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6). His view of ethics is wrong. Philosophies invented by men (rather than the philosophy promoted in Scripture) may seem good on the surface; but they are false and therefore do not end well. Proverbs 16:25 states, “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.”
@@darth3911 You can't go one generation of Christian writers who don't bring up hellenstic philosophers, and take from them. This is just a historical fact that cannot be disputed. Also you say "half the doctrine is literally the old testament laws" as if it's not Jews who practices old testament laws in a hellenistic context. There was already merging of Jewish philosophy and Hellenistic philosophy at this point
@@KoopstaKlicca Old scrolls that been found in Israel shown that from writing to publishing almost all the books remained the same in context with few revisions done after. Hellenism only started influencing Christianity when it became legal in Rome, long after the doctrine was lay’d. Hellen influence brought the church buildings, (The Hellen versions are only still used in Orthodoxy, rest of the word use more Germanic style to modern style buildings.) the leadership system (Only used in high church denominations.), and religious philosophy which uses Roman, Greek, and Israelite texts to confirm their doctrines are correct and contradicting ones aren’t. (Doesn’t change the base of the doctrine just uses the original doctrine to justify modern doctrines which developed and changed naturally during the protestant reformation.)
I've started noticing the like-dislike ratio on this channel's videos has turned into a _bloodbath._ Meanwhile, everyone in the comments is heaping on praise about how good and relatable the videos are. Is there just a gang of triggered dorks who are subscribed to Redeemed Zoomer for the express purpose of ruining their ratings and turning the algorithm against them?
I've noticed it not just with Redeeemed Zoomer, but many other channels as well. I suspect it has been overtaken by bots, and I've stopped using it. It was a cool invention to defy the misaligned product vision of youtube, but oh well..
The early christian church was persecuted, so they could only meet in each others houses. The early church also had many herecies. Not to mention lot of the doctrines were not clearly defined back then. With that being said, the early church is mostly in line with Catholic theology
