Another excellent presentation. WELLDONE--well done--Just wanted to illustrate how much I learnt🙂 what a great job you did highlighting the problems of communicating in this manner--in caps, without spaces, and punctuation! Thanks so much for your critical analysis of this chapter Romans 8--so liberating--you are a great team and J. Wit--what you state as 'ranting' is catharsic for me--you are expressing my feelings.
A brave Paul take down, guys. And in addition, my observation is that by the first century AD(or CE) most Greeks and Romans had moved away from believing in the reality of gods and had relegated the phenomenon to mythology. At this same time, in Roman society and empire, stoicism had replace mythology as the main societal and empirical philosophy. For Judaism to thrive in a gentile age and era, Paul successfully employed syncretic parallelism to juxtapose Yahweh, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit with stoic metaphysics. For instance Paul barely dwelled on the heart. He shifted Jewish thinking in his writings towards the MIND…having the mind of Christ. It is now in this mind that we deal with woes and pains and bring down principalities. The stoics taught that we suffer more in our minds than in reality. Therefore Paul admonishes the new Jewish sect to “renew our minds”. This is stoicism. Romans 12:2 New International Version 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will. I am not stay this makes Paul’s new movement right, I am saying his syncretic parallelism made his new ideas fit in the new world and attractive to the Romans and Greeks in the Roman Empire. Acts 17:18 Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. Here is a good read on Paulinism and Stoicism or Epicureanism: readingacts.com/2019/03/18/acts-1716-21-paul-in-the-marketplace-of-ideas/
Thx ill check it out. But there is much to contend with on this point. For instance, even if the intellectuals had abandoned myths, for the most part, the common folk were still enamored enough by tall tells to justify the myth-making of the apotheosis of Caesar. And Christians writing the 2nd century could appel to such legends in order to argue that what Christians believe about Jesus's resurrection was not unlike what the Empire already accepted about their own heroes.
I do not think the apotheosis of Caesar was at the same level of, say, Athena, in the first century CE, thus giving the philosophers reason to ask what is this new thing Paul is babbling (spitting seeds) about. How did they jumped from relegating their own gods to embracing the new incarnate god-man of the Jews is what’s intriguing. Perhaps you are right that the plebeians still held on to spookiness. 🤣
@Zxuma good thought... but even in that, consider that while some were wondering what Paul was babbling about, he was nonetheless babbling to ppl who had idols made up to look like all sorts of creatures and even an unknown god. So their superstition was very much alive 😉
Statues can’t go way, you know, Brady. We could also say, the philosopher class had monumentalized the relegation of the consummation of all Hellenistic deities into a god nobody can know. You have all these gods, well if there is a singular and not all these gods, there is no way possible we can know him if he is transcendental(Like Aristotle and Plato’s argument about truth being God and the embodiment of all transient qualities).
I really love this sound of one hand clapping, where you guys just talk with no challenge or push-back. Gotta love it. LOL. It's like an unholy, ignorant trinity. When you guys get some guts, come to the warrior channel and see how long you last.
To answer your question, i'd have to accept its premise. Which i don't. It's not about "guts," it's about recognizing a waste of time. I don't believe you are a reasonable person. In one of your videos critiquing my book, you cited Jeffrey Tompkins as an authority on why we shouldn't accept the 98% similarity of humans and chimps. You like his number of 75%. Yet Tompkins has been soundly refuted (link below) And Richard Buggs (who Tompkins' based his work upon) has since developed a whole new method for comparing the genomes and guess what... now even HE admits a 97.9% similarity between the two species. Check the link and scroll aLLLLLL the way down to the section labeled "Human and Chimpanzee Comparison." ... Before I would even consider talking to you, I would want to know that you are reasonable enough to change your mind, should the evidence warrant it. IF you are the kind of Christian that is so committed to the Bible that nothing could ever sway you, regardless of how true or reasonable it appears to be, there is nothing to talk about. And I again, for the 12th time, invite you to leave me alone. Richard Buggs article: www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00292/full Gutsick Gibbon exposing the poor science of Jeffery Tompkins: czcams.com/video/ryBKzJE24Hs/video.htmlsi=zCegesi-5x2UIDv3 A professional creationist AGREEING with Gutsick Gibbon about Jeffery Tompkins being wrong: czcams.com/video/zzkYmKJ6Sk8/video.htmlsi=Gs-kO3_tQEX0AQ_g I just have one question for you: if human evolution from common descent is true, how would that change your view of the bible, i.e., its truthfulness and trustworthiness?
Were the preachers offering the 5,000 plus sermons I heard in my life without push-back or challenge also gutless? As J. Wit surmised with "A decade's worth of rants" these thoughts are a long time coming, past overdue and do not even begin to tip the evangelical scale. .....unless maybe they are tipping your scale??🤔🤔 It's okay. It's all love and clarity on this side. We would welcome you. (Today's lesson showed the potential for my tone to be misread, but I really mean this in the calm kindness of someone that has walked the path, felt the pain, wrestled with confusion...... and found a calming, superior kindred spirit with this unholy, ignorant trinity. )
Great show!
Another excellent presentation. WELLDONE--well done--Just wanted to illustrate how much I learnt🙂 what a great job you did highlighting the problems of communicating in this manner--in caps, without spaces, and punctuation! Thanks so much for your critical analysis of this chapter Romans 8--so liberating--you are a great team and J. Wit--what you state as 'ranting' is catharsic for me--you are expressing my feelings.
"A decade's worth of rants" - J. Wit
Put that shit on a hoodie!!
I tell you today...you will be with me in paradise.
I tell you...today you will be with me in paradise.
👍🏾 and a million other examples
@@ichapod Yeah might as well leave it in the Greek because nobody seems to comprehend it anyway
Ask anything in my name.
Another great stream!
B4 watching probably it all!!!
Nice tune
Our bodies are Containers
The Holy Spirit
Could be
The Logos activated
That flame....
Dang... I'm not sure I can get the full brunt of this analysis while I'm sober...
Consider getting drunk in the (S)pirit 🤷🏾
A brave Paul take down, guys. And in addition, my observation is that by the first century AD(or CE) most Greeks and Romans had moved away from believing in the reality of gods and had relegated the phenomenon to mythology. At this same time, in Roman society and empire, stoicism had replace mythology as the main societal and empirical philosophy.
For Judaism to thrive in a gentile age and era, Paul successfully employed syncretic parallelism to juxtapose Yahweh, Yeshua and the Holy Spirit with stoic metaphysics.
For instance Paul barely dwelled on the heart. He shifted Jewish thinking in his writings towards the MIND…having the mind of Christ. It is now in this mind that we deal with woes and pains and bring down principalities. The stoics taught that we suffer more in our minds than in reality. Therefore Paul admonishes the new Jewish sect to “renew our minds”. This is stoicism.
Romans 12:2
New International Version
2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will.
I am not stay this makes Paul’s new movement right, I am saying his syncretic parallelism made his new ideas fit in the new world and attractive to the Romans and Greeks in the Roman Empire.
Acts 17:18
Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.
Here is a good read on Paulinism and Stoicism or Epicureanism:
readingacts.com/2019/03/18/acts-1716-21-paul-in-the-marketplace-of-ideas/
Thx ill check it out. But there is much to contend with on this point. For instance, even if the intellectuals had abandoned myths, for the most part, the common folk were still enamored enough by tall tells to justify the myth-making of the apotheosis of Caesar. And Christians writing the 2nd century could appel to such legends in order to argue that what Christians believe about Jesus's resurrection was not unlike what the Empire already accepted about their own heroes.
Absolutely. The Jews were mimicking Rome in every way.
I do not think the apotheosis of Caesar was at the same level of, say, Athena, in the first century CE, thus giving the philosophers reason to ask what is this new thing Paul is babbling (spitting seeds) about.
How did they jumped from relegating their own gods to embracing the new incarnate god-man of the Jews is what’s intriguing. Perhaps you are right that the plebeians still held on to spookiness. 🤣
@Zxuma good thought... but even in that, consider that while some were wondering what Paul was babbling about, he was nonetheless babbling to ppl who had idols made up to look like all sorts of creatures and even an unknown god. So their superstition was very much alive 😉
Statues can’t go way, you know, Brady. We could also say, the philosopher class had monumentalized the relegation of the consummation of all Hellenistic deities into a god nobody can know.
You have all these gods, well if there is a singular and not all these gods, there is no way possible we can know him if he is transcendental(Like Aristotle and Plato’s argument about truth being God and the embodiment of all transient qualities).
I really love this sound of one hand clapping, where you guys just talk with no challenge or push-back. Gotta love it. LOL. It's like an unholy, ignorant trinity. When you guys get some guts, come to the warrior channel and see how long you last.
To answer your question, i'd have to accept its premise. Which i don't. It's not about "guts," it's about recognizing a waste of time. I don't believe you are a reasonable person. In one of your videos critiquing my book, you cited Jeffrey Tompkins as an authority on why we shouldn't accept the 98% similarity of humans and chimps. You like his number of 75%. Yet Tompkins has been soundly refuted (link below) And Richard Buggs (who Tompkins' based his work upon) has since developed a whole new method for comparing the genomes and guess what... now even HE admits a 97.9% similarity between the two species. Check the link and scroll aLLLLLL the way down to the section labeled "Human and Chimpanzee Comparison." ... Before I would even consider talking to you, I would want to know that you are reasonable enough to change your mind, should the evidence warrant it. IF you are the kind of Christian that is so committed to the Bible that nothing could ever sway you, regardless of how true or reasonable it appears to be, there is nothing to talk about. And I again, for the 12th time, invite you to leave me alone.
Richard Buggs article:
www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2020.00292/full
Gutsick Gibbon exposing the poor science of Jeffery Tompkins:
czcams.com/video/ryBKzJE24Hs/video.htmlsi=zCegesi-5x2UIDv3
A professional creationist AGREEING with Gutsick Gibbon about Jeffery Tompkins being wrong:
czcams.com/video/zzkYmKJ6Sk8/video.htmlsi=Gs-kO3_tQEX0AQ_g
I just have one question for you: if human evolution from common descent is true, how would that change your view of the bible, i.e., its truthfulness and trustworthiness?
Were the preachers offering the 5,000 plus sermons I heard in my life without push-back or challenge also gutless?
As J. Wit surmised with "A decade's worth of rants" these thoughts are a long time coming, past overdue and do not even begin to tip the evangelical scale.
.....unless maybe they are tipping your scale??🤔🤔 It's okay. It's all love and clarity on this side. We would welcome you.
(Today's lesson showed the potential for my tone to be misread, but I really mean this in the calm kindness of someone that has walked the path, felt the pain, wrestled with confusion...... and found a calming, superior kindred spirit with this unholy, ignorant trinity. )
@@joebarnard4708 Amen and Amen 🙏🏽
😳😮🤔