Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝘆, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰. ✝️ Protestantism presents itself as original Christianity rediscovered, but history tells a different story. For fifteen hundred years there was one Church, one Eucharist, one priesthood, and one authority structure... stretching from the apostles through bishops and councils. The idea that Christianity was “lost” until the Reformation is not humility. It is historical amnesia. You do not reform something that does not exist. You break away from it. And the fact that Christianity functioned, evangelized, defined doctrine, and produced saints long before Protestantism ever appeared is not an insult. It is a problem that cannot be explained away.show more

𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚕𝚎 𝚘𝚗𝚎 ♱🇻🇦

30,665 subscribers

404,409 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

𝗜𝗳 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗜𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘁, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. That is not fear mongering. That is logic. Catholicism gives you Scripture, Sacraments, apostolic authority, the Eucharist, and a Church Christ promised the gates of hell would not overcome. Sola Scriptura gives you interpretation, division, and assurance with no authority to back it. One side risks obedience. The other risks eternity. Choose carefully.

𝗜𝗳 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗜𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘁, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. That is not fear mongering. That is logic. Catholicism gives you Scripture, Sacraments, apostolic authority, the Eucharist, and a Church Christ promised the gates of hell would not overcome. Sola Scriptura gives you interpretation, division, and assurance with no authority to back it. One side risks obedience. The other risks eternity. Choose carefully.

𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚕𝚎 𝚘𝚗𝚎 ♱🇻🇦

21,323 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

𝗦𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝟯 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀-𝗮-𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵… until history exposed the whole system. ✝️🔥 Lesley wasn’t a casual Baptist - she was the 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 Protestant. Until she did the one thing Protestants fear most: She read the early Church. Not one Father matched modern Protestant theology. Not one believed in “symbolic communion.” Not one preached “Bible alone.” Not one supported 40,000 denominations and self-appointed pastors. The more she studied, the more obvious it became: Protestantism is a 500-year-old rebuild. Catholicism is the original blueprint. She went looking for “authentic Christianity”… and found the Church every other church came from. The Fathers destroyed sola scriptura. The Mass destroyed every substitute. The Eucharist wrecked her last objections. This wasn’t a conversion. This was a homecoming. And Protestants really hate when the history is this clear.

𝗦𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝟯 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀-𝗮-𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵… until history exposed the whole system. ✝️🔥 Lesley wasn’t a casual Baptist - she was the 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 Protestant. Until she did the one thing Protestants fear most: She read the early Church. Not one Father matched modern Protestant theology. Not one believed in “symbolic communion.” Not one preached “Bible alone.” Not one supported 40,000 denominations and self-appointed pastors. The more she studied, the more obvious it became: Protestantism is a 500-year-old rebuild. Catholicism is the original blueprint. She went looking for “authentic Christianity”… and found the Church every other church came from. The Fathers destroyed sola scriptura. The Mass destroyed every substitute. The Eucharist wrecked her last objections. This wasn’t a conversion. This was a homecoming. And Protestants really hate when the history is this clear.

𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚝𝚕𝚎 𝚘𝚗𝚎 ♱🇻🇦

20,253 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Baptised Catholics who walk away from the true Church often claim they have “seen the light.” But let’s be clear, that is not the light. No failure of a priest. No scandal of a bishop. Not even the weakness of a Pope is ever a justification to abandon the Catholic Church. The truth is this: you don’t leave Christ because of Judas. The Catholic Church is not built on the perfection of men. it is built on Christ Himself and sustained by the Eucharist. Those who truly understand and value the Eucharist do not walk away from it. Call it what it is, not “seeing the light,” but turning away from it. Leaving the Catholic Church is synonymous with turning away from the Light.

Baptised Catholics who walk away from the true Church often claim they have “seen the light.” But let’s be clear, that is not the light. No failure of a priest. No scandal of a bishop. Not even the weakness of a Pope is ever a justification to abandon the Catholic Church. The truth is this: you don’t leave Christ because of Judas. The Catholic Church is not built on the perfection of men. it is built on Christ Himself and sustained by the Eucharist. Those who truly understand and value the Eucharist do not walk away from it. Call it what it is, not “seeing the light,” but turning away from it. Leaving the Catholic Church is synonymous with turning away from the Light.

Uche is a girl 🇻🇦

111,179 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

The Christian kvetching over this clip is pathetic. Here is the full context. In the interview Spielberg is not calling for the abolition or subversion of Christianity or the Church. The film literally includes a cardinal, a nun quoting scripture, and believers wrestling with what alien life would mean for their faith. Spielberg's conclusion is not that Christianity is false, but that god would still have dominion over alien life just as he does over humanity. This is directly out of mainstream Catholic theology. His point is the opposite of what people are claiming. He is suggesting that the creator god shared by Jews and Christians rules the entire universe, and that aliens or other unexplained phenomena would ultimately fall under that god's authority and reinforce it. That is the psyop, not "Christianity is being destroyed/subverted." Jews are not trying to destroy Christianity. Enough of this insecurity and persecution complex. Even by arguing this it shows that you have no idea what is going on.

The Christian kvetching over this clip is pathetic. Here is the full context. In the interview Spielberg is not calling for the abolition or subversion of Christianity or the Church. The film literally includes a cardinal, a nun quoting scripture, and believers wrestling with what alien life would mean for their faith. Spielberg's conclusion is not that Christianity is false, but that god would still have dominion over alien life just as he does over humanity. This is directly out of mainstream Catholic theology. His point is the opposite of what people are claiming. He is suggesting that the creator god shared by Jews and Christians rules the entire universe, and that aliens or other unexplained phenomena would ultimately fall under that god's authority and reinforce it. That is the psyop, not "Christianity is being destroyed/subverted." Jews are not trying to destroy Christianity. Enough of this insecurity and persecution complex. Even by arguing this it shows that you have no idea what is going on.

NeedMoreAmalek

18,305 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Roger Waters has appeared on the latest episode of Tucker Carlson's podcast. Not something I'd normally bother watching, but I was curious enough to give this one a go. In this clip, Waters predictably throws around all the usual "apartheid" and "genocide" buzzwords before mocking Christian Zionism, while Tucker basically argues that it's fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The reality is Christian Zionism is a perfectly coherent position. Christianity didn't appear out of nowhere. Jesus was born a Jew, lived among Jews, preached in Judea and Galilee, and the defining events of Christianity all took place in what is now Israel and the surrounding region. Supporting Israel as a Christian Zionist isn't about believing Jews must convert to Christianity or accept Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity and Judaism are different faiths. It's about recognising that Christianity is built on Jewish history. If the archaeological record of ancient Israel were wiped out, we'd also lose countless places, artefacts and pieces of evidence connected to the world Christ lived in. The historical setting of Christianity cannot be separated from the history of ancient Israel. The irony is that many of Israel's enemies deny that Jews ever had a legitimate historical connection to the land in the first place. Once you erase that history, the archaeological sites, historical evidence and cultural heritage tied to it become much easier to dismiss, rewrite or destroy. That's why protecting Jewish history also helps preserve the historical foundations of Christianity. So the idea that Christian Zionism is somehow incompatible with Christianity has never made much sense. Christianity is inseparable from Jewish history, so why wouldn't Christians care about preserving the land, history and archaeological record that form the backdrop to their own faith?

Roger Waters has appeared on the latest episode of Tucker Carlson's podcast. Not something I'd normally bother watching, but I was curious enough to give this one a go. In this clip, Waters predictably throws around all the usual "apartheid" and "genocide" buzzwords before mocking Christian Zionism, while Tucker basically argues that it's fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. The reality is Christian Zionism is a perfectly coherent position. Christianity didn't appear out of nowhere. Jesus was born a Jew, lived among Jews, preached in Judea and Galilee, and the defining events of Christianity all took place in what is now Israel and the surrounding region. Supporting Israel as a Christian Zionist isn't about believing Jews must convert to Christianity or accept Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity and Judaism are different faiths. It's about recognising that Christianity is built on Jewish history. If the archaeological record of ancient Israel were wiped out, we'd also lose countless places, artefacts and pieces of evidence connected to the world Christ lived in. The historical setting of Christianity cannot be separated from the history of ancient Israel. The irony is that many of Israel's enemies deny that Jews ever had a legitimate historical connection to the land in the first place. Once you erase that history, the archaeological sites, historical evidence and cultural heritage tied to it become much easier to dismiss, rewrite or destroy. That's why protecting Jewish history also helps preserve the historical foundations of Christianity. So the idea that Christian Zionism is somehow incompatible with Christianity has never made much sense. Christianity is inseparable from Jewish history, so why wouldn't Christians care about preserving the land, history and archaeological record that form the backdrop to their own faith?

Aɴᴛ

15,711 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

Africa Did Not Create the Transatlantic Slave Trade; Europe's Demand Did The idea that “Africans sold Africans” has been repeated so often that people treat it like complete history, when it is anything but. It strips away context and forces a modern racial reading onto a pre-colonial African world that did not organise itself around European ideas of race. Africa was not one people and it was not one identity. It was made up of kingdoms, empires, nations and ethnic groups with their own political systems, cultures and interests. So when conflict happened, it was not “Black people selling Black people” in the way that phrase is now used. It was political conflict between distinct societies, just as Europe had its own wars between rival states and kingdoms. What Europe created through the transatlantic slave trade was something different in scale, structure and purpose. This was not simply an extension of local wars. It was a racialised, hereditary and industrial system built for profit, conquest and extraction. European demand drove it, expanded it and turned human beings into global commodities on a scale the world had not seen before. That is why the “Africans sold Africans” argument is not serious history. It is a lazy deflection that avoids naming Europe’s central role in designing, racialising and profiting from the transatlantic slave trade.

Africa Did Not Create the Transatlantic Slave Trade; Europe's Demand Did The idea that “Africans sold Africans” has been repeated so often that people treat it like complete history, when it is anything but. It strips away context and forces a modern racial reading onto a pre-colonial African world that did not organise itself around European ideas of race. Africa was not one people and it was not one identity. It was made up of kingdoms, empires, nations and ethnic groups with their own political systems, cultures and interests. So when conflict happened, it was not “Black people selling Black people” in the way that phrase is now used. It was political conflict between distinct societies, just as Europe had its own wars between rival states and kingdoms. What Europe created through the transatlantic slave trade was something different in scale, structure and purpose. This was not simply an extension of local wars. It was a racialised, hereditary and industrial system built for profit, conquest and extraction. European demand drove it, expanded it and turned human beings into global commodities on a scale the world had not seen before. That is why the “Africans sold Africans” argument is not serious history. It is a lazy deflection that avoids naming Europe’s central role in designing, racialising and profiting from the transatlantic slave trade.

The Spearhead

17,571 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

LIVE NOW - Eric Metaxas with Jeremy Boreing: "The reason that we are a truly Christian nation is because we're not an *officially* Christian nation…to be a genuinely Christian nation is radically different from all these European nations that claim to be Christian nations. And we've been that by God's grace for 250 years because true Christianity knows it cannot be forced. It cannot be imposed. It is free. And that's the whole idea."

LIVE NOW - Eric Metaxas with Jeremy Boreing: "The reason that we are a truly Christian nation is because we're not an officially Christian nation…to be a genuinely Christian nation is radically different from all these European nations that claim to be Christian nations. And we've been that by God's grace for 250 years because true Christianity knows it cannot be forced. It cannot be imposed. It is free. And that's the whole idea."

Alyssa Cordova

16,196 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Highlights of Asuka during the match tonight 🤡 You would not tell that Asuka was away for 13 months, she has not lost a beat! A reminder that Asuka still has it and is one of the best in the world!

Highlights of Asuka during the match tonight 🤡 You would not tell that Asuka was away for 13 months, she has not lost a beat! A reminder that Asuka still has it and is one of the best in the world!

Sandra

30,879 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“You can't get to Christian nationalism from the specific articulations of state-supported Christianity in the early Republic, because they do not want the state making determinations about what Christianity is.” — Miles Smith IV (Miles Smith IV) “In the early Republic, across the board, there is a real sense that we do not want Christianity associated with the idea of an American nation.” “Christianity was something other than the government.” “Our idea — especially insofar as people on the right articulate what gets called Christian nationalism — is an anachronism. You can only think of Christian nationalism as downstream from what we might historically call liberal Protestant assumptions. And I'm not saying all of those liberal Protestant assumptions are heretical per se.” “You can't get to Christian nationalism from the specific articulations of state-supported Christianity in the early Republic, because they do not want the state making determinations about what Christianity is. “Think of it this way: they're happy with the church telling them what Christianity is, but they don't want the state telling the church what Christianity is.” “In that sense, there's actually a pretty capacious place for ecclesiastical influence in the early Republic. I think people see that and say, "See, that's Christian nationalism." No — I think what's happening now is that we want the government to do the leading on that.” “When historically, at least in the United States, it was churchmen, educational institutions, and civic celebrations that aren’t even necessarily state-supported that were doing that. In the early Republic, there were many people speaking to the state. Now what we tend to want is actual politicians and government officers doing this.” Watch: Listen:

“You can't get to Christian nationalism from the specific articulations of state-supported Christianity in the early Republic, because they do not want the state making determinations about what Christianity is.” — Miles Smith IV (Miles Smith IV) “In the early Republic, across the board, there is a real sense that we do not want Christianity associated with the idea of an American nation.” “Christianity was something other than the government.” “Our idea — especially insofar as people on the right articulate what gets called Christian nationalism — is an anachronism. You can only think of Christian nationalism as downstream from what we might historically call liberal Protestant assumptions. And I'm not saying all of those liberal Protestant assumptions are heretical per se.” “You can't get to Christian nationalism from the specific articulations of state-supported Christianity in the early Republic, because they do not want the state making determinations about what Christianity is. “Think of it this way: they're happy with the church telling them what Christianity is, but they don't want the state telling the church what Christianity is.” “In that sense, there's actually a pretty capacious place for ecclesiastical influence in the early Republic. I think people see that and say, "See, that's Christian nationalism." No — I think what's happening now is that we want the government to do the leading on that.” “When historically, at least in the United States, it was churchmen, educational institutions, and civic celebrations that aren’t even necessarily state-supported that were doing that. In the early Republic, there were many people speaking to the state. Now what we tend to want is actual politicians and government officers doing this.” Watch: Listen:

Sola Media

25,698 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

If Christ founded one Church, where was your church before Luther? And if the Catholic Church was not the Church founded by Christ, then where was the true Church for 1,500 years? Christ promised the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church. So what happened? Did the Church vanish? Did Christianity completely collapse into error until the 1500s? Many appeal to “corruption” or “creeping heresy,” but cannot answer the basic historical questions: Who specifically corrupted the Church? What doctrines were changed? When did it happen? Why is there no identifiable historic ‘true church’ separate from Catholicism before the Reformation? A visible Church existed before Luther. The question is whether it was Catholic.

If Christ founded one Church, where was your church before Luther? And if the Catholic Church was not the Church founded by Christ, then where was the true Church for 1,500 years? Christ promised the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church. So what happened? Did the Church vanish? Did Christianity completely collapse into error until the 1500s? Many appeal to “corruption” or “creeping heresy,” but cannot answer the basic historical questions: Who specifically corrupted the Church? What doctrines were changed? When did it happen? Why is there no identifiable historic ‘true church’ separate from Catholicism before the Reformation? A visible Church existed before Luther. The question is whether it was Catholic.

The “Doctor” Rblv73

14,979 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Christian yoga is not yoga. "And I don't say that because I'm against Christianity. I say it because I respect all religions. One of the biggest misconceptions today is that yoga is just a neutral set of postures that you can fill with anything you like. It is not. "Yoga comes from the Hindu tradition and developed as part of a very specific understanding of reality and consciousness. Christianity has a fundamentally different understanding of God, the self, and humanity's relationship with the divine. "Whether or not you believe in Hinduism, if you borrow from it, you have to do it right. If you change Om to Amen, rename the poses to biblical symbols, and just reinterpret everything through a Christian lens, then that's not yoga anymore, and neither is it a Christian movement practice or a non-Hindu flow. "If you're teaching the same asana sequences but remove Hinduism from the equation, you haven't created something new. You've taken yoga, stripped away its roots, and given it a different name. Taking Hinduism out of yoga is like removing Christ from Holy Communion. At some point, you have to be honest and say you can't call it the same thing anymore. "So don't take the old and present it as something new. Create something new and call it something new."

Christian yoga is not yoga. "And I don't say that because I'm against Christianity. I say it because I respect all religions. One of the biggest misconceptions today is that yoga is just a neutral set of postures that you can fill with anything you like. It is not. "Yoga comes from the Hindu tradition and developed as part of a very specific understanding of reality and consciousness. Christianity has a fundamentally different understanding of God, the self, and humanity's relationship with the divine. "Whether or not you believe in Hinduism, if you borrow from it, you have to do it right. If you change Om to Amen, rename the poses to biblical symbols, and just reinterpret everything through a Christian lens, then that's not yoga anymore, and neither is it a Christian movement practice or a non-Hindu flow. "If you're teaching the same asana sequences but remove Hinduism from the equation, you haven't created something new. You've taken yoga, stripped away its roots, and given it a different name. Taking Hinduism out of yoga is like removing Christ from Holy Communion. At some point, you have to be honest and say you can't call it the same thing anymore. "So don't take the old and present it as something new. Create something new and call it something new."

Rakesh Krishnan Simha

11,119 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

This masterful clip from Mark A. Garcia is a MUST WATCH for all Protestants who engage with Roman Catholics. “Roman Catholic is not ever to be confused with old, or patristic, or medieval, or even pre-Reformational. We need to be very careful to avoid falling prey to that mindset which suggests Roman Catholic is everything up to the Reformation, and Protestant is everything from the Reformation forward. That, in fact, gives away the whole argument to Roman Catholics in the very context at issue of the Reformation and post-Reformation assemblies, who really is teaching, professing, believing, and worshipping in terms of the one faith, one holy catholic and apostolic church, the one faith given through scripture to the church. Roman Catholicism, technically speaking, is an innovation which takes its historic point ofdeparture at the Council of Trent. Not until the 1540s and following, at the Council of Trent, when the church represented in that assembly definitively and publicly ruled out of its communion what we now, as a result, call Protestant churches, not until they had taken this ecclesiastical action, public and objective action, to rule out of the visible church, those we now call Protestants, was there even such a thing inmeaningful terms as a Roman Catholic Church? As a result of that action, you see, they not only created Protestantism as a side, as a byproduct, as a consequence of that action, theyalso created themselves as the Roman Catholic Church.” Credits: Greystone Theological Institute - Rescuing Mary From Rome

This masterful clip from Mark A. Garcia is a MUST WATCH for all Protestants who engage with Roman Catholics. “Roman Catholic is not ever to be confused with old, or patristic, or medieval, or even pre-Reformational. We need to be very careful to avoid falling prey to that mindset which suggests Roman Catholic is everything up to the Reformation, and Protestant is everything from the Reformation forward. That, in fact, gives away the whole argument to Roman Catholics in the very context at issue of the Reformation and post-Reformation assemblies, who really is teaching, professing, believing, and worshipping in terms of the one faith, one holy catholic and apostolic church, the one faith given through scripture to the church. Roman Catholicism, technically speaking, is an innovation which takes its historic point ofdeparture at the Council of Trent. Not until the 1540s and following, at the Council of Trent, when the church represented in that assembly definitively and publicly ruled out of its communion what we now, as a result, call Protestant churches, not until they had taken this ecclesiastical action, public and objective action, to rule out of the visible church, those we now call Protestants, was there even such a thing inmeaningful terms as a Roman Catholic Church? As a result of that action, you see, they not only created Protestantism as a side, as a byproduct, as a consequence of that action, theyalso created themselves as the Roman Catholic Church.” Credits: Greystone Theological Institute - Rescuing Mary From Rome

Mason Craig

52,194 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Dyer says Judaism is a reaction to Christianity... Adam Green - Know More News "There's no Judeo-Christianity" "Jews, religious Jews are just like Christians. They read the same Bible. They just do not read the New Testament. They do not recognize. No, that's not true" "Judaism is very adamant and has been for a long time that you must also follow the oral tradition which is encapsulated in the Talmud. You can't reject that." "Christianity was considered one of the strands of Judaism. But in the second and third century, they begin to have more and more of a fissure and more of a departure over the person of Christ, whether he's the Messiah." "And so you get a Jerusalem Talmud, a Babylonian Talmud by the fourth, fifth, sixth century that comes together and that solidifies for most Jews what Judaism is that we know today as rabbitic Judaism. And a lot of that, ironically, and many even Jewish scholars will admit this" "Jewish scholars and historians will admit that you don't really get a solidifying fissure until Judaism begins to define itself against the popularity of Christianity in the first, second, and third century. And that that's what develops into what we call rebbitic Judaism" "So the reason it's not the same religion is that Judaism gradually defined itself more and more in opposition to Christianity, especially by the early middle ages. They they're completely separate"

Dyer says Judaism is a reaction to Christianity... Adam Green - Know More News "There's no Judeo-Christianity" "Jews, religious Jews are just like Christians. They read the same Bible. They just do not read the New Testament. They do not recognize. No, that's not true" "Judaism is very adamant and has been for a long time that you must also follow the oral tradition which is encapsulated in the Talmud. You can't reject that." "Christianity was considered one of the strands of Judaism. But in the second and third century, they begin to have more and more of a fissure and more of a departure over the person of Christ, whether he's the Messiah." "And so you get a Jerusalem Talmud, a Babylonian Talmud by the fourth, fifth, sixth century that comes together and that solidifies for most Jews what Judaism is that we know today as rabbitic Judaism. And a lot of that, ironically, and many even Jewish scholars will admit this" "Jewish scholars and historians will admit that you don't really get a solidifying fissure until Judaism begins to define itself against the popularity of Christianity in the first, second, and third century. And that that's what develops into what we call rebbitic Judaism" "So the reason it's not the same religion is that Judaism gradually defined itself more and more in opposition to Christianity, especially by the early middle ages. They they're completely separate"

Seethroughitall

49,358 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

It is not every day that I can tell you about a new explanation for the origin of the universe -- and the origin of time itself -- that is not complete bogus. But recently physicists have come up with one that works because it removes the problem of quantum gravity.

It is not every day that I can tell you about a new explanation for the origin of the universe -- and the origin of time itself -- that is not complete bogus. But recently physicists have come up with one that works because it removes the problem of quantum gravity.

Sabine Hossenfelder

115,645 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I often watch videos like this and wonder if these people understand what they are saying or if they are just saying whatever they think sounds edgy and rebellious. If children should not be taught ideas they cannot fully evaluate until adulthood, then virtually all parenting would be useless. Every parent passes on a worldview to their child every time they teach them something. The only question is which worldview. We need to stop pretending that religious and moral traditions are interchangeable simply because saying that makes people feel better. How do you know murder is wrong? The Decalogue. Objective morality comes from the Creator. The Decalogue does not invent goodness. All it does is reveal it to us in an authoritative form which is the moral order grounded in the character of the One who created it. And there are only two religions that treat the Decalogue as moral law. Judaism and Christianity. Other religions may contain individual rules that resemble individual commandments but sharing isolated moral prohibitions is not the same thing as receiving the Ten Commandments as canonical divine revelation delivered by God to Moses. Every time a parent tells a child that lying is wrong, that stealing is unjust, or that the powerful can’t exploit the weak, that parent is teaching a moral worldview. Just because they ground that worldview in consensus or autonomy doesn't mean it did not come from God. Why else is that it wasn't until Judaism and Christianity that something like for example child sacrifices to the Gods stopped? The biblical tradition produced one of history’s clearest, most sustained, and most influential theological repudiations of child sacrifice. So clearly before Scripture was revealed most people didn’t know that murder was wrong. Hebrew Scriptures contain repeated, explicit condemnations of sacrificing children, including prohibitions against giving children to Molech and denunciations of those who burned their sons and daughters as offerings. Why? Because surrounding people practiced that. And Christianity later extended that protection within the Greco-Roman world to infanticide and infant exposure. “Let children decide for themselves” is an insane proposition. Children cannot decide among moral systems they do not understand. They do not know anything, we are the ones who teach them. And anytime we teach them don't lie, cheat, and steal we are teaching them the Decalogue. Whether we call it that or not. That is also why Judaism and Christianity matter uniquely to the moral formation of Western civilization. They share the biblical creation account, the image of God, the revelation given through Moses, the Decalogue, the prophets’ demands for justice, and the conviction that rulers and ordinary people alike remain accountable to a law above human power. Christianity receives this Jewish moral inheritance; it does not replace it or create one of its own. Christians and Jews disagree profoundly over the identity of Jesus, the Messiah, salvation, and the world to come. But their basic moral vocabulary concerning life, truth, fidelity, justice, responsibility, worship, family, property, and care for the vulnerable is the same. Every parent teaches their child about reality and morality. The difference is that the religious parent is honest about the source of that morality, whereas a secular parent is not. Truth is objective, whether you chose to accept that or not. You can raise your child however you want. But pretending secular morality is neutral is just not true.

I often watch videos like this and wonder if these people understand what they are saying or if they are just saying whatever they think sounds edgy and rebellious. If children should not be taught ideas they cannot fully evaluate until adulthood, then virtually all parenting would be useless. Every parent passes on a worldview to their child every time they teach them something. The only question is which worldview. We need to stop pretending that religious and moral traditions are interchangeable simply because saying that makes people feel better. How do you know murder is wrong? The Decalogue. Objective morality comes from the Creator. The Decalogue does not invent goodness. All it does is reveal it to us in an authoritative form which is the moral order grounded in the character of the One who created it. And there are only two religions that treat the Decalogue as moral law. Judaism and Christianity. Other religions may contain individual rules that resemble individual commandments but sharing isolated moral prohibitions is not the same thing as receiving the Ten Commandments as canonical divine revelation delivered by God to Moses. Every time a parent tells a child that lying is wrong, that stealing is unjust, or that the powerful can’t exploit the weak, that parent is teaching a moral worldview. Just because they ground that worldview in consensus or autonomy doesn't mean it did not come from God. Why else is that it wasn't until Judaism and Christianity that something like for example child sacrifices to the Gods stopped? The biblical tradition produced one of history’s clearest, most sustained, and most influential theological repudiations of child sacrifice. So clearly before Scripture was revealed most people didn’t know that murder was wrong. Hebrew Scriptures contain repeated, explicit condemnations of sacrificing children, including prohibitions against giving children to Molech and denunciations of those who burned their sons and daughters as offerings. Why? Because surrounding people practiced that. And Christianity later extended that protection within the Greco-Roman world to infanticide and infant exposure. “Let children decide for themselves” is an insane proposition. Children cannot decide among moral systems they do not understand. They do not know anything, we are the ones who teach them. And anytime we teach them don't lie, cheat, and steal we are teaching them the Decalogue. Whether we call it that or not. That is also why Judaism and Christianity matter uniquely to the moral formation of Western civilization. They share the biblical creation account, the image of God, the revelation given through Moses, the Decalogue, the prophets’ demands for justice, and the conviction that rulers and ordinary people alike remain accountable to a law above human power. Christianity receives this Jewish moral inheritance; it does not replace it or create one of its own. Christians and Jews disagree profoundly over the identity of Jesus, the Messiah, salvation, and the world to come. But their basic moral vocabulary concerning life, truth, fidelity, justice, responsibility, worship, family, property, and care for the vulnerable is the same. Every parent teaches their child about reality and morality. The difference is that the religious parent is honest about the source of that morality, whereas a secular parent is not. Truth is objective, whether you chose to accept that or not. You can raise your child however you want. But pretending secular morality is neutral is just not true.

Insurrection Barbie

31,422 Aufrufe • vor 6 Tagen

Jordan Peterson just named the one thing no machine will ever possess. Not intelligence. Not logic. Not processing power. A ghost. Peterson reached back to Carl Jung to describe something most people never slow down long enough to feel. You are not just the person sitting here reading this. You are every version of yourself that could ever exist across time. Peterson: “The Self is everything you are and everything you could be across time.” There is a version of you that fulfilled every ounce of potential you carry. The finished version. The one standing at the far end of your life who became everything you were built to become. That version is not a fantasy. It is a gravitational field. And it has been speaking to you your entire life. Not through words. Not through logic. Through the feeling of meaning. Peterson: “The answer is through the instinct of meaning.” When something resonates so deep it stops you mid-step and you cannot explain why. That is not a chemical accident. That is your future self reaching backward through time whispering where to walk next. Peterson: “That which you could be tells you where to walk by making that path meaningful.” Your potential is not quiet. It is dragging you forward every single day through a language older than speech. Now look at what we are building. Machines designed to optimize every human decision. Career paths. Schedules. Relationships. Health. Creativity. The algorithm will map the most efficient route to any destination you name. But it cannot exist across time. It has no unrealized potential. No future version of itself standing at any finish line. No ghost pulling it toward something it was meant to become. It has compute. It does not have a soul whispering directions. When you hand your choices to an algorithm you are not delegating a task. You are muting the only compass that was ever yours. Meaning is not efficient. It is not optimized. It does not care about the shortest path. Meaning requires friction. Confusion. Standing in total darkness and feeling your way forward on nothing but instinct. That is the entire point. The struggle is not the obstacle between you and your potential. The struggle is the conversation between you and your potential. Remove it and you do not arrive faster. You arrive as someone else. We are building the most powerful optimization engine in human history. And we are about to aim it directly at the one process that was never supposed to be optimized. The algorithm will hand you a perfect map. But it will never give you a reason to walk.

Jordan Peterson just named the one thing no machine will ever possess. Not intelligence. Not logic. Not processing power. A ghost. Peterson reached back to Carl Jung to describe something most people never slow down long enough to feel. You are not just the person sitting here reading this. You are every version of yourself that could ever exist across time. Peterson: “The Self is everything you are and everything you could be across time.” There is a version of you that fulfilled every ounce of potential you carry. The finished version. The one standing at the far end of your life who became everything you were built to become. That version is not a fantasy. It is a gravitational field. And it has been speaking to you your entire life. Not through words. Not through logic. Through the feeling of meaning. Peterson: “The answer is through the instinct of meaning.” When something resonates so deep it stops you mid-step and you cannot explain why. That is not a chemical accident. That is your future self reaching backward through time whispering where to walk next. Peterson: “That which you could be tells you where to walk by making that path meaningful.” Your potential is not quiet. It is dragging you forward every single day through a language older than speech. Now look at what we are building. Machines designed to optimize every human decision. Career paths. Schedules. Relationships. Health. Creativity. The algorithm will map the most efficient route to any destination you name. But it cannot exist across time. It has no unrealized potential. No future version of itself standing at any finish line. No ghost pulling it toward something it was meant to become. It has compute. It does not have a soul whispering directions. When you hand your choices to an algorithm you are not delegating a task. You are muting the only compass that was ever yours. Meaning is not efficient. It is not optimized. It does not care about the shortest path. Meaning requires friction. Confusion. Standing in total darkness and feeling your way forward on nothing but instinct. That is the entire point. The struggle is not the obstacle between you and your potential. The struggle is the conversation between you and your potential. Remove it and you do not arrive faster. You arrive as someone else. We are building the most powerful optimization engine in human history. And we are about to aim it directly at the one process that was never supposed to be optimized. The algorithm will hand you a perfect map. But it will never give you a reason to walk.

Dustin

40,730 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten